It seems that it’s not uncommon for police to shoot uncooperative resisting or struggling people these days. You see stories like this all too often.
17-Year-Old Girl Shot Dead By Three Cops At Texas Police Station
Assuming that drunk or angry uncooperative and resisting people are hardly a new thing did they get shot as often back in the day or would they just billy club them?
Are there any historical stats on this?
I don’t know about stats but I would say no. I knew 5 people killed by the police during the 60s and 70s in questionable circumstances/minor resistance and it never made the news let alone court.
Increased availability of non-lethal and less-than-lethal weapons should have reduced the number of deaths. I don’t have any statistics though.
Are deaths from police shootings the highest in 20 years? Politifact says “Half-True”
Then there’s an article from CNN. Relevant quote from Propublica below
Maybe it’s just movie reality but I got the impression that if you were fighting with them back in the day sans weapons they would simply club you into submission. Nowadays if you are a mentally deranged person holding a pocketknife they will shoot you dead if you do not obey the order to put it down immediately. Attacking them is not required as a reason to kill someone just possessing the weapon and not being in compliance is enough.
Even the problem with the data they mention is in raw numbers. Since population has been increasing the rate at which they are being killed is probably more descriptive of the issue than simply raw numbers.
No.
Just like Pitbulls are not overly dangerous animals, silicon breast implants have not caused any illnesses, CPU-defective Toyotas have not killed anyone, vaccines do not cause autism, and Gore did not win in 2000. Welcome to the frustratingly wonderful double-edged sword that is a free (but flawed) press…
I’m certain that there’s a higher rate* of news reports *about police killing non-compliant people more often than there used to be.
I agree with PolitiFact’s main point is that the statistics are unreliable.
However, I think it is worth noting that the killings are measured in absolute numbers. Using a rough extrapolation of Census data, population went from 260 million to 320 million in 1994-2013. So killings per capita in the FBI data went from 1.75 ppm in 1994 to 1.44 ppm 2013. We’re still 20% below the 1995 per capita rate.
So while the statement is factually phrased, it actually argues against the point he’s trying to make. On a per capita basis, we still see a sizable reduction in killings.
IMHO this is itself a key assumption that should not be just slid in there.
I would speculate that in recent decades there’s been an expansion of people’s rights vis-a-vis law enforcement, and also an even greater expansion of people’s awareness of their rights and the notion that insisting on these rights is some sort of moral cause, and this has encouraged many people to take a non-cooperative attitude with cops. I don’t think you can just assume that the level has been constant.
What is your definition of noncompliant? Are you using it as a code word for all police shootings? Because to me it has a very specific meaning. For instance, although all the information has not yet been released, according to other sites the incident in the OP looks like it might be a case of suicide by cop. If the girl went to the station with a weapon to confront an officer and purposely put him in a position where he was forced to shoot do you consider that simple noncompliance?
The BionicBoob 3000?
My main thought about that is that with so many other things becoming a lot safer in absolute terms during that period, from fewer murders to fewer deaths in car crashes to fewer law enforcement officers getting killed on the job, shouldn’t the number of people getting killed by police be decreasing too, in terms of the raw numbers?
And now is the safest time to be a cop since sometime in the 19th century. Given that fact alone, shouldn’t they feel less need to endanger others?
I am not the OP, so I can’t answer your question. But to me it is the key question. Based on everything I have read and the police that I know, the chances that a person who isn’t perceived as a threat will be killed by police now is much less than in the past. No question, the police are far more professional now than even 20 years ago.
At the risk of hijacking the thread, I have a hyphosis about what is going on. If you feel comfortable responding that would be great. On this subject, I understand if police officers are hesitant to voice opinions.
My theory is that police are better trained and more skilled than ever. Like everyone else, a police officer will apply his understanding and experience to others in a meeting. Everyone does that. When I meed someone, I try to anticipate their response and in doing that I have to use my own knowledge and experience. I have no other way to anticipate. What might be going on is that the police are far better trained on possibly dangerous encounters than they used to be, and crucially they are far better trained than the general public. The police know any encounter with a possibly armed or violent person can be terrible in a heartbeat. The general public, since almost 100% of their encounters are peacable, don’t view things that way. So when something bad happens and people hear about it, the police officer in the encounter acted as any person with his training would, and the public reacts as they would have in that situation. 20 or 30 years ago, the police and the public had much more similar backgrounds and experiences. Hence they would react and interpret the encounter in more similar ways. The very training that keeps police safer causes more divergence in how the public views the situation.
Apologies to the OP for this hijack.
Well, no. Airbags don’t do much to prevent shootings. That’s like saying five times as many people should have access to medicine because five times as many have access to the Internet.
The link in the OP has almost no details as to what happened so it’s grossly inappropriate to make any kind of judgement on that situation.
I have no actual stats. But about 10-12 years ago in-service firearms instructors started teaching that (and I quote) "Police officers are not shooting enough people".
Their point was too many cops were using different means of force in situations where they would have been justified in using lethal force, and officers were ending up hurt doing those situations.
About 2 years after that training was implemented police involved shootings went up around here. And every one of those shootings was found to be justified.
Whether that same type of training and statement was done around the country I know not.
Stats on such things are hard to find in simple terms and are usually buried under pages of crime statistics and reports. But I have heard the statement that police related shootings are down 70% since the 1970s. I’ll have to see if I can find the source of that.
When I am not on my phone and have time to answer fully I will attempt to reply.
I’ve been on about 17 years and I never heard that.
Like I said, I don’t know if that was the philosophy taught around the country.
But the same group of instructors teach in-service for most departments in the SE area of Wisconsin. And police involved shootings went up after that. Cause/effect is arguable though.
I don’t think they are. I knew a couple of people that were killed by cops in the 1970s. One was definitely unarmed, the other, I don’t know for certain. More of a FOAF.
We hear about these a lot more with every passing year. Personally, I think that with lax gun laws, the odds have increased a lot that a generic mope might be armed, and police attitude has changed.
It’s plausible - crime has gone down since then. It makes sense that police shootings would be down as a result.
Regards,
Shodan