So What Do We Do with the Police?

bruto said:
True, but on a per capita basis alone, fewer than four of those would be black. And unfortunately that's only if you trust the source of the statistics.
Click to expand...

(nods)

Yes; I'm sure racism does play a part. It's still human nature, and will be for the foreseeable future. We can't eliminate it, but I do believe we can minimize the role it plays in the way LE interacts with people.

No one gripes about the fire department or poison control or even the DMV being racist...so if those agencies can be fair and unbiased in their dealings with the public, I'm sure LE can be too.
 
bruto said:
True, but on a per capita basis alone, fewer than four of those would be black. And unfortunately that's only if you trust the source of the statistics.
Click to expand...

Per capita is not really fair, though. Black people can be demonstrated to have, across the board, an inadequate educational system, more likely to live in impoverished and high crime areas, and be generally disenfranchised and afforded less opportunities. It stands to reason that some may pursue crime as a best alternative (from their POV). And I can't say I blame them.

Not that such a microscopically small sampling from a nation of a third of a billion people should be statistically perfect to start with.
 
Bob001 said:
Link, please. And were they in fact armed? Or did the cops just think/claim they were armed?
Click to expand...

Its the big one that everyone quotes from. On cel now, will link to it when on laptop unless someone else can do the honors sooner
 
DragonLady said:
What about the riots and cop killings?

The constitution gives us a right to PEACABLY assemble. It doesn't give anyone -white, black, or blue- the right to riot. Nor does anyone have the right to kill or try to kill a police officer.

That said, I do not believe police officers should have the right to pepper spray calm, peaceful people, shoot into crowds just because it's a crowd, or assault people who are not acting violently or committing a crime.

People on both sides of the fence need to act like responsible adults, and recognize both sides of every issue have the right to be both seen and heard.
Click to expand...

Citizens who kill cops (if caught) go to prison, simple as that. It doesn't happen nearly as much the other way around.

Also, what makes you think people haven't already tried peaceful methods before? We've seen what happens when people try the peaceful route and people still complain and nothing gets done.
 
Thermal said:
Its the big one that everyone quotes from. On cel now, will link to it when on laptop unless someone else can do the honors sooner
Click to expand...


There are numerous studies. Maybe you mean the Wash Post database?
Although half of the people shot and killed by police are white, black Americans are shot at a disproportionate rate.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

Or this?
“The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black,” said Justin Nix, a criminal-justice researcher at the University of Louisville and one of the report’s authors, said in April. “Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.”

“This just bolsters our confidence that there is some sort of implicit bias going on,” Nix said. “Officers are perceiving a greater threat when encountered by unarmed black citizens.”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...han-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/

In any case, after more than a decade covering these issues, it’s pretty clear to me that the evidence of racial bias in our criminal justice system isn’t just convincing — it’s overwhelming.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...cism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/

And let's just note that someone who is "armed" isn't necessarily a threat to police. Philando Castile was "armed" only in the sense that he had a licensed handgun in his car. Tamar Rice was "armed" with a toy gun. Rayshard Brooks was "armed" with an empty Taser as he ran away.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
True, but on a per capita basis alone, fewer than four of those would be black. And unfortunately that's only if you trust the source of the statistics.
Click to expand...
How many, on a per capita basis, should be Asian?

Upon examining the statistics, it appears that cops kill white people at a rate more than three times higher than they kill Asians!!!!!

How can this be!?!?!
Cops must be biased against white people. No other explanation possible.
 
Also, what makes you think people haven't already tried peaceful methods before? We've seen what happens when people try the peaceful route and people still complain and nothing gets done.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you to clarify:

You're saying that if peaceful protests aren't getting the results the protesters want, that justifies rioting and looting?
 
Thermal said:
Per capita is not really fair, though. Black people can be demonstrated to have, across the board, an inadequate educational system, more likely to live in impoverished and high crime areas, and be generally disenfranchised and afforded less opportunities. It stands to reason that some may pursue crime as a best alternative (from their POV). And I can't say I blame them.

Not that such a microscopically small sampling from a nation of a third of a billion people should be statistically perfect to start with.
Click to expand...

Yes; this.

I also have to ask: what is the crux of the issue?

If we're upset because the police sometimes kill unarmed people, why don't we see the huge crowds of protesters, giant public funerals, floods of social media responses and political discussions every time anyone is killed in those circumstances?

Or, are we ONLY upset when it's a black unarmed person?*

If so, that seems to imply we need a separate policy for how blacks are treated by both the law and the law enforcement officers?


I just tried to Google a list of the white people killed by police which sparked massive protests or riots, but can't find any -whether they were armed or not. That doesn't mean they haven't happened (I live under a rock in many ways), but I don't recall them, and can't seem to find any links.
 
