Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 02-19-2020, 01:27 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
The real problem in this country is the lack of consequences for criminal actions. Criminals are allowed to plea down charges, serve reduced sentences, plea down to an ordinance violation over a criminal act, etc.. The revolving door justice system gave the government an excuse to try and create a police state by passing endless laws and spending more money on enforcement, prevention, and so on.
I tend to agree. However, the problem is with the criminal justice system itself, and even that is a misnomer as we don't have a top down system. We have a random collage with many moving parts which change from case to case.

At the outset, there is simply no way to give every guilty person a harsh sentence (or so we don't argue, a "fair" sentence). Unless the State is willing to give my client a sweetheart deal, I am going to start filing motions, picking through the evidence trying to exclude this or that. Even in a seemingly open and shut case, this takes time. The State doesn't have that time. It's an assembly line; clear this case and on to the next one. In order to do that, they have to install the revolving door.

Next there is pushback to this. In keeping with the spirit of the thread, something horrible and unusual happens and the political powers that be demand that Something Be Done. Some guy who had 9 prior DUIs wrecks and kills a family of four in their minivan. Some guy who was arrested 6 times prior for beating his wife kills her this time. The captain of the high school football team overdoses in a Wal-Mart bathroom.

The political powers that be put pressure on the police, the prosecutors, the judges to Do Something. They pass laws which condition grant money on coming down hard and having Zero Tolerance on these things. There are new administrative rules and new laws passed. Now you aren't arresting drunks swerving all over the road. You arrest a guy that had a few beers at lunch because you sure as hell aren't letting him go and have that come back on you if he wrecks. Instead of arresting wife beaters, you are playing marriage counselor to two drunk people who are arguing and then hear that one pushed the other. Oops. Off to jail. The kid with the weed that you formerly would have confiscated and told him to knock it off? He has to go.

So now in this cramped system where they were pleading people out left and right, there are real fights on the cases that involve the political issue du jour, leaving even less time for every other crime.

The guy that snatches purses left unattended at the mall gets even less attention from the criminal justice system because there is no politically powerful group that is demanding that purse snatchers' heads be placed on platters.

And as I said, there is no top down analysis of the entire system to ensure any form of fairness. Some people get extremely light sentences, some get draconian sentences. It is not even internally consistent. In my state, the penalty for soliciting sex from an underage person on the internet is twice the penalty for actually having sex with an underage person. In what universe does that make sense?

I could go on, but in short, the system is driven by the phenomenon we see in this thread. An extreme example is taken and it is alleged that the entire system is like this so we need new policies based on the extreme example. And since the system was actually not like the extreme example, the new policy fails miserably.
  #152  
Old 02-19-2020, 01:29 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Relax, Chisquirrel.

It's far worse than you can imagine. I let regular people off as well. Because I head up a Focused Patrol Team I make about 400% more traffic stops than your average officer. Therefore I tend to hand out far more written and verbal warnings collectively than I do cites. Which, per my departments SOP is within my discretion to do. But I'm sure you'll post that I'm not doing my job.
But we're not arguing that virtually every civilian that kills someone else is completely justified in their actions and any idea to lower the number of deaths will result in a situation where

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
criminals killed 1000 cops per year instead.
I honestly don't give a flying fuck if you let your buddies off. I also don't give a flying fuck that you think police are real swell guys.
  #153  
Old 02-19-2020, 01:34 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Emphasis Added

But often they are not dealt with unless caught on video. And even then it is not always dealt with.


Warning - Autoplaying video
If you are not a cop and were caught in this situation what would happen to you.
pkbites, what do you think about how this cop was not arrested? If he were a civilian would you have let him go? Would your DA choose not to prosecute?
Remember when that random dude was passed out in a Taco Bell parking lot and was murdered by cops in California?

Oh wait, it was JUSTIFIED, because he had an unloaded handgun in the vehicle (which officers knew and commented on before blasting him away)!
  #154  
Old 02-19-2020, 05:39 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Almost all of those were ruled justified, of the minute' amount that weren't almost all of the officers faced consequences. Where is the problem with an officer saving his own life?
The problem is that there are 1,000 dead people.

The problem is that 1,000 cops had to kill someone because they feared for their lives.

The problem is that this ONLY HAPPENS HERE.

The problem is that you think 1,000 deaths at the hands of law enforcement is normal. justified. appropriate.

