So what? Argumentum ad populum remains a fallacy even when you really want it to be a solid argument.
It would be a fallacy iff I was making an argument akin to "it's proper to arm all police
because vast majority of countries do so". I wasn't making a fallacious argument like that of course.
I was merely replying to Toni. She said "in civilized nations where police officers are not usually armed with firearms." So either she thinks only 18 (mostly small) countries are "civilized" or else (and more likely) she wasn't aware just how few countries do not routinely arm police officers.
Countries in which police are routinely armed are de facto countries in which people can be lawfully killed by the authorities without trial, on mere suspicion that they might engage in violent acts.
But that is also the case in countries that do not routinely arm police officers. When a firearms unit of a UK police force engages a suspect they do not wait until the trial to use deadly force against him.
So if you think any police killings of suspects are a priori wrong because a trial hadn't taken place yet, I do not think any actually existing society would meet your unrealistic criteria.
In fact, it's worse than that - in such countries, people can generally be killed by any individual police officer who feels like doing so, for any reason or none, and his only risk of being punished for such an extrajudicial killing is the slim possibility that his claim to have been fearful of being attacked might be contradicted, by any surviving witnesses.
The reason few police killings get prosecuted is that most are justified. When police screw up, they usually get prosecuted.
This is a particular concern in the USA, where the prevalence of firearms in society makes contradicting such claims far more difficult.
Most police officers have been wearing cameras for years now. Even in the absence of such video (or in addition to it) there is other evidence that may incriminate or exonerate police officers.
Perversely, Americans believe that they have the right to bear arms, while simultaneously believing that "I thought he had a gun" is sufficient excuse for a police officer to summarily execute any citizen without trial.
You have the right to own and bear arms (unless you are a convicted felon). You do not have the right to attack police, point/brandish the gun, shoot the gun into the air (like Thurman Blevins) or at passing cars (like Adam Toledo) or not drop it when ordered by police.
Routinely arming police and giving them the authority to use deadly force creates a police state, in which no person is safe from lethal attacks on them by police officers.
So all but 18 countries in the world are "police states"?
That many people are comfortable with this kind of society is a searing indictment of the woeful state of education with regards to ethics, politics, and history.
Even in the US, where police kill >1000 people a year, your chance of getting shot by police are very low (1/300,000 roughly). But since police shootings are not indiscriminate, but rather mostly justified, those average odds are not uniformly distributed. If you do not attack police, refuse to drop your weapon when ordered or do something else terminally stupid, your odds are infinitesimal. If you do these things, your odds increase astronomically.
That's why most people are fine with it.
Basically, people are happy to live in such conditions as long as they anticipate that the victims will be other people;
A pretty safe assumption, depending on your actions.
And they will tell themselves all kinds of comforting stories about how very different they themselves, and their families and friends, are from those others who are at risk of police violence.
And they would be right.
I am not in favour of allowing the state to use capital punishment; I am considerably less in favour of giving individual police officers the power to be judge, jury, and executioner.
It is not being "judge, jury and executioner". If cops have a suspect in custody and execute him because they are convinced he is guilty, that would be it. Shooting at somebody who is attacking them or is otherwise a threat to them or others is not that.
Are you saying that it is never justified for police to use deadly force? Even in order to defend themselves or others? Because that's what this language used by you means if you think it through. Should UK disband all their firearms units?