The Camden chief describes what "defunding" the police meant there.
So we started from scratch. We let every city police officer go and created a new department with new rules in 2013. By agreement with Camden County, the city ceased to fund its department and instead paid the county to police the city of Camden. We required all officers to apply as new hires (most officers from the old force got jobs, but not all) and committed to a new relationship between Camden’s police and its citizens, around 95 percent of whom are minorities.

It worked. At the end of 2019, homicides in Camden were down 63 percent, and total crime is the lowest it has been in decades. Fewer mothers are burying children, and flagrant drug crime is radically reduced. Here’s how we did it.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...407536-b0b8-11ea-856d-5054296735e5_story.html
 
DragonLady said:
Yes; this.

I also have to ask: what is the crux of the issue?

If we're upset because the police sometimes kill unarmed people, why don't we see the huge crowds of protesters, giant public funerals, floods of social media responses and political discussions every time anyone is killed in those circumstances?

Or, are we ONLY upset when it's a black unarmed person?*

If so, that seems to imply we need a separate policy for how blacks are treated by both the law and the law enforcement officers?
Click to expand...

I think it has do do with police motivated by selfish cruelty. Fearing for their lives absent a reason for said fear,thinking of black people as second class citizens, etc. Mistakes will happen, but malice doesn't need to.


Iust tried to Google a list of the white people killed by police which sparked massive protests or riots, but can't find any -whether they were armed or not. That doesn't mean they haven't happened (I live under a rock in many ways), but I don't recall them, and can't seem to find any links.
Click to expand...

I think Daniel Shaver (sp?) got some people stirred, but not many. Maybe white people aren't as familiar with police brutality, so it gets relegated to 'mistake' more easily?
 
DragonLady said:
Clearly, there are other issues at work besides racism. I'm sure it plays a part, but there's more going on -and those other issues need to be identified and minimized, too.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are, and that's likely one reason why it is not just minorities who are registering their frustration with the police culture. We privileged whites are less likely to be abused by the police, and have been more complacent about it, but nobody is immune.
 
Distracted1 said:
More police on the street resulting in less crime.
Surprising?
Took Camden from most dangerous city in the U.S. to 10th most dangerous.
Click to expand...


That's nowhere close to everything they did.

And moving from first to 10th is actually a pretty substantial accomplishment. They are now between Wilmington, Delaware and Pine Bluff, Arkansas, neither of which seems to be nationally known as a hotbed of crime.
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous
 
bruto said:
I'm sure there are, and that's likely one reason why it is not just minorities who are registering their frustration with the police culture. We privileged whites are less likely to be abused by the police, and have been more complacent about it, but nobody is immune.
Click to expand...
We may also have differing ideas of what constitutes "abuse".
 
Bob001 said:
That's nowhere close to everything they did.

And moving from first to 10th is actually a pretty substantial accomplishment. They are now between Wilmington, Delaware and Pine Bluff, Arkansas, neither of which seems to be nationally known as a hotbed of crime.
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous
Click to expand...
But it is what they did.
You wish to make a point, show me a city that reduced the number of police on patrol and experienced a reduction in crime.
 
Distracted1 said:
But it is what they did.
You wish to make a point, show me a city that reduced the number of police on patrol and experienced a reduction in crime.
Click to expand...


Well, off the top of my head there's this:
When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on low-level offenses, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics.
Click to expand...
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html

Or this:
James McCabe, a retired New York Police Department official who travels the country as a police staffing consultant, says there is little clear connection between staffing numbers and crime. “New York City made the conscious decision to reduce the number of cops,” he noted in an interview. “And crime continued to go down. It’s not what you have, it’s what you are doing with them.”
Click to expand...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-dont-mean-less-crime-experts-say/2818056002/

What matters more than how many cops you have is what they actually do.
 
Bob001 said:
Well, off the top of my head there's this:

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html

Or this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-dont-mean-less-crime-experts-say/2818056002/

What matters more than how many cops you have is what they actually do.
Click to expand...
First link pay walled.
Second link actually reads as the opposite of the assertion made by the quoted party.
It cites numerous examples of adding cops and "outside security" by municipalities that has reduce crime.
And the "what they actually do" is addressing how the available LEOs are spread throughout the city.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Link, please. And were they in fact armed? Or did the cops just think/claim they were armed?
Click to expand...

And armed with *what*? Philando Castille, John Crawford III, Freddie Gray, and Tamir Rice, among many others were technically "armed" - but they weren't actually doing anything aggressive. Got a pocket knife? Screwdriver? They could claimed you're "armed". Hell, my biggest fear when I was into Kendo was the possibility of a cop freaking out because I had a shinai and a bokken (bamboo and wood swords, respectively) on me on my way to and from practice.
 
