The behaviour of US police officers

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Somehow most people manage not to get killed by serial killers. The likelihood of any specific individual being killed by a serial killer is infinitesimal. There is therefore no need to do anything about serial killers.

Dave

If doing less about serial killers allows us to reduce other crime by a significant enough factor, then by all means stop wasting so much effort on serial killers.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by chrispy

Getting closer..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...mg&imgid=34215

Edited by zooterkin:

Edited for rule 10 in image.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Darat

See my post above. I really can't understand why you don't want your police officers to be held to higher standards than non-police. It seems rather arse about tit to me.

They already are.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Wudang

I wonder what the ratio is of cases of someone pulling a gun versus pulling out a wallet.

Depends on the circumstances, there is always more information available in the moment than that. A compliant person reaching for their wallet really isn't typical of the cases of unarmed people being killed by police. There is almost always non-compliance and aggression/violence leading up to it from the person who got shot.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...247e1ae3ac.png

You are a credit to the forum.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Darat

I find your asymmetrical assessment of "reasonable" fear quite strange.

It's not asymmetrical.

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, yes we all know that all this talk of killing police is making whatever side of the table SuburbanTurkey is sat at raise a few inches. You've found an extremist for the other side, good for you. Here's your cookie.

That doesn't change the fact that your "LOL what's the big deal?" attitude toward unlawful police killings is not warranted.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

.....
That would be ridiculous. Lets imagine the final scene in falling down where it turns out Michael Douglas only has a water pistol. Are you saying that the cop there should be off to prison?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You understand that's not a documentary, right? And as I remember it, the Douglas character was known to have committed multiple crimes before the attempt to arrest him. What's depicted is suicide by cop, and that's not what we're talking about here.

And Robert Duvall doesn't open fire until he actually sees a "gun." He doesn't guess about what might be in Douglas' pocket.

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah Duval didn't give Douglas 128 warning shots while he was still in his car at the beginning of film.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yes, yes we all know that all this talk of killing police is making whatever side of the table SuburbanTurkey is sat at raise a few inches. You've found an extremist for the other side, good for you. Here's your cookie.

That doesn't change the fact that your "LOL what's the big deal?" attitude toward unlawful police killings is not warranted.

MLK Jr said it best:

Quote:

A volley of gunfire through the passenger window of a cop car is the language of the unheard

[JoeMorgue]

Hmmmm edgy.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Hmmmm edgy.

After all these posts in glee about injured protesters, it's nice to cut a bit loose when the shoe's on the other foot.

I have to admit, gunning down random cops in cold blood is not actually a course of action I'd recommend. I just find myself not really caring at this point. Something's gotta give, nothing else has worked. Maybe a few dead cops will change attitudes.

For all we know these cops were hit by the criminal gang of deputies in the LASD in Compton. A cop whistleblower found a dead rat on his doorstep, and I get the feeling "the executioners" aren't afraid of a bit of murder to protect themselves.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Wudang

I wonder what the ratio is of cases of someone pulling a gun versus pulling out a wallet.

How about when the cop asks you for your wallet then shoots when you reach for it?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

They already are.

Not according to you or Shutit. You are both saying that non police have to have more restraint than police officers and the reasonable criteria is higher for the non police.

[Captain_Swoop]

wrongthread

[Darat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It's not asymmetrical.

Yes it is. You expect non police to have more restraint than the police.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Remember when the entire senior leadership of the Rochester PD resigned because the allegations were " an attempt to destroy my character and integrity."

Anyway, NYTimes article about how they tried to cover up the police killing of Daniel Prude:

Quote:

Documents Reveal How the Police Kept Daniel Prude’s Death Quiet

The June 4 exchange was contained in a mass of city documents released on Monday that show how the police chief, La’Ron Singletary, and other prominent Rochester officials did everything in their power to keep the troubling videos of the incident out of public view, and to prevent damaging fallout from Mr. Prude’s death.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/n...iel-prude.html

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What constitutes "a reasonabl[e] belief?" Should a guess be grounds for killing somebody? And what should the consequences be when the cop is wrong? Suppose a guy reaches into his pocket for his wallet, and gets killed because a cop "reasonably believes" that he might be pulling a gun? Or cops break into a home and kill the lawful, law-abiding resident because they "reasonably believe" that a drug dealer might be inside?

