Police use of lethal force

[billisonboard]

Oct 2, 2016 8:04:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I don't remember the Police routinely gunning people down when i was a kid. ..

I don't remember it either. But I rarely watched the 1/2 hour of national news that was aired nightly.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Oct 2, 2016 10:51:29 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 2, 2016 8:04:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I don't remember the Police routinely gunning people down when i was a kid. ..

I don't remember it either. But I rarely watched the 1/2 hour of national news that was aired nightly.

When we were kids, there weren't video cameras all over the place recording all these interactions.  If there was not some sort of recording device, do you think that this would be getting the publicity it does?  I don't.

[Shooby]

Oct 2, 2016 10:51:29 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 2, 2016 8:04:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I don't remember the Police routinely gunning people down when i was a kid. ..

I don't remember it either. But I rarely watched the 1/2 hour of national news that was aired nightly.

Well, that was Holy Hour at my  house and my parents watched it religiously.

[Shooby]

Oct 2, 2016 11:00:06 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Oct 2, 2016 10:51:29 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I don't remember it either. But I rarely watched the 1/2 hour of national news that was aired nightly.

When we were kids, there weren't video cameras all over the place recording all these interactions.  If there was not some sort of recording device, do you think that this would be getting the publicity it does?  I don't.

I understand that.  But, i think the Police worked out most situations with nonviolent means then.

[billisonboard]

Oct 2, 2016 13:34:43 GMT -5 Shooby said:

... But, i think ...

No way to argue that.

[Shooby]

Oct 2, 2016 13:38:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 2, 2016 13:34:43 GMT -5 Shooby said:

... But, i think ...

No way to argue that.

How about putting in my whole quote so i can respond?  Or do you just want to be snarky when i am having a conversation?

[billisonboard]

Oct 2, 2016 13:43:37 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Oct 2, 2016 13:38:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

No way to argue that.

How about putting in my whole quote so i can respond?  Or do you just want to be snarky when i am having a conversation?

I quoted the part of your post I was referencing. When you state that "you think" something/anything, there is no room for disagreement because you obviously do think that. What you think might be true or totally delusional, but it is what you think. Without any connection to supporting evidence, it is  not worth discussion. 

[Shooby]

Oct 2, 2016 14:34:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 2, 2016 13:43:37 GMT -5 Shooby said:

How about putting in my whole quote so i can respond?  Or do you just want to be snarky when i am having a conversation?

I quoted the part of your post I was referencing. When you state that "you think" something/anything, there is no room for disagreement because you obviously do think that. What you think might be true or totally delusional, but it is what you think. Without any connection to supporting evidence, it is  not worth discussion. 

Whatever.  I am attempting a serious dialogue here.  Carry on with your snark.  If you want to quote me, then quote my entire quote.  I won't waste my time with you.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 2, 2016 14:34:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 2, 2016 13:43:37 GMT -5 Shooby said:

How about putting in my whole quote so i can respond?  Or do you just want to be snarky when i am having a conversation?

I quoted the part of your post I was referencing. When you state that "you think" something/anything, there is no room for disagreement because you obviously do think that. What you think might be true or totally delusional, but it is what you think. Without any connection to supporting evidence, it is  not worth discussion. 

You're telling me that all I have to do to get you to declare an argument unassailable is put "I think..." in front of it?

Does it work with any leading clause?

"I wonder why Billis is such an ardent supporter of Mr. Trump?"  (You can't tell me I don't.)

"I've never seen Billis lose an argument this badly."  (You can't tell me I have.)

"I'm positive you've kicked Billis' bottom enough in this thread, Shooby."  (You can't tell me I'm not.)


The possibilities are endless!

Shooby : I tried to do a bit of digging into rates of police brutality over time, but it's not an easy nut to crack. There's apparently very little data, and a lot of problems with it.