Bob001 said:
Well, off the top of my head there's this:

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html

Or this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-dont-mean-less-crime-experts-say/2818056002/

What matters more than how many cops you have is what they actually do.
Click to expand...

Unless there's a shortage of police officers and they are unable to do what should be done. In Sweden the amount of police officers has stayed around 10 thousand for decades despite the fact that the population has increased.

This has had a very real impact on their ability to investigate crimes, and since the police required to take a university-level education it's not like increased funding will magically produce more police ro make up for a long-term shortage.

Notably the fact that the amount of police stayed the same was not seen as a serious issue because crimes were decreasing anyways, but now certain crimes (notably gang related murders with the victims and perpetrators were in their teens or twenties) have increased.
 
Bob001 said:
The Camden chief describes what "defunding" the police meant there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...407536-b0b8-11ea-856d-5054296735e5_story.html
Click to expand...

Oh so they basically did what I have suggested: instead of insisting on maintaining dysfunctional local police, despite the fact that they were clearly incapable of dealing with the problems, they turned over the responsibility for policing to a higher level of government.

Calling that "defunding" is a very bad description of what they did.
 
Bob001 said:
Link, please. And were they in fact armed? Or did the cops just think/claim they were armed?
Click to expand...

The stats I read are under paywall, so in fairness to readers, I provide remarkably similar information from the source you quote, the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

total police killings in 2019: 1,001
total killings of unarmed suspects: 55
total killings of black unarmed suspects: 14

For perspective, there are about 49 people in the US killed by lightning strikes.

https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-victims

So in a nation of a third of a billion people, the odds are over three times greater of killed by a lightning strike than being an unarmed black person killed by police.

This is not to trivialize the issue; I despise the very idea of police killings. But perspective is a thing. Most of the arguments revolve around proportion (twice as likely, etc) because the actual numbers are proportionally tiny.

Each and every killing cop should be tried and be accountable for their actions. But when screaming 'Stop murdering us", it needs to be kept in mind how small a group is being addressed.
 
Thermal said:
total police killings in 2019: 1,001
total killings of unarmed suspects: 55
total killings of black unarmed suspects: 14

For perspective, there are about 49 people in the US killed by lightning strikes.

https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-victims

So in a nation of a third of a billion people, the odds are over three times greater of killed by a lightning strike than being an unarmed black person killed by police.
Click to expand...
I think this paragraph should be written differently.

You should start with the number of black people in the nation, then go with the odds of a black person being killed by lightning as compared to being black and killed by cops while unarmed.

Are there stats that give the race of lightning victims? If available it would make the paragraph an apples to apples to apples conclusion instead of having an orange in there. It's because the lightning death data right now includes people who weren't black.
 
arthwollipot said:
A little surprised that no-one's posted this yet:

The Stats on Police Killings

By Steven Novella. The issue is also discussed extensively on the latest episode of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast.
Click to expand...

I haven't listened to the podcast, but the article is an interesting read.

Do we have any reliable statistics the other way? That is, how often do blacks become violent or draw weapons when contacted by police compared to other races?

It seems the police are more "on edge" when confronting blacks in general...so...why is that? Do statistics show they are more likely to be forced to defend themselves or be forced to use some form of force in those encounters?
 
trustbutverify said:
Establishing the authenticity of an anonymous source's claims isn't "attacking the arguer". It's skepticism.
Click to expand...

The substance is no different from dozens of other articles, there are literally no special claims in the whole thing. It is just a distraction to avoid talking about the issues the article addresses.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The substance is no different from dozens of other articles, there are literally no special claims in the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Then reference articles where the author's claims to special expertise backing his/her observations and conclusions are well established. Simple enough.

It is just a distraction to avoid talking about the issues the article addresses.
Click to expand...
Confirming a sources extensive claims to special expertise in support of his assertions and conclusions isn't a "distraction". It's just reasonable.
 
There seem to be a number of proposals or suggestions that police officers should be licensed by state agencies, as doctors, nurses, emts, lawyers, barbers etc. are, based on their training and performance. They could only work for anybody who would hire them if they had a state license. The state agency could discipline them for misconduct, and if they lost their license no police dept. could employ them.

Licensing for other people who serve the public doesn't seem especially onerous or oppressive. Why wouldn't it work for cops?
 
Bob001 said:
There seem to be a number of proposals or suggestions that police officers should be licensed by state agencies, as doctors, nurses, emts, lawyers, barbers etc. are, based on their training and performance. They could only work for anybody who would hire them if they had a state license. The state agency could discipline them for misconduct, and if they lost their license no police dept. could employ them.

Licensing for other people who serve the public doesn't seem especially onerous or oppressive. Why wouldn't it work for cops?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good start.
 
trustbutverify said:
Sounds like a good start.
Click to expand...

