It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police threat in US too high

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Here at ATS hardly a day goes by that we do not see a questionable shooting of an US citizen by our protectors in law enforcement. One must ask themselves are the bad guys wearing blue, how hard is it for criminal gangs to infiltrate i.e. become law enforcement officers. In todays society it would seem the badge is an I can do anything card that puts officers above and beyond laws, now how many criminals would love to have that immunity? How many criminals do carry a badge, how many social paths carry a badge? It is time to make LEO's accountable and to make sure they are held responsible for their crimes, good cops should welcome a criminal free law enforcement, not fighting against it!


We are constantly reminded of how dangerous it is to be a police officer. A total of 50 police officers were reportedly killed last year in the “line of duty,” but the police themselves managed to kill 1,029 Americans during the same time period, most of whom were unarmed and innocent of wrongdoings.



According to news reports, during eight years of what is called the Iraq War more US citizens were murdered by the police than US soldiers were killed in the war. In other words, US police are a greater threat to Americans than enemy forces are to US soldiers who have invaded a foreign country.


source




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Police threat possibly higher then (how dare I say): terrorist threat?

Have the police killed more then the terrorists?

Maybey you're all fighting a war against the police and you should be more vigilant but not for terrorists.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Not really buying. I don't live in fear of the police. Never have. I don't know anyone who is scared of the police. But I live in a rural area where the police are our neighbors and have kids in the same school. Also I don't break any laws except occasionally going 5MPH over the speed limit.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

A group that places themselves above the law is an enemy of the law.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Well, for starters, your second quoted paragraph is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Soldiers and other Service Members are trained well in both offensive and defensive tactics, and it's much easier not to die when you're capable and trained to fire back at the opposition. Your average criminal--let's use Mike Brown as an example--is neither trained well in offensive nor defensive techniques, so when they (often times) do something stupid that gets them shot, you can't compare that to a trained Soldier on the battlefield. (nor is comparing LEOs to "the enemy" an appropriate generalization, but I'm obviously in the minority on that issue in this forum)

As for the premise of your entire argument, let's take a look at this article from Politifact:


Flynn, who headed the police departments in Arlington, Va., and Springfield, Mass., before becoming Milwaukee’s chief in 2008, is known nationally for his use of data.

When we asked for evidence for Flynn’s claim, a Milwaukee police spokesman cited two FBI reports. Both are from 2012, the most recent full-year statistics available.

There were 12,196,959 arrests across the country in 2012, which means the figure Flynn used -- 12,197,000 -- was rounded up only slightly.

The highest numbers of those arrests were for drug abuse violations, driving under the influence and larceny-theft.

There were also 410 cases of justifiable homicide in 2012, according to the FBI, which defines justifiable homicide as the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. For example: A police officer responding to a bank robbery alarm who shot a suspect after the suspect fired at the officer.

But that doesn’t taken into account all police killings of citizens.

FiveThirtyEight.com, a news website devoted to data analysis, recently reported that the 410 is a minimum figure. The numbers are self-reported by local police agencies and not audited, not all police agencies report those figures to the FBI and the number doesn’t include homicides that weren’t ruled justifiable.


So, to be fair--because we all want to deny ignorance, right?--let's err on the side of caution and multiply that 410 figure by 20 and make it 8,200 officer-involved killings. Even at 8,200 deaths for the year, that still "only" (and I use that term cautiously) equates to 0.06% of all LEO arrests from the year 2012 ending in an officer-involved shooting. And, quite frankly, I think that multiplying that 410 reported number by 20 is a tall exaggeration, but one I'm willing to do it to make a point. Hell, even at 50 times the 410 figure, that's "only" 0.16% of all arrests ending in a death by cop.

I fully, 100% agree that ANY unjustifiable homicide at the hands of an officer in the line of duty is an absolute reason to be outraged and hit the streets (lawfully and peacefully), but why can't we also focus on the 99.94% (or higher) of officers who handle arrests that end as they should? Isn't that a better indication of the "police state" of America?

In any other sort of statistics, a (generously increased number, mind you) 0.06% figure in a statistic would be considered an anomoly and not even part of the equation. Again, I fully understand that this pertains to human life and the (sometimes) unnecessary loss of it, but can you please just step back and take a look at those numbers and then seriously tell me that you still think the police threat in the U.S. is so high that you need to start a thread about it?