I did find one interesting article here:

The Justice Department releases statistics on this and related issues, although these datasets are only periodically updated: It found that in 2008, among people who had contact with police, “an estimated 1.4% had force used or threatened against them during their most recent contact, which was not statistically different from the percentages in 2002 (1.5%) and 2005 (1.6%).” In terms of the volume of citizen complaints, the Justice Department also found that there were 26,556 complaints lodged in 2002; this translates to “33 complaints per agency and 6.6 complaints per 100 full-time sworn officers.” However, “overall rates were higher among large municipal police departments, with 45 complaints per agency, and 9.5 complaints per 100 full-time sworn officers.” In 2011, about 62.9 million people had contact with the police.

In terms of the use of lethal force, aggregate statistics on incidents of all types are difficult to obtain from official sources. Some journalists are trying to rectify this; and some data journalists question what few official national statistics are available. The Sunlight Foundation explains some of the data problems, while also highlighting databases maintained by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The available data, which does not paint a complete national picture, nevertheless raise serious questions.

1.4% of all police encounters involving force threatened or used doesn't raise my hackles much. YYMV.

[hoops902]

Oct 2, 2016 8:04:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  I don't remember the Police routinely gunning people down when i was a kid.    I do agree though, that the times we live in have changed, there is much more rampant drug use and people seem to be more unpredictable.  However, I carry a gun.  Especially when i travel.  I have had someone try to run me off the road one time at 5am when i was driving to work.  And, I forgot to bring my gun.  Now, i won't travel without it.  So, lots of people "have guns".  And apparently now that gives the Police a right to shoot you.

   All the Police have to say is "I THOUGHT they had a gun" or they "resisted arrest" and they automatically are given a pass.  We have lost all common sense.  Do you really need to strangle an unarmed man selling loose cigarrettes on the street?  Do they need to kill someone over a traffic stop?  What about the elderly, the mentally ill, children?  God help them when they don't IMMEDIATELY understand whatever command they are screaming at them at the top of the their lungs.

  Then, they taser someone and scream commands at them and then when they don't "comply" because they can't because they have just been tasered, they taser them again and again.  Are they so poorly trained that they don't understand that?  I saw one video where they were called for a mentally ill NAKED woman who was acting out, screaming or whatever and they attacked and killed this naked mentally ill woman.  Where was the threat there?  There are a lot of very egregious examples that should concern everyone.

  On the other hand Michael Brown got his just desserts.  He punched and attacked a cop.  He deserved to get shot.  So, did a lot of the other cases where they are burning down cities.

When you were a kid people didn't have cell phone videos either.  So there probably WERE these same incidents, and all the cops had to say was "he had a gun" with nobody to contradict their account.  How many of these incidents do you think we'd actually hear about if there were no witnesses and people just had to rely on what the guy pulling the trigger said?

[Shooby]

  The Police need to be held to the highest standard.  Sorry, they don't get the 'oh i was acting out of adrenaline" type excuse.  Professional people are taught to operate under duress.  Pilots, surgeons, the military, etc.  If there is chaos and it is grey and fuzzy, then yes, you give the benefit of the doubt to the Police.  However, if there are incidents where they have reacted disproportionately to the situation then that needs to be looked at.

[billisonboard]

Oct 2, 2016 16:48:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 2, 2016 14:34:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I quoted the part of your post I was referencing. When you state that "you think" something/anything, there is no room for disagreement because you obviously do think that. What you think might be true or totally delusional, but it is what you think. Without any connection to supporting evidence, it is  not worth discussion. 

You're telling me that all I have to do to get you to declare an argument unassailable is put "I think..." in front of it?

Does it work with any leading clause?

"I wonder why Billis is such an ardent supporter of Mr. Trump?"  (You can't tell me I don't.)

"I've never seen Billis lose an argument this badly."  (You can't tell me I have.)

"I'm positive you've kicked Billis' bottom enough in this thread, Shooby."  (You can't tell me I'm not.)


The possibilities are endless!

...

Yes, it does work that way. And as I indicated, you could be totally delusional with what you post.

