or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 117

post #1741 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The linked website also points out that black men are ~4x more likely to be killed by police than whites.

But blacks are (at least) eight times more likely to commit murder, which is what police shootings are supposed to prevent. Based on that I'd say the cops are racist against white people.
post #1742 of 6083
Turk, don't you know there is a War Against White Male Attorneys in this country.

The WAWMA is real and terrifying. Holder, Crump and Gloria Allred get a pass. You and Falcon are in the crosshairs.
post #1743 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Turk, don't you know there is a War Against White Male Attorneys in this country.

The WAWMA is real and terrifying. Holder, Crump and Gloria Allred get a pass. You and Falcon are in the crosshairs.

You joke, but I get pulled over at least twice a month by cops fucking with me.
post #1744 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

You joke, but I get pulled over at least twice a month by cops fucking with me.

Sounds like DWB.

Well, I never asked you this Falcon.

Are you a Maltese Falcon? Black, that is!
post #1745 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

But blacks are (at least) eight times more likely to commit murder, which is what police shootings are supposed to prevent. Based on that I'd say the cops are racist against white people.
Quote:
How many of them are actually justified (attacks on officers, etc) isn't included in there, so who knows

This just goes back to the point that we really should have the full details of every shooting involving police. Currently all we have is sources with significant bias and serious holes. Given the context of police shootings, there's not much reason why we shouldn't expect a relatively decent description of the events. Was the victim/suspect armed, was there conflict with the officer or anyone else, etc. These aren't gangbanger murders happening in some dark hole, we should reasonably expect the details to come out from a neutral source.

There's a pretty healthy list of unarmed people who were killed, so I'm going to presuppose that nobody was actually in danger of being murdered in (edit: many of) those shootings. Only ten officers have been beaten to death in the last decade, so it's not a particularly common way to go.

Only 13 stabbings too. It's pretty much all guns and auto crashes.
Edited by Gibonius - 4/15/15 at 3:59pm
post #1746 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Sounds like DWB.

Well, I never asked you this Falcon.

Are you a Maltese Falcon? Black, that is!

I'm as white as they get. German/Scandinavian. I drive a Jag-you-are.
post #1747 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

I'm as white as they get. German/Scandinavian. I drive a Jag-you-are.

Jags are the cars of villains now, aren't they?
post #1748 of 6083
I think this belongs here. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/travel/tsa-patdown-firings/index.html

Two TSA screening officers collude to grope the genitals of attractive men. How are they not up on sex charges?
post #1749 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

But blacks are (at least) eight times more likely to commit murder, which is what police shootings are supposed to prevent. Based on that I'd say the cops are racist against white people.

Michael Brown was a shoplifter; Garner was selling loose cigarettes; and the SC guy had a broken taillight and was behind on child support. And the other guy in NY (akai gurley)was just walking the stairs when he was shot by the nypd cops. None have murders in their background. Doesn't always seem like a good fit to your excuse.
post #1750 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

This just goes back to the point that we really should have the full details of every shooting involving police.

We do. There's just no one aggregating it reliably. And "the police" are not some monolithic entity. They're organized and controlled by states or localities, thousands of them.
Quote:
There's a pretty healthy list of unarmed people who were killed, so I'm going to presuppose that nobody was actually in danger of being murdered in (edit: many of) those shootings. Only ten officers have been beaten to death in the last decade, so it's not a particularly common way to go.

Only 13 stabbings too. It's pretty much all guns and auto crashes.

The fact that someone turns out to be unarmed isn't particularly relevant since there's rarely any way for the cops to know that for sure, unless the guy is naked, I guess.

According to a WAPO article I saw recently there's been an average of 50 cops killed per year by violence. I've seen it claimed that the police kill about 400 people per year--so that's eight to one. I asked you earlier what was a reasonable probability of death for the innocent party to have accept before using lethal force to protect himself. How's 12.5% sound?
post #1751 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

We do. There's just no one aggregating it reliably.
If you don't know where to look, it's awfully hard to say what we "know", much less do any meaningful analysis. From that article I posted, the national authorities won't even give journalists the contact information for local police forces without a hassle.
Quote:
And "the police" are not some monolithic entity. They're organized and controlled by states or localities, thousands of them.
That's sort of the point, isn't it? The system is so fractured that the national authorities should be stepping in to provide some transparency. Each individual organization (hopefully) isn't shooting enough people that mandated central reporting of shootings becomes a major overhead problem.
Quote:
The fact that someone turns out to be unarmed isn't particularly relevant since there's rarely any way for the cops to know that for sure, unless the guy is naked, I guess.
They're making those mistakes pretty damn frequently. I don't believe this is just a tragic and unavoidable consequence of widespread gun ownership by criminals. There's a damn lot of unarmed people getting shot because police are twitchy. "Yeah well, we couldn't have known for sure. Damn shame." doesn't cut it when an unarmed person gets killed by the exercise of state force.