By all means, let's be outraged about the Garner case or the Rice case (possibly...still not enough visual evidence to convince me he wasn't acting in what could be rationally construed as an aggressive manner), but we must stay focused and not let emotion tell us things like the Michael Brown shooting was blatant overuse of force by a racist cop. Not all shootings are unjustified, and not all cops are bad guys out to get us.
edit on 14-1-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

FTA:


In other words, any encounter between the public and the police is more than 20 times more dangerous for the public than for the police.



The URL below provides two short videos of Montana police officer Grant Morrison shooting to death in separate incidents two unarmed drivers pulled over by Morrison in routine traffic stops. In both cases, Morrison’s first actions are to scream obscenities and pull the trigger. Morrison comes across as completely crazed. It is inexplicable that Montana permits an armed lunatic to roam the streets pulling over cars. You try doing that. Clearly the police are privileged and, thereby, unaccountable.

www.dailykos.com... ail=email


Yes, I think that our our LE needs to be reined in and held accountable.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Well, for starters, your second quoted paragraph is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Soldiers and other Service Members are trained well in both offensive and defensive tactics, and it's much easier not to die when you're capable and trained to fire back at the opposition. Your average criminal--let's use Mike Brown as an example--is neither trained well in offensive nor defensive techniques, so when they (often times) do something stupid that gets them shot, you can't compare that to a trained Soldier on the battlefield. (nor is comparing LEOs to "the enemy" an appropriate generalization, but I'm obviously in the minority on that issue in this forum)

As for the premise of your entire argument, let's take a look at this article from Politifact:


Flynn, who headed the police departments in Arlington, Va., and Springfield, Mass., before becoming Milwaukee’s chief in 2008, is known nationally for his use of data.

When we asked for evidence for Flynn’s claim, a Milwaukee police spokesman cited two FBI reports. Both are from 2012, the most recent full-year statistics available.

There were 12,196,959 arrests across the country in 2012, which means the figure Flynn used -- 12,197,000 -- was rounded up only slightly.

The highest numbers of those arrests were for drug abuse violations, driving under the influence and larceny-theft.

There were also 410 cases of justifiable homicide in 2012, according to the FBI, which defines justifiable homicide as the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. For example: A police officer responding to a bank robbery alarm who shot a suspect after the suspect fired at the officer.

But that doesn’t taken into account all police killings of citizens.

FiveThirtyEight.com, a news website devoted to data analysis, recently reported that the 410 is a minimum figure. The numbers are self-reported by local police agencies and not audited, not all police agencies report those figures to the FBI and the number doesn’t include homicides that weren’t ruled justifiable.


So, to be fair--because we all want to deny ignorance, right?--let's err on the side of caution and multiply that 410 figure by 20 and make it 8,200 officer-involved killings. Even at 8,200 deaths for the year, that still "only" (and I use that term cautiously) equates to 0.06% of all LEO arrests from the year 2012 ending in an officer-involved shooting. And, quite frankly, I think that multiplying that 410 reported number by 20 is a tall exaggeration, but one I'm willing to do it to make a point. Hell, even at 50 times the 410 figure, that's "only" 0.16% of all arrests ending in a death by cop.

I fully, 100% agree that ANY unjustifiable homicide at the hands of an officer in the line of duty is an absolute reason to be outraged and hit the streets (lawfully and peacefully), but why can't we also focus on the 99.94% (or higher) of officers who handle arrests that end as they should? Isn't that a better indication of the "police state" of America?

In any other sort of statistics, a (generously increased number, mind you) 0.06% figure in a statistic would be considered an anomoly and not even part of the equation. Again, I fully understand that this pertains to human life and the (sometimes) unnecessary loss of it, but can you please just step back and take a look at those numbers and then seriously tell me that you still think the police threat in the U.S. is so high that you need to start a thread about it?

By all means, let's be outraged about the Garner case or the Rice case (possibly...still not enough visual evidence to convince me he wasn't acting in what could be rationally construed as an aggressive manner), but we must stay focused and not let emotion tell us things like the Michael Brown shooting was blatant overuse of force by a racist cop. Not all shootings are unjustified, and not all cops are bad guys out to get us.
so in your oppion with your numbers...6 in 100 arrests resulting in death is acceptable?