It isn't.
  #155  
Old 02-19-2020, 08:57 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,758
The problem is not that they were shot. It was that they were presenting a danger to the public and to the police. As mentioned earlier, that is not a problem with the police, cherry-picked anecdotes notwithstanding.

Regards,
Shodan
  #156  
Old 02-19-2020, 10:01 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,127
Since 2015, the Washington Post has been keeping a real time database of fatal police shootings. What they have found is that
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaPo
The vast majority of people shot and killed by police are armed.
Which sounds good. If the police shoot and kill someone, that person should be a threat to the public and the police.

However, because they have 4,400 shootings in their database... the "vast majority" leaves 285 people shot and killed who were unarmed, and another 155 people who were "armed" with toys.

These people are dead. People who, by definition, were NOT a significant danger to the public, were NOT a significant danger to police, because they were unarmed or carrying toys.

We have engineered a society where this is thought of as normal. About 100 people a year shot and killed by police who had no weapons to harm anyone with.
  #157  
Old 02-19-2020, 10:11 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,127
Adding a link would have been nice....
  #158  
Old 02-19-2020, 10:16 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The problem is not that they were shot. It was that they were presenting a danger to the public and to the police. As mentioned earlier, that is not a problem with the police, cherry-picked anecdotes notwithstanding.

Regards,
Shodan
In regards to the anecdotes, so it's a numbers game like for every 500 justified killings then the cops are allowed to shoot 1 unarmed person in the face?

Or are you claiming everytime a cop shoots someone it is by definition justified.
  #159  
Old 02-19-2020, 11:00 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The problem is not that they were shot. It was that they were presenting a danger to the public and to the police.
It is a problem when citizens are being shot by police. The mission of the police is supposedly to "protect and serve [the public]," not to terrorize and murder the populace.

And I don't want to live in a society where the police are given free reign to execute anyone they think might present a danger to the public and the police.

I was trying to see if I could find some data to see if the number of police shootings of civilians has increased over time (or not). The problem is that there isn't a whole lot of data on this. As this 2016 BBC article states:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
Official data on the number of people killed by the police turns out to be remarkably unreliable.

"We can't have an informed discussion, because we don't have data," FBI Director James Comey said in the House of Representatives in October.

"People have data about who went to a movie last weekend, or how many books were sold, or how many cases of the flu walked into an emergency room. And I cannot tell you how many people were shot by police in the United States last month, last year, or anything about the demographics. And that's a very bad place to be."

He had previously said it was "unacceptable" that the leading sources of this information were newspapers, the Washington Post and the Guardian.
The same article notes that we do have data on the number of police killed each year, and it has dropped dramatically since the 1970s, even as the number of police have increased markedly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
"There's a widespread perception in the American public, and particularly within law enforcement, that officers are more threatened, more endangered, more often assaulted, and more often killed than they have been historically," says Seth Stoughton, a law professor at the University of Southern Carolina and former policeman.

"I think it's a very strong perception. People truly believe it. But factually, looking at the numbers, it's not accurate," he says.

FBI data on police officers "feloniously killed" - killed as a result of a criminal act - indicates that the numbers have been falling, he says.

Looking at the 10 years from 2006 to 2015 the annual average number of police deaths was 49.6, Stoughton says, which he notes is "down significantly from the high."

"The high was the 10-year period prior to 1980, when we had an average of 115 - actually 114.8 officers feloniously killed… in the line of duty every year."

At the same time the number of police officers has increased dramatically in the U.S.
Over the last five years, the number of civilians killed by police has hovered around 1,000 people per year. The Washington Post has been tracking this since 2015, and it is getting much more attention in the last five years or so, as discussed in this excellent Nature article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature
...Although the databases are still imperfect, they make it clear that police officers’ use of lethal force is much more common than previously thought, and that it varies significantly across the country, including the two locations where Brown and Garner lost their lives. St Louis (of which Ferguson is a suburb) has one of the highest rates of police shooting civilians per capita in the United States, whereas New York City consistently has one of the lowest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
...As mentioned earlier, that is not a problem with the police, cherry-picked anecdotes notwithstanding.
Actually, it is a problem with the police. I came across this intriguing factoid in the Independent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent
The District of Columbia, for example, ranks in the top half of America's most dangerous cities out of the nation's 50 largest. In 2017, DC police seized more than 2,000 illegal guns. Yet, police in the district shot and killed only two people in 2017.