Oh, and speaking of shooting naked guys. Turns out being naked isn't enough to be safe. Maybe you need to bend over and spread 'em.
Quote:
According to a WAPO article I saw recently there's been an average of 50 cops killed per year by violence. I've seen it claimed that the police kill about 400 people per year--so that's eight to one. I asked you earlier what was a reasonable probability of death for the innocent party to have accept before using lethal force to protect himself. How's 12.5% sound?
It's pretty specious to pretend that there's any meaningful relationship between those two numbers for any particular encounter. The actual probability of death or injury is basically unknowable for any particular event, short of "there are bullets in the air around me" situations. A cop shooting a guy for pulling out his cell phone is not offset by another office getting killed in a totally unrelated incident.

There's been a lot of analysis of the known questionable shoots recently, and one major pattern has come out. Younger officers are a lot more likely to shoot unarmed people than more seasoned officers. That pretty strongly hints that inability to properly analyze situations plays a major role in questionable shootings. The perceived risk by the officer is often tremendously out of line with reality (and according to the other article I posted, much of this is due to training hyping up the risks out of proportion). It's unreasonable to expect officers to perfectly analyze situations, but certainly seems to be evidence that police departments could change their training or hiring practices to reduce the number of bad shoots.


Probably shouldn't hire 73 year olds though.
post #1752 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

If you don't know where to look, it's awfully hard to say what we "know", much less do any meaningful analysis. From that article I posted, the national authorities won't even give journalists the contact information for local police forces without a hassle.
That's sort of the point, isn't it? The system is so fractured that the national authorities should be stepping in to provide some transparency. Each individual organization (hopefully) isn't shooting enough people that mandated central reporting of shootings becomes a major overhead problem.
The individual systems DO provide transparency. What you want are aggregations so you can make conclusions about one police department from statistics of others they have little or nothing to do with.
Quote:
They're making those mistakes pretty damn frequently. I don't believe this is just a tragic and unavoidable consequence of widespread gun ownership by criminals. There's a damn lot of unarmed people getting shot because police are twitchy. "Yeah well, we couldn't have known for sure. Damn shame." doesn't cut it when an unarmed person gets killed by the exercise of state force.

If someone reaches into his waistband and a cop shoots him, and it turns out he was just bluffing to provoke the cop, is that a "mistake"? The correctness of the cop's actions is not supposed to be judged by the ultimate result, but the circumstances as they appeared at the time. Uncertainty is the rule. It's just a question of degree. By definition if I'm half sure you're going to kill me, there's a 50% chance I'm wrong. The question is whether that's an acceptable risk for me to have to take. If you're the one that put us in that situation, I hope you'd say no.
Quote:
It's pretty specious to pretend that there's any meaningful relationship between those two numbers for any particular encounter. The actual probability of death or injury is basically unknowable for any particular event, short of "there are bullets in the air around me" situations. A cop shooting a guy for pulling out his cell phone is not offset by another office getting killed in a totally unrelated incident.

I admit it's not a perfect comparison, but if that's your position, why do you want statistics in the first place?
Quote:
There's been a lot of analysis of the known questionable shoots recently, and one major pattern has come out. Younger officers are a lot more likely to shoot unarmed people than more seasoned officers.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but younger officers are more likely to be in situations where they have to shoot. The more seniority you get, the less likely you are to be kicking in doors, stopping cars, cruising around looking for criminals, or the first on the scene of a 911 call. The young cops are the ones who can keep up with the bad guy when he runs. Etc.
Quote:
The perceived risk by the officer is often tremendously out of line with reality (and according to the other article I posted, much of this is due to training hyping up the risks out of proportion). It's unreasonable to expect officers to perfectly analyze situations, but certainly seems to be evidence that police departments could change their training or hiring practices to reduce the number of bad shoots.

A minute ago you didn't know what the number of bad shoots was, now you're saying there's too many?
post #1753 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

The individual systems DO provide transparency. What you want are aggregations so you can make conclusions about one police department from statistics of others they have little or nothing to do with.
If there's no list of individual departments and their statistics, no one would know to look at the ones that are troublesome. It's absurd to have to pull through thousands of individual localities to find which ones are actually bad actors. The point isn't just to lump everything together and scream about how awful police are.
Quote:
If someone reaches into his waistband and a cop shoots him, and it turns out he was just bluffing to provoke the cop, is that a "mistake"?