What kind of pos thinks that 6 out of 100 arrests, when america allows officers to arrest folks for very minor crimes like jay walking, is acceptable.

Btw these are your numbers.

.06 is 6 in 100.

You stated as high as .16 16 in 100 is fine with you....what kind if monster are you?

Even communist russia did not brag about death rates this high.


Your entire mindset is way wrong here.

You need a psych eval and meds at minimum.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Not really buying. I don't live in fear of the police. Never have. I don't know anyone who is scared of the police. But I live in a rural area where the police are our neighbors and have kids in the same school. Also I don't break any laws except occasionally going 5MPH over the speed limit.


Law Enforcement Agencies don’t have any people with good consciences serving within them currently. So even if good people with consciences try to enact grass-root change from within, they are simply be denied entry to the agency or get quickly removed from the ranks through various legal and administrative means:

LEOs are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local government authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on their behalf)
5. Protecting the private property of large land owners within their jurisdiction, that also contribute to and participate in local politics
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from consequences and the citizens are picking up the tab. Its that simple, but no one understands this, nor are many willing to accept these facts. Also most importantly, that’s how Fascism works and in turn uses domestic police forces. This is the simplest answer that nearly everyone continues to ignore.

We should ALL be trying to de-fund police departments, instead of trying to prosecute their employees or change laws. Such measures have proven overwhelming to be ineffective. De-funding police departments is perfectly legal and solves the bad apple problem MUCH faster, than legal action in the court system.

Activists should be finding ways to legally cut the budget for NYPD and all the other PD's acting illegally, forming their own PAC's (Political Action Committee) focused on chipping away at this single Budget reduction issue, little by little. Cutting off the money supply will stop them cold in their tracks.

I can post news articles and old threads from ATS ALL DAY LONG. LEO's can kill whomever they want, most get off Scott free, some get reprimanded and even fewer see jail time. Kids, dogs, elderly, mental disabled, doesn't matter, they have a licensee to kill and the "good cops", judges and DA's let it happen.

Note, NONE of these officers "protecting & serving" have left their positions or the profession out of "guilt" for their crimes/mistakes.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Not really buying. I don't live in fear of the police. Never have. I don't know anyone who is scared of the police. But I live in a rural area where the police are our neighbors and have kids in the same school. Also I don't break any laws except occasionally going 5MPH over the speed limit.


In a fascist state, the law becomes a tool for social and economic repression. MJ/hemp, as an example, was a law written to oppress "Mexicans" (which became the common term for latin people, whether claiming ethnic indian heritage, or claiming national heritage regardless of it being Mexico or not). America has always been a little xenophobic to one degree or another. Right now it is middle eastern people everyone is up in arms over. At one time it was latin people. So laws were written criminalizing a socio-ethnic variable.

The Jim Crow Laws are a well known example.

I do not allow the law to be used as evidence in judgement of morality. The law is subjective and petty, worrying itself more with protecting an individual from himself than from his government.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Can I be your friend?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Not really buying. I don't live in fear of the police. Never have. I don't know anyone who is scared of the police. But I live in a rural area where the police are our neighbors and have kids in the same school. Also I don't break any laws except occasionally going 5MPH over the speed limit.


So your location represents how it is for every other city or town in the USA. Not really buying.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Rural areas tend to be quieter in this regard than urban areas. Go to both for cretain lengths of time. I can all but guarantee you that rural folk on both sides of this fence act more civilised.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

quoting source article:
"That should raise questions about the absence of restraint on the ability of police to use deadly force as a first resort. Yet authorities and white communities invariably defend police violence against the public."

Didn't much care for that paragraph, as it sounded kind of racist.

Racial overtones aside, this is a big problem for our country, "white communities" too.
Certainly racism factors in, but I think the bigger problem is what I call the "Culture Of Militant Policing". You know, it's us versus them, these crims are all scumbags, etc. etc. I'm not saying all cops are bigots, but these notions are programmed in, sometimes below the level of the programee's conscious awareness of it. Add in the fact that an LEO needs to remain somewhat detatched to do his job effectively, the fact that most of the people he encounters in his duties won't be happy to see him, and the fact that he likely becomes detatched from the mainstream in his personal life due to the nature of his work. Throw on top of all that the fact that abuse of authority breeds contempt for that authority(rightly so), and we've got a pretty toxic cocktail for the prescription of insuring domestic tranquility. A person so encumbered truly is not the ideal candidate to address the nation's social problems.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Not buying either.