How 'bout this: If a cop acts on his "reasonable belief" and he turns out to be wrong, he gets a mandatory life sentence at hard labor? I bet they'd adopt a little narrower definition of what's "reasonable."

^This. Very much this!

No one questions the basic concept that a police officer has a right to respond if he/she has a reasonable belief that they are at substantial risk to their safety.

But first, what is a responsible belief? Apparently reasonable currently includes any hint or whim that such a risk might be present. This is ridiculous. Police are there to protect the public, not to walk around as
tiny, terrified, paranoid judges and juries on the very edge of self control. If many do this is a huge failure in their training. If some do after rigorous training then those individuals should be fired.

Second, what should be a reasonable response to a perceived threat? There are now lots of videos showing examples of good and bad. Is it too much to ask that police training intensely teaches the correct response and that this be done in an actual hands on environment so it becomes a “muscle memory?” Not just in cadet training but repeatedly and periodically through a cop’s career? You have pulled over a car and the driver reaches for the glove compartment or for his wallet: where should you be standing and what should you say and do next? Etc.

Sports teams practice to hone their strategies so they don’t screw up in the actual games. Why not cops?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Not if they can get the fire out some safer way, no.

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Indeed, firefighters have been known to act heroically, as has the occasional LEO.

Those actions (the heroic ones) are "above and beyond" what they are being paid to do, however.
On a day to day basis, we do not expect the people charged with protecting our lives and property to be running suicide missions.

Thank you for the masterclass in missing the point.

Firefighting is dangerous work. Policing is dangerous work. It’s in the job description. No one in either profession should be mitigating that danger at the expense of civilian lives and safety. And if they are, those individuals should no longer be allowed in that profession.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Remember when the entire senior leadership of the Rochester PD resigned because the allegations were " an attempt to destroy my character and integrity."

Anyway, NYTimes article about how they tried to cover up the police killing of Daniel Prude:



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/n...iel-prude.html

But... I thought it was just a few bad apples... ?

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It's not asymmetrical.

It damn well should be. Or why don’t we just hand out guns to random citizens, tell them to enforce a written list of the laws, and wish them luck?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

MLK Jr said it best:

That wasn't what he said:

A riot is the language of the unheard

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Giordano

^This. Very much this!

No one questions the basic concept that a police officer has a right to respond if he/she has a reasonable belief that they are at substantial risk to their safety.

But first, what is a responsible belief? Apparently reasonable currently includes any hint or whim that such a risk might be present. This is ridiculous. Police are there to protect the public, not to walk around as
tiny, terrified, paranoid judges and juries on the very edge of self control. If many do this is a huge failure in their training. If some do after rigorous training then those individuals should be fired.

Recall that the police who beat Rodney King went through the video at the trial to try to claim that their actions were "reasonable."

"See here he lifts his hand off the ground here? The officer thought he was reaching for a weapon and so hit him with the baton"

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by BStrong

That wasn't what he said:

A riot is the language of the unheard

I saw MLK handing the guy the gun.

Agree to disagree I suppose.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Cop shines flashlight at news camera in broad daylight to prevent filming of an arrest.

Such petty little tyrants they are.

https://twitter.com/GigiGraciette/st...61535350599680

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Cop shines flashlight at news camera in broad daylight to prevent filming of an arrest.

Such petty little tyrants they are.

https://twitter.com/GigiGraciette/st...61535350599680

Bogus!
I want to see the face of the person getting arrested too!

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Darat

Not according to you or Shutit. You are both saying that non police have to have more restraint than police officers and the reasonable criteria is higher for the non police.

nope.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Giordano

It damn well should be. Or why don’t we just hand out guns to random citizens, tell them to enforce a written list of the laws, and wish them luck?

With some modification, that is what we have done.

Seems there are no "superheroes" IRL. so we have to rely on other mere mortals to do this job.
works amazingly well given the limitations.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Giordano

It damn well should be. Or why don’t we just hand out guns to random citizens, tell them to enforce a written list of the laws, and wish them luck?

That's how it is supposed to work.

As opposed to "hand guns to a bunch of people who self-select for having power issues, train them to be paranoid defenders of their own safety, and send them into places they don't live and are full of people from a totally different background and have them enforce laws" which has worked so well.