That is a dramatic decline from the 1990s, when a Post investigation showed that the district led the nation in fatal police shootings per capita. In that decade, police shootings in the city peaked at 15. The series prompted Justice Department intervention and an extensive retraining of officers. A steep and immediate drop in fatal shootings ensued.
So retraining of police can make a difference, despite the protestations of police and their defenders in this thread that the problem is not with the police in the U.S. To the contrary, I think that is exactly where the problem is.

However, we are never going to fix the problem with policing in this country if we don't first acknowledge that there is a problem to fix.
  #160  
Old 02-19-2020, 11:23 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
In regards to the anecdotes, so it's a numbers game like for every 500 justified killings then the cops are allowed to shoot 1 unarmed person in the face?

Or are you claiming everytime a cop shoots someone it is by definition justified.
No, both suggestions are ridiculous.

It's a numbers game insofar as the fact that police in America make more than 10 million arrests per year (cite). Of those 10 million arrests, the police shoot about a thousand people. Of those thousand people, the vast majority are justified by any common-sense or legal definition. The fact that all you have are cherry-picked anecdotes going back for years, as a justification that there is anything like a serious problem, means that it isn't 500 to 1. More like 10,000 to 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
And I don't want to live in a society where the police are given free reign to execute anyone they think might present a danger to the public and the police.
You should move to America, then.

Regards,
Shodan
  #161  
Old 02-19-2020, 03:46 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, both suggestions are ridiculous.

It's a numbers game insofar as the fact that police in America make more than 10 million arrests per year (cite). Of those 10 million arrests, the police shoot about a thousand people. Of those thousand people, the vast majority are justified by any common-sense or legal definition. The fact that all you have are cherry-picked anecdotes going back for years, as a justification that there is anything like a serious problem, means that it isn't 500 to 1. More like 10,000 to 1.

You should move to America, then.

Regards,
Shodan
That's nice, except 1 in 10 civilians killed by police are unarmed. And that doesn't include the "anecdotes" of multiple people being killed while armed but not threatening in any way - like Willie McCoy, mentioned previously, who was murdered while asleep.
  #162  
Old 02-19-2020, 04:20 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
...It's a numbers game insofar as the fact that police in America make more than 10 million arrests per year (cite). Of those 10 million arrests, the police shoot about a thousand people. Of those thousand people, the vast majority are justified by any common-sense or legal definition. The fact that all you have are cherry-picked anecdotes going back for years, as a justification that there is anything like a serious problem, means that it isn't 500 to 1. More like 10,000 to 1.
First off, police shoot far more than a thousand people a year. Police kill about 1,000 people a year. For every person shot and killed by police, two more people survived being shot. So that is upwards of 3,000 people a year shot by police.

Also, minorities are being shot at a higher rate than whites, with blacks are being shot at a rate that's 2.5 times to 3 times higher than whites.

So your numbers game starts looking worse and worse if you are a young, black, male, for instance.

And all of this ignores the civilians who aren't shot by police, but are subject to other forms of police brutality and excessive force.

But regardless, for you to say that there isn't a serious problem that 1,000 people are getting shot and killed by police every year is a pretty callous thing to say. That's about the same number of people in 5 commercial airliners. If 5 commercial airliners were going down every year, we would be making major changes to the airline industry. Why? Because we recognize that there are things we can do to prevent the crashes and minimize the number of deaths. Similarly, there are things we as a society can do to minimize the deaths due to police shootings.

A good start would be to first acknowledge that a problem exists in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You should move to America, then.
We are talking about America, where as you yourself said, "The problem is not that they were shot. It was that they were presenting a danger to the public and to the police." As if that is all the justification the police need to shoot and kill them.

Whether these shootings can be justified after the fact or not, the bigger question is, "Were these shootings preventable?"
  #163  
Old 02-20-2020, 07:45 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
But regardless, for you to say that there isn't a serious problem that 1,000 people are getting shot and killed by police every year is a pretty callous thing to say. That's about the same number of people in 5 commercial airliners. If 5 commercial airliners were going down every year, we would be making major changes to the airline industry. Why? Because we recognize that there are things we can do to prevent the crashes and minimize the number of deaths. Similarly, there are things we as a society can do to minimize the deaths due to police shootings.
People in airliners aren't attacking the police or threatening the public.
Quote:
A good start would be to first acknowledge that a problem exists in the first place.
Too many people are attacking the police and threatening the public. That's the problem.
Quote:
We are talking about America, where as you yourself said, "The problem is not that they were shot. It was that they were presenting a danger to the public and to the police." As if that is all the justification the police need to shoot and kill them.
It is.
Quote:
Whether these shootings can be justified after the fact or not, the bigger question is, "Were these shootings preventable?"
Yes, they were preventable. If people don't attack the police or threaten the public, that prevents them from getting shot nearly all the time.

Regards,
Shodan
  #164  
Old 02-20-2020, 11:16 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Too many people are attacking the police and threatening the public. That's the problem.
So you say. But it's certainly not the only problem. It may not even be the primary problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yes, they were preventable. If people don't attack the police or threaten the public, that prevents them from getting shot nearly all the time.
"Nearly all the time?" Fine, let's start there. What can we do to keep people from getting shot by police if they aren't attacking the police or threatening the public?

People like Justine Damond or Philando Castile or Atatiana Jefferson or Willie McCoy, for example. I get that you've dismissed them as "cherry-picked" anecdotes, but the anecdotes are starting to pile up and are instead looking more like a disturbing trend.
  #165  
Old 02-22-2020, 12:45 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
You're correct that you didn't say that. It was pkbites who keeps saying that any change to the current use of force policies will inevitably lead to more dead cops.

You're the one who evidently thinks that the only risk to civilian bystanders is from criminals who might shoot them if the police don't gun them down first. This isn't the case.
So you falsely attribute a statement or viewpoint to me and then proceed to do it yet again. I made absolutely no statement on the dangers to civilians with regards to police use of deadly force, only on the effects of requiring police to wait and return fire only when fired upon. So you have not only made an error in conflating two separate issues but you've compounded your error by assuming my views on the issue without it being previously raised by anyone. Just really batting a thousand here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Here's even more examples of police putting bystanders (and fellow officers) at risk far more than the alleged perpetrators. In many of these cases, police fired dozens or even hundreds of times indiscriminately at suspects, killing bystanders and fellow officers.

You are the one who doesn't like news media cites and offered to "provide actual, relevant, academic cites" that will disprove virtually everything that I am claiming is wrong. So where are these studies?

And if it pains you so, replace "trigger-happy" with "excessive use of deadly force."

Still waiting...

Apparently all that you have is your own "bare assertions" that I am wrong with nothing to back it up. At least I provided some cites, even though you don't like them. You haven't provided anything other than refutations.
And you still don't seem to get that it is not my personal opinion that newspaper articles are not acceptable academic or scientific cites but the unanimous standard of those who actually determine such things, actual scholars and scientists. Also, you don't seem to grasp how actual debate works and that a bare assertion, unsupported by competent evidence, can be summarily dismissed. And once again, no number of newspaper articles you post will come remotely close to meeting that standard.

So not only am I under no obligation to rebut your claims which are so broad and vague as to be essentially meaningless but I'm content to wait for you to fail to support your own contentions with evidence that I know doesn't exist. As far as my own evidence I have plenty, but again your contentions are so vague and ill-defined that they are essentially meaningless, and so not even subject to anything but a similarly pointlessly broad rebuttal.

Unsurprisingly, actual scientists and scholars, when studying such issues, refine their inquiries beyond "Do police shoot people too much?" or "Does our legal system allow police to get away with things they shouldn't?". Instead they do things like define terms, identify variables, gather data, and create a methodology where conclusions can be supported as a result. So where have you defined, for example, either "trigger-happy" or "excessive use of deadly force" and what evidence do you have that a statistically significant percentage of police meet this definition? And even if you offer some definition such as "an unjustified use of, or proclivity to the use of, deadly force" then you've simply kicked the question down the road a step by needing to define the parameters of what is "justified."

Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Like what? Fewer murdered citizens?

Maybe we could indeed change policies in a city or state, and see what happens.

OK, you don't like that idea. Here's another: maybe we could look at other countries where the police aren't constantly gunning down their own citizens, and compare their outcomes to ours.

I and others understand that just fine. The problem is that this "reasonable person" standard does not look particularly objective. It looks like whatever the police, investigative agencies, and prosecutors think it is. There are many, many examples in which ordinary citizens are being killed by police that would fail this "reasonable person" standard, and yet the police in question are not charged or even terminated from their employment.



Glad to see that you two experts are on the same page.


Keep patting each other on the back, there.

I am telling the two of you as a citizen of this great country of ours that you are losing the confidence of the populace. It is evident that minorities have felt this way for years. I am a member of the demographic who is probably one of the least likely to be hassled by police (white middle-aged male, clean-cut, former military, no criminal record whatsoever), and you are losing my confidence. My default assumption is to now fear and distrust the police. When my son got his drivers license at 16 I had the "talk" with him to minimize the chance of him getting involved in a tragic outcome with the police.

It shouldn't be this way.
First of all, I'm not a police officer or in any way a member of any Criminal Justice system, so I've not lost the confidence of anyone. Secondly, I've never claimed to be an expert, but my knowledge and grasp of the issue(s) far outstrips yours (or even the average persons) by roughly the same orders of magnitude that actual experts outstrip mine. And thirdly, once again you seem to use a lot of rolleyes for someone with no evidence backing their position and a tenuous grasp at best of the relevant facts, how debate works, and how science works.

So why should anyone care about your uninformed, unsupported opinion when we have actual experts in their respective fields of policing, law, and most importantly science? Who cares about your opinion on police procedures when you have no grasp of the complexity of the issues involved? Who cares about your opinion about the objective Reasonable Person standard in general or any particular application when you have no legal expertise? And who cares about your opinion of the extent and effects of the use of force by police when it is almost certainly dependent on your imagination rather than any statistical data and relevant conclusions on the part of actual scientists?

See your little idea of comparing incident rates of deadly force for different countries is exactly what these scientists do. Except, being scientists, they're aware you can't just compare two numbers and offer any conclusions without first identifying and controlling for variables. So for instance, I first studied racial disparaties in crime rates, arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing about 25 years ago, and the scholarship goes much further back than that. And not one of those studies on the policing aspects of those phenomena (prosecution and sentencing are necessarily a whole different ballgame for a lot of reasons) ever concluded that these disparaties were almost entirely, or even primarily, due to racism on the part of the police.

But of course what are facts, data and logic in the context of actual science compared to people convinced that the simple answer must be "racism," presumably based on something other than facts, data, logic, and science. So convinced of the righteousness of their cause they proposed increasing minority representation on police forces as a solution. Now that may be a worthy goal in and of itself but this particular mandate in its various forms created its own issues with hiring/firing, promotions, etc. and most importantly, it was primarily motivated by being largely in denial of what the actual science said. Also, some even took it farther and accused their opponents, who were often simply citing the science, of being in denial about the issue and its cause, or of being racist themselves.

So guess what happened when these scientists studied these more racially diverse police forces and their interactions with minorities? It turned out, broadly speaking, there is pretty good evidence that an African-American officer treats an African-American suspect pretty much identically as a white officer, if not even more strictly/harshly. In other words, pretty much exactly consistent with what science had already determined and thus mostly ineffective in solving a problem where it wasn't the primary cause in the first place. It's almost as if all that time, money, and effort could have actually been used in accordance with what the science has long told us instead of emotion and bias and maybe some actual real progress could have been made.

And to show you some actual academic cites in support of my position just so you can see what they look like, here you go:

(PDF link)

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1582396242065

Racial disparities in police use-of-force: A state-of-the-art review

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...un7y3bghhKQVlk

Last edited by DirkHardly; 02-22-2020 at 12:47 PM.
  #166  
Old 02-24-2020, 12:58 PM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Well, it's a meaningless hypothetical for me because I am never armed.

While I do own firearms and have a state-issued pistol permit (which also allows me to carry a concealed weapon), I don't feel the need to go around my community armed. If I go to the shooting range, my pistol is locked in the trunk. (BTW, I'm not unfamiliar with firearms -- I earned a U.S. Navy Expert Pistol Marksmanship Medal when I was in the service.)

Do you want to know why I don't carry a firearm, even though I'm legally allowed to do so? Because when you carry around a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (Which is something I wish our police forces would realize as well.)

A secondary reason is that having a firearm on my person is far more likely to do me harm than good. Only cops get qualified immunity. If I use deadly force, even if justified, I'm far more likely to be arrested and prosecuted. Secondly, having a gun on my person might just get me killed by a trigger-happy cop during a traffic stop.

Back to your hypothetical: what exactly does "behaving in such a way that you think he might have a weapon and is about to use it against your child" look like anyway? Because I can tell you right now that "might have a weapon" is pretty vague. If it turns out that the guy is unarmed and I shoot him, and my only defense is that he looked threatening and I thought he might have a weapon, I will be going to jail -- because only the police can get away with that kind of behavior with their qualified immunity.