What convenient framing by Ataturk. Nah, nobody is actually reaching for a phone or wallet. They're trying to provoke the cops.
Quote:
By definition if I'm half sure you're going to kill me, there's a 50% chance I'm wrong.
So...the police's entirely personal and subjective assessment determines reality now. That must be a neat power.

The whole point is that the cop's assessment of risk is not necessarily correct, to the point of putting "very likely a threat" when the correct assessment is "not a threat at all." Nobody should be expecting perfect knowledge of a situation, but "yeah well any cop would have made the same mistake" (and the cops making that determination) is not a comforting system of after the fact analysis.
Quote:
I admit it's not a perfect comparison, but if that's your position, why do you want statistics in the first place?

Uhh....so we know how often police are utilizing the state monopoly of force, and in what circumstances? I mean, holy shit, how would you NOT want to know that? This isn't some "find reasons to shout about how black people are oppressed" crusade. This is investigating the possible and likely misuse of the biggest power our government has, killing it's own citizens. I'm honestly concerned that anyone wouldn't want to know.
Quote:
I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but younger officers are more likely to be in situations where they have to shoot. The more seniority you get, the less likely you are to be kicking in doors, stopping cars, cruising around looking for criminals, or the first on the scene of a 911 call. The young cops are the ones who can keep up with the bad guy when he runs. Etc.
According to the analysis, they (apparently) corrected for that. Of course, given the shitty data, who knows?
Quote:
A minute ago you didn't know what the number of bad shoots was, now you're saying there's too many?

We don't know the total number, but the number that is known is disturbingly large. The actual number is, by necessity, larger than that, which is not encouraging.
post #1754 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

If there's no list of individual departments and their statistics, no one would know to look at the ones that are troublesome.
So are you saying that the only way to determine whether a department is troublesome is to precisely compare it to others? I mean, surely, if you live somewhere, it isn't hard to keep up with the police are doing. Do you think the cops are killing people and no one ever finds out about it? It ain't happening.

It's real convenient too, since localities decide how they're policed.
Quote:
What convenient framing by Ataturk. Nah, nobody is actually reaching for a phone or wallet. They're trying to provoke the cops.

You're missing the point.
Quote:
So...the police's entirely personal and subjective assessment determines reality now. That must be a neat power.

Again. This is a convenient way to ignore points made against you.
Quote:
The whole point is that the cop's assessment of risk is not necessarily correct, to the point of putting "very likely a threat" when the correct assessment is "not a threat at all." Nobody should be expecting perfect knowledge of a situation, but "yeah well any cop would have made the same mistake" (and the cops making that determination) is not a comforting system of after the fact analysis.

I am not sure if you get it or not here. The relevant question is what the cop would perceive based on what he had available to him at the time he had to make the decision. If it turns out to be a wallet and not a gun, that doesn't mean the cop was necessarily wrong. I'm sorry if that's not comforting to you, but if you've got a better idea, I'm listening.

And somehow I doubt sociologists and social justice warriors are in a better position to decide whether a cop is really in danger than he is. If you really want to go back to the numbers, or what we've got them, cops kill 400 and get killed 50. You don't know what percentage of those 400 were necessary (but I think we can agree it's pretty high). Just what basis do you have to say that cops are poor judges of risk?
Quote:
Uhh....so we know how often police are utilizing the state monopoly of force, and in what circumstances?

But it's not a monopoly. "The state" is literally tens of thousands of independent localities. If you want your town policed a certain way, vote for somebody who'll make it happen. If you don't like the way Town A is policed, don't go there. The federal system is wonderful. We don't have to agree about everything to get along.
post #1755 of 6083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

According to a WAPO article I saw recently there's been an average of 50 cops killed per year by violence. I've seen it claimed that the police kill about 400 people per year--so that's eight to one. I asked you earlier what was a reasonable probability of death for the innocent party to have accept before using lethal force to protect himself. How's 12.5% sound?

That 400 deaths by police number is based off of FBI information which is incomplete. The FBI relies on voluntary partcipation by police departments and many don't participate. http://www.killedbypolice.net/, which combs news articles for killings by police, has 1100 deaths for 2014. It's information doesn't go very far back unfortunately, only to May 2013, so it's impossible to see if that number is an outlier or the norm.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?