That the laws don't much serve the people they are enforced against is the next level, but that sentence was run-on enough.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I am aware of that.

That is defined by the Washington Post. If you are found to have a weapon, even if you weren't using it, even if it was a toy, you don't count as unarmed.[/quote]

And therefore, you are misusing their database. The people creating the database have repeatedly pointed out that it's merely a small slice of police violence, used because gunfire killings are the slice that are most likely to get reported in newspapers (even though - or rather, because - violent harassment that does not involve this is vastly more common).

Quote:

The Washington Post database only goes back to 2015, so that case isn't on there.

Thus, my statement.


It is possible. As I said, with several of the white people getting shot cases all I have is "the was an altercation". I don't think I've seen a case in 2019 that matches your description on the evidence available.[/quote]

Again, this is so routine that judges in many areas simply toss out many prosecution attempts on sight - such as "resisting arrest" with no separate charge.

It would be much more common on the list for the taser not to stop them and for the person who got shot to then fight off several cops and try to get one of their guns. I can't think of any in 2019 that match your description.

Quote:

No indeed, I was just looking at the Washington Post database of police shooting deaths. They don't seem to match well with your description of police shooting people because they twitched when they were tased.

They don't need to be shot and killed. Merely being charged with "resisting arrest" or "assaulting an officer" is enough to ruin lives in many cases. And sometimes not even that much is needed, as we've seen with Fred Watson's persecution in Ferguson Missouri. After five years based on nonsense, during which he lost a high-paying job, a security clearance, and his house, prosecutors just...dropped the matter.

Again, merely counting "people killed by police gunfire" severely underplays the problem. Again, Black Lives Matter was started when Trayvon Martin's murderer, a racist wannabe vigilante who had never been a cop, was acquitted following a lazy Police captain's cavalier dismissal and a goofball prosecution. It does *tend* to focus on police, since they're the state-entitled enablers of racist violence and ruin, but BLM activists have gone on to local, county, and state elections in order to change these matters from the inside as well.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Originally Posted by shuttlt

That is defined by the Washington Post. If you are found to have a weapon, even if you weren't using it, even if it was a toy, you don't count as unarmed.

And therefore, you are misusing their database.

Nonsense.

Originally Posted by Mumbles

The people creating the database have repeatedly pointed out that it's merely a small slice of police violence, used because gunfire killings are the slice that are most likely to get reported in newspapers (even though - or rather, because - violent harassment that does not involve this is vastly more common).

Sure, and I am using it to get an idea of what cases of police shooting to death unarmed people there were over the course of a year is. That is within the scope of the database and is a lot more methodical than what anybody else here is doing. I don't see an obvious racial divide, though that isn't to say it's not there. People getting shot "just for going for their wallet" if it happens is a small fraction of the whole.

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The Washington Post database only goes back to 2015, so that case isn't on there.

Thus, my statement.

I can't get a sense of the shootings of unarmed people that took place in 2019 because the database doesn't go back before 2015? I don't follow.

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It is possible. As I said, with several of the white people getting shot cases all I have is "the was an altercation". I don't think I've seen a case in 2019 that matches your description on the evidence available.

Again, this is so routine that judges in many areas simply toss out many prosecution attempts on sight - such as "resisting arrest" with no separate charge.

Perhaps. I was looking at police killings of unarmed suspects though. What is clear from that is people being shot "just for reaching for their wallet" is vanishingly rare.

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Quote:

It would be much more common on the list for the taser not to stop them and for the person who got shot to then fight off several cops and try to get one of their guns. I can't think of any in 2019 that match your description.

They don't need to be shot and killed. Merely being charged with "resisting arrest" or "assaulting an officer" is enough to ruin lives in many cases. And sometimes not even that much is needed, as we've seen with Fred Watson's persecution in Ferguson Missouri. After five years based on nonsense, during which he lost a high-paying job, a security clearance, and his house, prosecutors just...dropped the matter.

Sure, but I was looking at police killings of unarmed people to try and get a sense of what is going on. Otherwise one ends up drowning in anecdotes with no sense of what is going on.

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Again, merely counting "people killed by police gunfire" severely underplays the problem. Again, Black Lives Matter was started when Trayvon Martin's murderer, a racist wannabe vigilante who had never been a cop, was acquitted following a lazy Police captain's cavalier dismissal and a goofball prosecution. It does *tend* to focus on police, since they're the state-entitled enablers of racist violence and ruin, but BLM activists have gone on to local, county, and state elections in order to change these matters from the inside as well.