[cronewitch]

I remember a police shooting in Seattle of a native american whittler who was killed for not dropping his whittling knife in 6 seconds. He was a known homeless man who did nothing wrong but walking while whittling. He wasn't breaking any laws or threatening anyone. Not everyone can comprehend a police order or thing they will be killed for being too slow to obey. Some are drunk or insane or deaf or don't think the law has a right to make them do what they are ordering. He may have been afraid his knife would be damaged dropping it or have just been thinking WTF, why do I have to drop my knife but he was shot and killed before he had time to think about it. I could see if he was threatening someone but just walking isn't illegal. He wasn't trying to get away or attack the officer.
Much of the problem is the police aren't convicted when they do wrong. Even if convicted they just lose a job. Police shouldn't be punished if they think they are right or we couldn't hire any police but the police need to do internal investigations that people trust no have a thin blue line.

[formerroomate99]

Oct 2, 2016 19:00:27 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  The Police need to be held to the highest standard.  Sorry, they don't get the 'oh i was acting out of adrenaline" type excuse.  Professional people are taught to operate under duress.  Pilots, surgeons, the military, etc.  If there is chaos and it is grey and fuzzy, then yes, you give the benefit of the doubt to the Police.  However, if there are incidents where they have reacted disproportionately to the situation then that needs to be looked at.

As long as your remember that police training doesn't involve removing emotions, making reflexes 10X faster, X-Ray vision, mind reading, or MMA level fighting skills.  

[happyhoix]

Oct 3, 2016 1:54:19 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Oct 2, 2016 19:00:27 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  The Police need to be held to the highest standard.  Sorry, they don't get the 'oh i was acting out of adrenaline" type excuse.  Professional people are taught to operate under duress.  Pilots, surgeons, the military, etc.  If there is chaos and it is grey and fuzzy, then yes, you give the benefit of the doubt to the Police.  However, if there are incidents where they have reacted disproportionately to the situation then that needs to be looked at.

As long as your remember that police training doesn't involve removing emotions, making reflexes 10X faster, X-Ray vision, mind reading, or MMA level fighting skills.  

I think the problem is how the incident gets handled after the fact.

Police sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes bad mistakes. If the police commissioner announces up front that mistakes were made, the police involved in the incident are on temporary leave pending a full investigation, and the investigation is done by an external group (like the FBI or state police) and the results published in full, with punishments handed out (if justified), the public is a lot less likely to feel like they are being screwed over.

Unfortunately, in some police departments, the cops have very blatantly mishandled evidence, planted evidence, or ignored unfortunate evidence and always produce reports exonerating their officers. The public becomes convinced the police are untouchable. The police become convinced they are untouchable. Neither side trusts the other, and every small incident gets blown up into a mountain.

There are some departments that are doing a really good job building trust and confidence with the community they police. Hopefully the crappy ones are trying to copy the successful ones, even if that means they have to root out some of the bad apples who have been on the force forever.  

[Tennesseer]

A little bit off topic and a question for swamp:

When police are doing a lineup for someone who have been a victim of a crime and possibly able to identify the criminal, the police usually have the criminal in the lineup along with others who may or may not look like the criminal under suspicion.

How do the police select the others in the lineup along with the suspected criminal? Do the police go by similar facial appearances and body heights and builds? And where do these others in the lineup come from (besides the street)? Is there some type of method the police use?

[hoops902]

Oct 3, 2016 1:54:19 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Oct 2, 2016 19:00:27 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  The Police need to be held to the highest standard.  Sorry, they don't get the 'oh i was acting out of adrenaline" type excuse.  Professional people are taught to operate under duress.  Pilots, surgeons, the military, etc.  If there is chaos and it is grey and fuzzy, then yes, you give the benefit of the doubt to the Police.  However, if there are incidents where they have reacted disproportionately to the situation then that needs to be looked at.

As long as your remember that police training doesn't involve removing emotions, making reflexes 10X faster, X-Ray vision, mind reading, or MMA level fighting skills.  

Same goes for regular citizens who have had no police training at all.  The problem is that we hold police to a far lower standard than we do the general public when it comes to criminalizing homicides.  The standard should be higher, not lower.

[swamp]

Oct 3, 2016 10:10:35 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

A little bit off topic and a question for swamp :

When police are doing a lineup for someone who have been a victim of a crime and possibly able to identify the criminal, the police usually have the criminal in the lineup along with others who may or may not look like the criminal under suspicion.

How do the police select the others in the lineup along with the suspected criminal? Do the police go by similar facial appearances and body heights and builds? And where do these others in the lineup come from (besides the street)? Is there some type of method the police use?

we don't have lineups here because there isn't enough population base to draw from. We do photo lineups, where you pick pictures of people with similar features/coloring/build.

But they do the same for personal lineups. They get them from jail. Sometimes they will use undercover cops.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 3, 2016 10:27:50 GMT -5 swamp said:

Oct 3, 2016 10:10:35 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

A little bit off topic and a question for swamp :

When police are doing a lineup for someone who have been a victim of a crime and possibly able to identify the criminal, the police usually have the criminal in the lineup along with others who may or may not look like the criminal under suspicion.

How do the police select the others in the lineup along with the suspected criminal? Do the police go by similar facial appearances and body heights and builds? And where do these others in the lineup come from (besides the street)? Is there some type of method the police use?

we don't have lineups here because there isn't enough population base to draw from. We do photo lineups, where you pick pictures of people with similar features/coloring/build.

But they do the same for personal lineups. They get them from jail. Sometimes they will use undercover cops.

Thanks, Swamp. I always wondered where they get these folks for the lineup.

[OldCoyote]

Geeees Phoenix84, If I had posted this thread, I would call a raciest, anti cop wacko, in the first two post,

I am really jealous!!

[Virgil Showlion]

This thread started out with promise but I see now it's taken a turn into racism and wacko anti-cop remarks.

And surprise, surprise: oldcoyote right in the thick of things. As usual. Don't you have some poor gang bangers to hug?

[Deleted]

I don't know if there has really been an increase in police shootings over the past 40 years or so but keep in mind, the US population was around 205 million in 1970 and is over 310 million today.  Per capita, that would support a 50% increase in the number of shootings without any real increase just based on population.  One article I have seen indicates that while appearing to recently increase, the number of people killed by police now is not much different than the number killed in 1994.  What is clear is that there are no good historical statistics going back over decades.  What you do have now is 24 hr / 7 day a week news with cameras everywhere.  What is clear also is that the number of people killed in big inner cities (not by police) is less today that in the 1960s through the 90s even though some cities have seen significant increase in the last two years.  

[techguy]

Why is it racist to behave differently (i.e. more defensively) when dealing with different groups of people?

Let's face it, certain groups of people do act more violent, do commit more crimes, and do more jail time.

Sorry, unless these certain groups of people act more cordial, cops are going to act more defensive against them.

And I don't even have to name the certain groups of people for you to identify them.  Not being racist here, just pointing out how cops experience certain tendencies when they deal with this day in and day out.

[billisonboard]

Oct 12, 2016 15:29:12 GMT -5 techguy said:

Why is it racist to behave differently (i.e. more defensively) when dealing with different groups of people?

Let's face it, certain groups of people do act more violent, do commit more crimes, and do more jail time.

Sorry, unless these certain groups of people act more cordial, cops are going to act more defensive against them.

And I don't even have to name the certain groups of people for you to identify them.  Not being racist here, just pointing out how cops experience certain tendencies when they deal with this day in and day out.

If the treatment of people is based on the race of those people, it is racism. What you are suggesting is that racism is justified. Here is something you should read.

Black Crime Rates: What Happens When Numbers Aren’t Neutral

[hoops902]

Oct 12, 2016 15:29:12 GMT -5 techguy said:

Why is it racist to behave differently (i.e. more defensively) when dealing with different groups of people?

Let's face it, certain groups of people do act more violent, do commit more crimes, and do more jail time.

Sorry, unless these certain groups of people act more cordial, cops are going to act more defensive against them.

And I don't even have to name the certain groups of people for you to identify them.  Not being racist here, just pointing out how cops experience certain tendencies when they deal with this day in and day out.

I think you do need to name the certain groups of people who act more violent than others.  I'll assume you're talking about white males, since historically they've been the most violent of all groups...but then that doesn't really line up with how police treat them compared to other groups. 

In terms of committing crimes and doing more jail time...that's a direct result of our judicial system which tends to punish minorities more harshly for the same crimes committed by the majority.

As to your leading question, you basically just said "why is it racist to be racist?".  You've basically just defined racism. It sounds like the question you really want to ask (but which would sound bad to actually say) is "Why is being racist a bad thing in some situations?".

[techguy]

Oct 13, 2016 8:47:33 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Oct 12, 2016 15:29:12 GMT -5 techguy said:

Why is it racist to behave differently (i.e. more defensively) when dealing with different groups of people?

Let's face it, certain groups of people do act more violent, do commit more crimes, and do more jail time.

Sorry, unless these certain groups of people act more cordial, cops are going to act more defensive against them.

And I don't even have to name the certain groups of people for you to identify them.  Not being racist here, just pointing out how cops experience certain tendencies when they deal with this day in and day out.

I think you do need to name the certain groups of people who act more violent than others.  I'll assume you're talking about white males, since historically they've been the most violent of all groups...but then that doesn't really line up with how police treat them compared to other groups. 

In terms of committing crimes and doing more jail time...that's a direct result of our judicial system which tends to punish minorities more harshly for the same crimes committed by the majority.

As to your leading question, you basically just said "why is it racist to be racist?".  You've basically just defined racism. It sounds like the question you really want to ask (but which would sound bad to actually say) is "Why is being racist a bad thing in some situations?".

It's funny that positive racism is acceptable (i.e. Japanese cars like Honda or Toyota are preferred/recommended here on YM) but negative racial observations are frowned upon. Cops aren't running around shooting people randomly. Sometimes they are called to the scene, sometimes they encounter strange behavior randomly.

I really think the solution to these cop shootings would be to hire more black cops. Then if a perpetrator is shot by a black cop, we don't have to hear about racism being involved.

[hoops902]

Oct 13, 2016 9:02:24 GMT -5 techguy said:

Oct 13, 2016 8:47:33 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I think you do need to name the certain groups of people who act more violent than others.  I'll assume you're talking about white males, since historically they've been the most violent of all groups...but then that doesn't really line up with how police treat them compared to other groups. 

In terms of committing crimes and doing more jail time...that's a direct result of our judicial system which tends to punish minorities more harshly for the same crimes committed by the majority.

As to your leading question, you basically just said "why is it racist to be racist?".  You've basically just defined racism. It sounds like the question you really want to ask (but which would sound bad to actually say) is "Why is being racist a bad thing in some situations?".

It's funny that positive racism is acceptable (i.e. Japanese cars like Honda or Toyota are preferred/recommended here on YM) but negative racial observations are frowned upon. Cops aren't running around shooting people randomly. Sometimes they are called to the scene, sometimes they encounter strange behavior randomly.

I really think the solution to these cop shootings would be to hire more black cops. Then if a perpetrator is shot by a black cop, we don't have to hear about racism being involved.

You realize that racism doesn't apply to inanimate objects right?  Liking one type of car over another has nothing to do with racism.  I've never heard anyone on YM say something to the effect of "make sure you buy a car assembled by a Japanese person because the fact they are Japanese makes them inherently better at assembling vehicles".  I won't even get into the distinction between whether "Japanese car" means it was actually built by a Japanese person, or is simply a car built by a company primarily based in Japan. 

There's actually nothing wrong with saying "(insert group)  as a group are more (insert action)".  You just have to have some kind of proof to back it up.