Source references data from a website that claims to have better data than the FBI.

And then there's this gem of a quote from the source:

In other words, any encounter between the public and the police is more than 20 times more dangerous for the public than for the police.

That's really stupid logic. What''s the goal?

The encounters between suspects and criminals are supposed to be more dangerous for the criminals.

Of course there are horrible incidents that are inexcusable. Nobody questions that.

But really? How about the odds of getting killed by police if you don't resist arrest? If you just do what they tell you instead of pulling out a gun or fiddling in your belt or pulling out knives?

Wonder what the stats are on that.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

By all means, immediately rid the system of officers like Grant Morrison if his shootings are not warranted, but I watched both videos, and the first video with the four guys in the car appears to be another instance of people being ignorant as to the types of actions that can get you shot by LEO. If you think the officer should have known that there was or was not a weapon just by trusting words from people he doesn't know or by intuition or clairvoyance, you're making such a leap in logic that it's impossible to even discuss.

I'm not going to, yet again, discuss how people who are not trained to handle these situation, yet pretend to speak with authority on them, are akin to a Monday-morning quarterback with 20/20 hindsight vision on the situation, but that's exactly what you are doing.

Unprofessional language aside, the officer responded as trained--he didn't just skip up to the car, whistling and singing "f**k you" to these people and then just opened fire for no reason. To pretend that is the case is simply unrealistic. And the same goes for the second video.

In both instances of the videos in your link, it wasn't the officer acting irrationally and irresponsibly, it was the people that he pulled over. If you have never been in such a situation, you just wouldn't understand it at all. If you have and survived without using your weapon, well, kudos to you for having luck on your side that the individual didn't harm or kill you. It's absolutely unfortunate that there was a death-by-shooting in both instances, but to lay the blame solely at the officer's feet is irresponsible at best, and a completely incorrect assessment if the goal is an objective point of view.

BTW, posting a "Daily Kos" video is like citing only Wikipedia as a source--that site never tells the full story, and its conclusions are usually ill-conceived.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder
so in your oppion with your numbers...6 in 100 arrests resulting in death is acceptable?

What kind of pos thinks that 6 out of 100 arrests, when america allows officers to arrest folks for very minor crimes like jay walking, is acceptable.

Btw these are your numbers.

.06 is 6 in 100.

You stated as high as .16 16 in 100 is fine with you....what kind if monster are you?

Even communist russia did not brag about death rates this high.


Your entire mindset is way wrong here.

You need a psych eval and meds at minimum.


Holy hell, where to begin with this one.

Let's start with a math lesson, okay? Do you understand the difference between .06 (which is indeed 6/100...good job there) and 0.06 per cent, which is .06/100? That's right, .06% is actually .0006, which makes it 6 in 10,000, or to break it down to the least common denominator, we're look at 3 deaths for every 5,000 arrests, or to simplify it even a little further for you (as apparently is necessary), 1 in every 1,667 deaths.

Statistically speaking, yes, that is an extremely acceptable number, as I'm not ignorant enough to believe that (a) all of the officer-involved shootings are unwarranted (and neither is the data I used in my original story, I just rounded up from 410 to include an estimated number...and remember, I multiplied 410 by TWENTY, so I'm guessing even the .06% (or 6 in 10,000) is over-exagerrated.

If you use a more realistic number of officer-involved deaths, like multiplying by 10 instead of 20, you'd end up with .03% of all arrests ending up in an officer-involded shooting death. Simplified, that's 1 in every 3,333 arrests. Yes, that is acceptable.

So, I'm unconvinced that I need meds and psych eval as much as you apparently need to hit up sixth-grade math classes again to better understand what I did in breaking down the number. Yes, 6 in 100 arrests ending in death would be highly, HIGHLY unacceptable, but a more realistic number betwee 1/1667 and 1/3333 is much more acceptable, especially when you consider that many of them are justifiable actions by the officers.

Sorry if that ruins your ideology that all cops are bad, but if you completely disregard statistics or misrepresent my argument in order to try and make the truth back your point of view, those are both examples of logical fallacies that remove your input in the conversation from being rational or relevent.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo
Law Enforcement Agencies don’t have any people with good consciences serving within them currently.


Well, at least your first sentence let me know that your entire comment would be pointless to read.

Just a word of advice: If you build an argument that starts on a foundation of bulls**t, it's always going to collapse on itself.

You'd do yourself well to look at the statistical data I posted earlier in this thread and use that to make a decision instead of your news articles and old threads, especially since more than half of them are misidentified by the ignorant as being improper use of force.

But to each their own, I guess, but keep in mind that using emotion to form conclusions usually leads one down the incorrect path.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
But really? How about the odds of getting killed by police if you don't resist arrest? If you just do what they tell you instead of pulling out a gun or fiddling in your belt or pulling out knives?

Wonder what the stats are on that.


There aren't any stats avaiable because police departments have colluded to not collect the data in the first place.

This has been tried already, by many individual people, law firms and human rights organizations. The main issue is that the data simply doesn't exist, either it was never collected in the first place or it was "thrown away" or "lost". This also doesn't include the various known stonewalling tactics to prevent release.

Appeals Court Denies Chicago Police Effort To Shield Controversial Records

As a nation we need to pass a federal law that requires police departments to keep data and evidence on file and/or in physical storage in perpetuity. No auctions, no disposal, just an ever growing data storage and warehousing of digital and physical assets. I personally don't care what it costs either because police are so corrupt today, we have no other choices. If something gets lost or thrown away, the result should be jail time for the last responsible person and a fine for the department/jurisdiction responsible.


originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You'd do yourself well to look at the statistical data I posted earlier in this thread and use that to make a decision instead of your news articles and old threads, especially since more than half of them are misidentified by the ignorant as being improper use of force.


See my above comment and review the articles noted below, which synopsize court cases. They are NOT merely "news articles" as you suggest:

America's Lack of a Police Behavior Database Is a Disgrace.

In terms of the use of lethal force, aggregate statistics on incidents of all types are difficult to obtain from official sources.

Also, did you even look at the source data from the FBI? The Law Enforcement Agencies SELF REPORT the data. Kinda tough to do such a task accurately when you NEVER collected the data in the first place:

Officials with the Justice Department keep no comprehensive database or record of police shootings, instead allowing the nation’s more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies to self-report officer-involved shootings as part of the FBI’s annual data on “justifiable homicides” by law enforcement.

Here is a counter point to your assertions, readers of this post can decide for themselves:

Nowhere could I find out how many people died during interactions with police in the United States.


originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Well, at least your first sentence let me know that your entire comment would be pointless to read.


If these LEO's that kill civilians really cared and were not sociopaths, they'd quit the job as soon as they killed someone on accident, even if legally cleared. Note, very few if ANY of these officers "protecting & serving" have left their positions or the profession out of "guilt" for their crimes/mistakes. The fact that they just suck it up and keep on driving, assures me that they are NOT sane. Its nothing like being in the military where you can be jailed and prosecuted for not following a legal order to "kill the enemy".

LEO's CAN QUIT ANYTIME THEY WANT TO and when they don't after doing something unconscionable, it strongly suggests that they are potentially dangerous to the public. They aren't under the same rules as Eddie Slovik, whom was the last conscripted, active duty, pacifist, executed by firing squad (there were others before him as well). So when these LEO's keep working in the same role, after killing a civilian, I can't help but assume that the individual is a sociopath, out for the "power of the position" and not for "protecting & serving" civilians.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone, By LINDA GREENHOUSE, Published June 28, 2005

So, is it true or false that Officers abiding by Law Enforcement Agencies written and unwritten policies are likely to encourage the following whenever possible (note, I wouldn't suggest that half of these things are true about fire departments, for example):

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local government authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on their behalf)
5. Protecting the private property of large land owners within their jurisdiction, that also contribute to and participate in local politics
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.
edit on 15-1-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

Did you even look at my original post that I mentioned? I made liberal calculations to take into effect that lack of reporting by local law-enforcement offices. I went as far to do the calculations at 50 times what the reported number to the FBI was in 2012 (the most recent data I could find and was supported by a relative link).