Yes, that is the BLM version of it. I don't intend to get drawn in to reanalysing Trayvon Martin. In a country as big as the US, you are always going to have shocking cases whose verdict you disagree with.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Originally Posted by Darat

Not according to you or Shutit. You are both saying that non police have to have more restraint than police officers and the reasonable criteria is higher for the non police.

nope.

Agreed.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by BStrong

That wasn't what he said:

A riot is the language of the unheard

no **** sherlock!

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Thank you for the masterclass in missing the point.

Firefighting is dangerous work. Policing is dangerous work. It’s in the job description.

Certainly

Originally Posted by johnny karate

No one in either profession should be mitigating that danger at the expense of civilian lives and safety. And if they are, those individuals should no longer be allowed in that profession.

That is not the case. A firefighter who is reckless with their own safety potentially puts their colleagues at risk. Firefighters are sometimes disciplined for taking excessive risks that they are not supposed to take. It is the same with cops.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

That's how it is supposed to work.

As opposed to "hand guns to a bunch of people who self-select for having power issues, train them to be paranoid defenders of their own safety, and send them into places they don't live and are full of people from a totally different background and have them enforce laws" which has worked so well.

That the laws don't much serve the people they are enforced against is the next level, but that sentence was run-on enough.

The laws aren't sup[posed to serve the people they are enforced against.
they are supposed to served the people that write the laws against them.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Darat

Not according to you or Shutit. You are both saying that non police have to have more restraint than police officers and the reasonable criteria is higher for the non police.

What I expect is for there to be a threshold to use lethal force in both cases of a reasonable belief that serious harm or death is coming their way and reasonably believe that the level of force is appropriate. Different circumstances will get you a different amount of the way to a reasonable belief. If a cop forces you to pull over that is going to get you a different amount of the way to reasonable belief to if you force a cop to pull over. That isn't to say that that alone might necessarily be enough, but it would be crazy to view both of those as the same.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

With some modification, that is what we have done.

Seems there are no "superheroes" IRL. so we have to rely on other mere mortals to do this job.
works amazingly well given the limitations.

I know you think it is working amazingly well. I don’t think so. I don’t believe you would think so if these “unavoidable errors” were your son, or brother, or friend instead of a cold statistic.

[JoeMorgue]

So here's an honest question.

Black police officers. I mean, that's a thing right?

I did some Googling trying to fine any hard statistics as to what percentage of cops of black and don't really get anything concrete enough to trust, but I mean it's like tiny. "Black Cop" isn't exactly an albino Bigfood riding a Unicorn level of rare occurance.

I mean, yeah obviously they aren't a collective with the same opinion but you'd figure a vague feeling of their general view on all this would at least be an interesting data point if nothing else.

[Shadowdweller]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So here's an honest question.

Black police officers. I mean, that's a thing right?

The significance thereof being....what, exactly?

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So here's an honest question.

Black police officers. I mean, that's a thing right?

I did some Googling trying to fine any hard statistics as to what percentage of cops of black and don't really get anything concrete enough to trust, but I mean it's like tiny. "Black Cop" isn't exactly an albino Bigfood riding a Unicorn level of rare occurance.

I mean, yeah obviously they aren't a collective with the same opinion but you'd figure a vague feeling of their general view on all this would at least be an interesting data point if nothing else.

It is a well-known phenomenon that victims of childhood abuse/neglect, like victims of racism, will often internalize the memes directed at them. Thus the rather otherwise inexplicable undercurrent present in US Black culture of preference for lighter tone skin, for example. Finding one of these in one's own thoughts is often cause for great pain and consternation, leading potentially to even more self-hate.

Whereas "Black conservative" is no example of drawing on and acquiescing to the above, "Black Trump supporter" most definitely is (or of personal stupidity).

As for police officers in particular, there are few better examples of in-group culture and maximal peer pressure than that of the police in modern society, people whose experience of others is in the form of one perp after another. No surprise that Asian and Black police become part of that. I recall one young Manhattan Assistant DA, a school chum, telling me some years back, and with surprising conviction and passion, "Everyone's a criminal."