Nevertheless, I'll concede the hypothetical and answer your question: yes, I would wait. Just like I think the police should wait.

This answer does not preclude me (or the cops) from drawing my own weapon and ordering the person to put down their weapon. But no, I would not be the first to fire. Nor should the cops.

So, if the circumstance were such that a reasonable person would believe that the guy was armed and intent on hurting your child, you would wait to be certain that he was armed before employing deadly force? You put the safety of the bad guy before the safety of your own child. Do I have this correct?
  #167  
Old 02-24-2020, 01:26 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
So, if the circumstance were such that a reasonable person would believe that the guy was armed and intent on hurting your child, you would wait to be certain that he was armed before employing deadly force? You put the safety of the bad guy before the safety of your own child. Do I have this correct?
So, if the circumstance were such that the cop thought your child was a "bad guy" you'd want the cop to shoot without even being certain your child was armed?


Very generous of you.
  #168  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:46 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
So you falsely attribute a statement or viewpoint to me and then proceed to do it yet again. I made absolutely no statement on the dangers to civilians with regards to police use of deadly force, only on the effects of requiring police to wait and return fire only when fired upon. So you have not only made an error in conflating two separate issues but you've compounded your error by assuming my views on the issue without it being previously raised by anyone. Just really batting a thousand here.
On the contrary, you wrote, "police are in fact supposed to use bullets, if necessary, to prevent an armed suspect from firing their own bullets and endangering the police or any civilians present," as well as "the potential cost to civilian bystanders" if there were any change to lethal force policies.

How then can you say that you "made absolutely no statement on the dangers to civilians with regards to police use of deadly force"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...And you still don't seem to get that it is not my personal opinion that newspaper articles are not acceptable academic or scientific cites but the unanimous standard of those who actually determine such things, actual scholars and scientists. Also, you don't seem to grasp how actual debate works and that a bare assertion, unsupported by competent evidence, can be summarily dismissed. And once again, no number of newspaper articles you post will come remotely close to meeting that standard.
First off, I haven't only linked to newspaper articles. I've previously posted a link to at least one scholarly journal article in this thread, which is more than you can say prior to your last post. Until your last post, you hadn't provided cites for anything. (Not to mention the fact your cites are pretty weak -- and not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand -- which I discuss further below.)

For example, in this earlier post, besides links to two newspaper/magazine articles (one of which was the Washington Post, which is repeatedly cited as one of the few institutions currently tracking the number of police shootings in the U.S.), I also included a Wikipedia citation, as well as a scholarly article in a research journal.

Secondly, we're not actually engaging in an academic debate here. Online newspaper and magazine articles, if they are from a reputable source, are fair game.

In any event, I go back to the fact that you are vociferously denying the claim that there is a problem with policing in America today, without providing any evidence of your own to support your rebuttal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...So not only am I under no obligation to rebut your claims which are so broad and vague as to be essentially meaningless but I'm content to wait for you to fail to support your own contentions with evidence that I know doesn't exist. As far as my own evidence I have plenty, but again your contentions are so vague and ill-defined that they are essentially meaningless, and so not even subject to anything but a similarly pointlessly broad rebuttal.
Let me be succinct, then. It is my contention that police killings in the United States greatly exceeds that of other industrialized nations, and that this is a problem.