While I highly doubt that the amount of on-duty, officer-involved deaths is 20,500 in one year, even at that presumably exaggerated number, that's still "only" (again, term used loosely) one-sixteenth of one percent of all arrests in 2012 resulting in a deadly use of force by an LEO--and that still doesn't account for the ones that are easily justifiable by the evidence associated with the case.

So, you see, I must assume that you did not read the post I refrenced you to see, so here is the math part of it in its entirety:


So, to be fair--because we all want to deny ignorance, right?--let's err on the side of caution and multiply that 410 figure by 20 and make it 8,200 officer-involved killings. Even at 8,200 deaths for the year, that still "only" (and I use that term cautiously) equates to 0.06% of all LEO arrests from the year 2012 ending in an officer-involved shooting. And, quite frankly, I think that multiplying that 410 reported number by 20 is a tall exaggeration, but one I'm willing to do it to make a point. Hell, even at 50 times the 410 figure, that's "only" 0.16% of all arrests ending in a death by cop.

I fully, 100% agree that ANY unjustifiable homicide at the hands of an officer in the line of duty is an absolute reason to be outraged and hit the streets (lawfully and peacefully), but why can't we also focus on the 99.84% (or higher) of officers who handle arrests that end as they should? Isn't that a better indication of the "police state" of America?

In any other sort of statistics, a (generously increased number, mind you) 0.06% figure in a statistic would be considered an anomoly and not even part of the equation. Again, I fully understand that this pertains to human life and the (sometimes) unnecessary loss of it, but can you please just step back and take a look at those numbers and then seriously tell me that you still think the police threat in the U.S. is so high that you need to start a thread about it?

By all means, let's be outraged about the Garner case or the Rice case (possibly...still not enough visual evidence to convince me he wasn't acting in what could be rationally construed as an aggressive manner), but we must stay focused and not let emotion tell us things like the Michael Brown shooting was blatant overuse of force by a racist cop. Not all shootings are unjustified, and not all cops are bad guys out to get us.


So, you see, you'll have to excuse me if I don't regard your rhetoric and concerns as slightly (at best) inflammatory and not supported by available data. I fully understand your concerns, but you can't just throw that blanket over the entirety of U.S. law enforcement offices and their officers, as it's a blatantly false assumption based purely on an ideological viewpoint of what LEOs are based on far less than half of one percent of all incidences with officers.

Does that sound logical in the least?

No, and my comment about the foundation of your argument still stands.
edit on 15-1-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I made liberal calculations to take into effect that lack of reporting by local law-enforcement offices. I went as far to do the calculations at 50 times what the reported number to the FBI was in 2012 (the most recent data I could find and was supported by a relative link).

While I highly doubt that the amount of on-duty, officer-involved deaths is 20,500 in one year, even at that presumably exaggerated number, that's still "only" (again, term used loosely) one-sixteenth of one percent of all arrests in 2012 resulting in a deadly use of force by an LEO--and that still doesn't account for the ones that are easily justifiable by the evidence associated with the case.

So, you see, I must assume that you did not read the post I referenced you to see, so here is the math part of it in its entirety:

No, and my comment about the foundation of your argument still stands.


Your argument, stands on what, exactly?

The data you keep citing is based on ARRESTS,
NOT, "belligerent old guy shot in a nursing home",
NOT "disabled teen shot in home during disturbance call",
NOT "sleeping child shot in the head during no-knock warrant at the wrong address"
NOT "teen shot answering the front door with weapon shaped game controller in hand"
NOT "flash-banged baby survives blast from LEO's, but is deformed for life"
NOT, "officer intends to shoot loose dog, but hits nearby kid instead"

Are the above scenarios tracked as "arrests" or something else?

Also the topic here is about LEO "threat to civilians", last I checked "threaten" does not always equal "death". A person can be threatened on a regular basis and still will not necessarily end up dead after numerous and successful "threats"

Please feel free to clarify how these types of LEO induced, civilian deaths/accidents, unconnected specifically to arrests, are "self-reported" by individual agencies and are then classified and recorded by the FBI.
edit on 15-1-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join