Just for curiosity, I looked up the LAPD most recent report on use of force andfound this (pdf) from page 19 of the report:
In the document, it shows for that year, for that city, there were aproximately 13% of shooting incidents that were just perceived threats (thought there was a firearm, but there was not). 83% were shootings against persons armed with a firearm or other weapon. This report seems more detailed than the NYPD one I posted upthread. There are a lot of non-firearm use of force incidents, geez.
So yes, police make mistakes and shoot when there is only a perceived threat. It happens less than the other way around by a lot.
So in LA, one in six police shootings are based on faulty threat assessment–is that a fair summary? (I may well be misunderstanding what “perceived threat” means).
The corollary bit of data would be to ask how often police wait until a gun is drawn (that is, they could have shot before the gun was drawn but didn’t), and in those cases, how often the suspect manages to kill someone.
I’m not sure I would go so far as to call it a ‘faulty threat assessment’. The report calls it a perceived threat. It depends on what standard you use - judging against a given standard may yield a result within protocol even if the threat is only perceived. In that case it would not be fair to call it faulty. The converse could be true as well. I believe the report(s) shows the results of use of force investigations if they were within policy or not.
Fairly unobjectionable, although as usual, the devil will be in the details.
Because the studies seem to indicate that it is not caused by white racism, since blacks are also subject to it. And because drawing the subjects’ attention to the phenomenon seems to make it worse.
So the idea that the Ferguson police department can address the issue by hiring more blacks, or emphasizing the reality of the bias, is either useless or counter-productive.
I also wonder if the perception extends to more than associating blacks with guns. For instance, do black police officers stop other blacks disproportionately? I believe black cabbies in New York were no more likely to pick up black fares than white cabbies. Maybe it works the same.
And here you’ve gone from a study involving police officers, to wondering and believing, then moving on to “maybe they work the same” before finding out if your beliefs about cabbies in New York are valid in the first place. Might it not be prudent to
Find out if the results stem from a general societal outlook, or from a more focused “Police vs. The Outside World” mentality, where an African American police officer has more to prove to his compatriots about whose side he or she is really on than a Caucasian officer does.
No study, but an anecdote: I drove taxi for a year in a fairly large city, and the cabbies who were most emphatic about not wanting to pick up African-Americans were indeed black themselves, most especially the Caribbean immigrants.
In fairness, it’s possible the white drivers were just as reluctant, but didn’t say it. Nonetheless, Shodan’s claim is very plausible IME.
What do three police procedure experts have to say about how they handled it? They say pulling up like that was poor tactics because it put them in the line of fire and, if it was an actual gunman with a real gun, would have forced his hand. It didn’t look to them as if any warnings were shouted to the boy unless it was done through the open window while the car was speeding towards the child.
But our resident SDMB CSI team determined in their recreation of the incident that the police issued the commands through a loudspeaker as they drove up. We can disregard the witnesses on the scene.
But what about the police testimony that other people were sitting with the boy while they were watching him? Were they invisible to the surveillance tape?
Another possibility: what if he doesn’t speak English? Answer: he prolly gets shot to death and nothing bad happens to the cop. In Canada, they used to use tasers.
I believe the cop was overly complacent in his approach and caught off guard, this cost the young boy his life. It proably appeared to be a situation the cop faced everyday until he saw the kid reach for his gun.
Namkalb - what is your point? Just suppose, for a minute, that it was a real gun. And he shot and killed a neighbor as the police were trying to decide whether to shoot. Instead of being brave heroes they would be incompetent dolts.
If those cops had some reason for believing that the kid wasn’t a real threat (maybe based on his demeanor or something) O.K. Otherwise, deadly threats should be met with deadly force. The second he pointed that rifle at anyone he should have been shot. Why do so many people have such a hard time holding others responsible for their own actions. I just don’t get it.
That was an air rifle. My guess is that the cops recognized it as as such. Possibly, they were even informed about it before they arrived at the scene. Not shooting him was the correct call.
No you’re missing the point. The police worked to protect the town, manage the potential shooter and keep him alive. That’s the expectation. If, in the event he had shot at the police or someone in town, I have no doubt he would’ve been shot and we’d be sad but not surprised.
You should also not that the kid is currently being psychologically evaluated, and in a newer article is described as bullied and autistic. The reluctance of the police to kill at least allows us to help this kid instead instead of burying him.