Here is a journal article that looks at this: Lethal Policing: Making Sense of American Exceptionalism
Quote:
This article focuses on why the rate of police killings in the United States towers over that in other industrialized nations. Elevated police lethality is deeply rooted in two distinctive aspects of American society and culture. Police violence is both a tool and product of strategies to maintain racial segregation and inequality. However, racism cannot explain the fact that police lethality is greatest in states where African Americans are least prevalent. Elevated police killings are also rooted in America's prevailing ideology (and mythology) of self‐reliance and limited government. Neoliberal ideology helped some politicians cut gaping holes in the social safety net, leaving ill‐equipped and fearful police officers to deal with desperate people who lack adequate treatment and support, yet who have easy access to weapons. It also limits the legislative and regulative authority that centralized policy actors exert over policing. Nevertheless, police overreliance on deadly force is increasingly understood as a national problem requiring large‐scale solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...And thirdly, once again you seem to use a lot of rolleyes for someone with no evidence backing their position...
I have provided evidence backing my position. Besides the academic study I linked to above, here is an article written by a criminal justice professor at Rutgers University: Why do American cops kill so many compared to European cops?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...and a tenuous grasp at best of the relevant facts, how debate works, and how science works.
I know how science works. For one thing, I know that there is a pretty large difference between the physical sciences and social "science." FWIW, I have a B.S. and an M.S. in engineering, and defended and published a master's thesis for the latter. I also taught the physical sciences for over seven years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...So why should anyone care about your uninformed, unsupported opinion when we have actual experts in their respective fields of policing, law, and most importantly science? Who cares about your opinion on police procedures when you have no grasp of the complexity of the issues involved? Who cares about your opinion about the objective Reasonable Person standard in general or any particular application when you have no legal expertise? And who cares about your opinion of the extent and effects of the use of force by police when it is almost certainly dependent on your imagination rather than any statistical data and relevant conclusions on the part of actual scientists?
Well for one thing, it's not just my opinion. I have provided numerous cites in this thread. Finally, you don't have to be an expert on any of this to see the end result -- a disproportionate number of people are being killed by police in the U.S. when compared to other industrialized countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...See your little idea of comparing incident rates of deadly force for different countries is exactly what these scientists do. Except, being scientists, they're aware you can't just compare two numbers and offer any conclusions without first identifying and controlling for variables.
Exactly. One of these variables is discussed in the article by the Rutgers professor linked to above: the difference in behavioral mandates for the use of deadly force in the U.S. versus those of Europe. In the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that it was "constitutionally permissible for police to use deadly force when they 'reasonably' perceive imminent and grave harm..."
Quote:
...By contrast, national standards in most European countries conform to the European Convention on Human Rights, which impels its 47 signatories to permit only deadly force that is “absolutely necessary” to achieve a lawful purpose. Killings excused under America’s “reasonable belief” standards often violate Europe’s “absolute necessity” standards.

For example, the unfounded fear of Darren Wilson – the former Ferguson cop who fatally shot Michael Brown – that Brown was armed would not have likely absolved him in Europe. Nor would officers’ fears of the screwdriver that a mentally ill Dallas man Jason Harrison refused to drop.

In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist. For example, national guidelines in Spain would have prescribed that Wilson incrementally pursue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force. Six shots would likely be deemed disproportionate to the threat that Brown, unarmed and wounded, allegedly posed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...And to show you some actual academic cites in support of my position just so you can see what they look like, here you go:

(PDF link)

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1582396242065

Racial disparities in police use-of-force: A state-of-the-art review

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...un7y3bghhKQVlk
These are pretty weak studies, evidently hampered by lack of data.

Your first cite states that: "On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. In the conclusion, it states that "...very little data exists to understand whether racial disparities in police use of force exist."

The second cite is simply a meta-review. The abstract states that: "The relationship between race and use of force remains unclear after an examination of these studies. This indicates a need for high-quality research focusing on comparable operationalization of variables and stronger methodologies."

OK, then.
  #169  
Old 03-03-2020, 09:42 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...I'm content to wait for you to fail to support your own contentions with evidence that I know doesn't exist. [emphasis added]
Nobody who actually understands how science works would ever make a statement like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
...As far as my own evidence I have plenty...
None of which you have provided, despite repeated requests to do so.
  #170  
Old 03-03-2020, 10:20 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
So, if the circumstance were such that a reasonable person would believe that the guy was armed and intent on hurting your child, you would wait to be certain that he was armed before employing deadly force? You put the safety of the bad guy before the safety of your own child. Do I have this correct?
Not only would I wait to be certain that the "bad guy" was armed, I would not employ deadly force until and unless he utilized deadly force first. And unlike the police, I don't walk around wearing a ballistic vest.

In any event, this is yet another false dichotomy. Even if I grant your hypothetical situation of a bad guy a reasonable person would believe was armed and intent on hurting my child, it is by no means assured that I will not endanger my child to a greater extent by employing deadly force. For example, I might accidentally hit my child (or a bystander). I might hit the bad guy, but not incapacitate him, thereby inducing him to open fire on my child, myself, and/or bystanders.

Or like in so many police shootings, I might kill the bad guy, only to discover that he was actually unarmed and merely posturing or mentally ill or drunk, etc.

Last but not least, I don't agree with the "reasonable belief" standards used in the U.S. I think a better approach would be the "absolute necessity" standards used in Europe (i.e. deadly force may only be utilized if it "absolutely necessary" to achieve a lawful purpose). These differing mandates for the use of deadly force is discussed in this article written by a criminal justice professor at Rutgers University (previously linked to upthread).
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017