And who runs the Licensing Board? How do we keep them out of the influence of the police unions, or from being stopped and multiple cops 'smelling pot in their cars', for that matter?

Not trying to be opressively cynical, but police didn't get their reputations for over-defending the thin blue line out of thin air.
 
Bob001 said:
There seem to be a number of proposals or suggestions that police officers should be licensed by state agencies, as doctors, nurses, emts, lawyers, barbers etc. are, based on their training and performance. They could only work for anybody who would hire them if they had a state license. The state agency could discipline them for misconduct, and if they lost their license no police dept. could employ them.

Licensing for other people who serve the public doesn't seem especially onerous or oppressive. Why wouldn't it work for cops?
Click to expand...

Licensing is something that is typically done with regards to private or semi-private professions. From what I understand, at least as far as the US is concerned, most of the other professions you mentioned do not actually work for the public. They are not state or local government employees. They are not civil servants.

Instead police and other civil servants are typically regulated by a national or sub-national organization which is, like the police organizations themselves, are answerable to administrative courts.
 
Thermal said:
And who runs the Licensing Board? How do we keep them out of the influence of the police unions, or from being stopped and multiple cops 'smelling pot in their cars', for that matter?

Not trying to be opressively cynical, but police didn't get their reputations for over-defending the thin blue line out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Law enforcement's most radical critics. Start giving them the power to make fundamental, systemic changes, and hold them responsible for the results.
 
Thermal said:
And who runs the Licensing Board? How do we keep them out of the influence of the police unions, or from being stopped and multiple cops 'smelling pot in their cars', for that matter?

Not trying to be opressively cynical, but police didn't get their reputations for over-defending the thin blue line out of thin air.
Click to expand...


As I look into it, the reports I was seeing are mostly about Minnesota. Apparently most states do license police officers in one sense or another. With that structure in place, it would be easy to toughen standards and enforcement.
Most other states have a commission referred to as a POST Commission (for Peace Officer Standards and Training), which requires adequate training, licenses police officers, and revokes or suspends the license in cases of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
https://www.aclum.org/en/licensing-police-officers

Grewal said he supports licensing police officers in New Jersey, one of a handful of states that don’t. Along with several reforms unveiled in December, Grewal ordered the state’s Police Training Commission to produce a report on licensing cops, which was due Monday. Work on that report was delayed due to the coronavirus, according to James Sharrock, vice chairman of the commission.
Click to expand...
https://www.app.com/story/news/inve...-wants-license-cops-wake-protests/3125233001/
 
Arcade22 said:
Licensing is something that is typically done with regards to private or semi-private professions.
.....
Click to expand...

If you're a doctor, nurse, lawyer, engineer etc. you need a license even if you work for the government. The license is usually the firat requirement for getting and keeping a job. The license is based on the individual's training and qualifications, not who he works for.
 
One explanation of why the cops aren't accountable.
Last Halloween, my wife and then-6-year-old daughter were making their way home after trick-or-treating in Brooklyn. Suddenly, an unmarked NYPD car with sirens wailing began speeding against traffic up a one-way street, our neighborhood’s main thoroughfare. The officer seemed to be going after a few teenage boys.

Then, in an instant, the car hit one of the kids.

It was the first of many jarring things my family saw the NYPD do that night. Afterward, I tried to find out more about what exactly had happened and whether officers would be disciplined. There was footage and plenty of witnesses, and I happen to be an investigative journalist. I thought there was at least a chance I could get answers. Instead, the episode crystallized all of the ways in which the NYPD is shielded from accountability.
Click to expand...
https://www.propublica.org/article/...paign=majorinvestigations&utm_content=feature
 
Bob001 said:
If you're a doctor, nurse, lawyer, engineer etc. you need a license even if you work for the government. The license is usually the firat requirement for getting and keeping a job. The license is based on the individual's training and qualifications, not who he works for.
Click to expand...

It's not whether they work for the government, or more accurately the state. It's whether people in that profession only work for the state.

The practical reason people don't need a license to be a police officer is because there should already be public bodies that investigate alleged misconduct and can subject police to disciplinary sanctions upto and including dismissals and prohibiting them from ever working as a police officer.

The fact that there isn't, and "bad cops" can just be hired by another police department somewhere else that's oblivious to their career background, just demonstrates that law enforcement needs to be subject to far greater coordination or even reorganisation on a state or higher level.

There are very good reasons why most countries have moved away from relying on local law enforcement and police, instead placing far more emphasis on regional or national scale police organisations. America could learn a thing or two from the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
The fact that there isn't, and "bad cops" can just be hired by another police department somewhere else that's oblivious to their career background
Click to expand...
The recurring theme at ISF is that the re-hiring department is not oblivious and knows that they are hiring a "bad cop".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom