Above the Law: The Data Are In on Police, Killing, and Race

Police killing is not the work of vigilant warriors defending society at great personal cost, and sometimes going too far. It is the day-in, day-out petty tyranny of a taxpayer-funded bureaucratic lobby group. The difference is that, unlike other public sector unions, police unions have military-grade equipment they can use to violently crush protests against their abuses, and they are legally immune from most consequences. They’re teachers’ unions, but with tanks and endless get-out-of-jail-free cards.

Source

Just came across this study done by Public Discourse (a conservative thinktank) and thought it was pretty interesting. It pretty much supports what a lot of the protesters are saying.

Over the past few decades police in this country have become more violent and it has nothing to do with an increase in violent crime. Furthermore, there does appear to be a racial bias in policing against black people.

The study concludes by stating that the only way to rein in police violence is to take away their safety net. Break up the police unions and get rid of things like qualified immunity. It also goes on to say that we need to stop giving police officers military ordinance. If we're going to equip these people le soldiers they're going to act like soldiers.

I know the data and conclusions of this study probably won't be popular on ATS but at least it comes from a source that might be more readily accepted and their methodology is laid out.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Exactly. The only way to teach a kid to do the right thing is to have real punishment with actual consequences.
Otherwise, how can you blame them for being bad?

Getting rid of the union safety net and the cronyism and showing them the same jail cell as anyone else would find, would be a good start.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

Police killing is not the work of vigilant warriors defending society at great personal cost, and sometimes going too far. It is the day-in, day-out petty tyranny of a taxpayer-funded bureaucratic lobby group. The difference is that, unlike other public sector unions, police unions have military-grade equipment they can use to violently crush protests against their abuses, and they are legally immune from most consequences. They’re teachers’ unions, but with tanks and endless get-out-of-jail-free cards.

Source

Just came across this study done by Public Discourse (a conservative thinktank) and thought it was pretty interesting. It pretty much supports what a lot of the protesters are saying.

Over the past few decades police in this country have become more violent and it has nothing to do with an increase in violent crime. Furthermore, there does appear to be a racial bias in policing against black people.

The study concludes by stating that the only way to rein in police violence is to take away their safety net. Break up the police unions and get rid of things like qualified immunity. It also goes on to say that we need to stop giving police officers military ordinance. If we're going to equip these people le soldiers they're going to act like soldiers.

I know the data and conclusions of this study probably won't be popular on ATS but at least it comes from a source that might be more readily accepted and their methodology is laid out.

I actually agree that the police policies need to be reformed.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

No great revelations here though, right?

Kinda what most folks are and have been saying for awhile.

Got to love that whoever authored that article did not know the difference between a "tank" and a quacking duck.
The military grade equipment is not military grade as all the weapons were removed before the police forces got them
See that APC in the photo ?
To make it military grade the M242 and the M240 would still be there.
Yes , it is armored , but no weaponry.
It was meant to provide protection to SWAT Teams in case of rioting .

at least it comes from a source that might be more readily accepted and their methodology is laid out.

Negative on that per the above information.

BTW , want to know which president provided the "tanks" to the police force ?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Giving you a S&F for bringing data to the table at least.

The very first chart I saw was "Count of Police Killings Over Time" going back to 1968, which is not in any way adjusting for population growth (US population has grown 50+% since then) or demographic shifts, so not very useful IMO. But I do see they followed up with more percentage-based data sets later on, which is more convincing of their point.

I would want to see this data overlaid with comparison of crime statistics and how they have changed over time to give us some sense if police are responding with more force whilst violent crime rates are falling or rising.

You also can't bring race of police killing into the equation without examining the share of crime by category. It looks like they do make some attempt to do that towards the end of the piece, but IDK, the figures they are putting out seem out of whack with information released by the FBI ("But on the other other hand, only about 22 percent of violent offenders are black " - I would like to know where they got that stat from).

Can you find any citations/foot notes from where the author pulled his data from? Was looking towards the bottom and didn't see any external links.

At least this article is an attempt to use data and analysis to support a position instead of "feelz" and hyperbolic accusations.

Burning Looting and Murder is preferable ? heard it all on npr

a reply to: Gothmog

BTW , want to know which president provided the "tanks" to the police force ?

Start with Nixon and the war on drugs.

Started ramping up big time under slick Willy and the CBC overwhelmingly supported it.

Former CBC Chair Who Voted For 1994 Crime Bill Tries to Cover Up His Role

Then Obama and the CBC struck again in 2014!

Problem now is that we have a certain group of people who feel they have a free pass to attack the police or anyone else whom they feel is offensive. Look at the rioting the past month. Look at CHAZ in Seattle, where a bunch of mentally ill people took over 6 city blocks and terrorized the citizens/business owners who live there.

I was dead against militarizing the police and my voice went unheard. Now we have rampaging mobs pulling down statues, burning down cities, taking over cities, assaulting people who don't think the right way etc etc.....

While we could have had a national discussion on police violence before, who in their right mind wants to hamstring the police(besides the politicians who have already neutered them to allow the current violence we are witnessing) from doing their job now?

Where we are at now is well planned and not an accident by any means.

a reply to: Gothmog

The militarization of the police is not a new phenomena but one that has steadily increased over the decades. The 1981 Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act, under Reagan, allowed police access to military equipment. The 1033 program, that was initiated in 1990 under Bush, has been used to transfer billions of dollars military equipment from the Pentagon to local law enforcement.

While every President has had their hand in militarizing the police, it's the two pieces of legislation that have really facilitated the process.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Got to love that whoever authored that article did not know the difference between a "tank" and a quacking duck.
The military grade equipment is not military grade as all the weapons were removed before the police forces got them
See that APC in the photo ?
To make it military grade the M242 and the M240 would still be there.
Yes , it is armored , but no weaponry.
It was meant to provide protection to SWAT Teams in case of rioting .

at least it comes from a source that might be more readily accepted and their methodology is laid out.

Negative on that per the above information.

BTW , want to know which president provided the "tanks" to the police force ?

Also fair to point out police armament changes were not done in a vacuum. Think about all of the incidents in the past 20 years involving mass shootings and terror attacks. Law enforcement agencies are getting advice from defense and intelligence agencies above them about contingencies they need to be prepared for.

The journalists decrying "police militarization" would be the EXACT same people ripping law enforcement should there be mass-scale attack by terrorists where the local police are out gunned. Recall the sophistication and raw firepower that the attack on Mumbai from Pakistani terrorists had. These are the types of events our intelligence people evaluate, and game plan for, and hence advise law enforcement agencies they could run up against.

They carried AK-56 assault rifles, a Chinese manufactured
copy of the Russian AK-47. It holds a 30-round magazine with a
firing rate of 600 to 650 rounds per minute. In addition, the
terrorists each carried a duffel bag loaded with extra
ammunition, an average of 300 to 400 rounds contained in as
many as 12 magazines, along with a half-dozen grenades and one
plastic explosive or IED.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Perhaps the first step to understanding the numbers -- and the phenomenom -- is to actually keep up-to-date and accurate records of ALL police killings, with details of the incident, and including the outcome (justified, not justified, criminal charges filed, etc.).

It is only because such records are NOT kept that this becomes a matter of opinion as opposed to fact.

And that is not an accident. These records are not kept in order to avoid incriminating the guilty and informing the public of what our police are really doing. And in the process, every police officer becomes suspect. So, in effect, good police are also tarred with the same broad brush as the bad police.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Great post.

Good article.

I have been known to have said in the past, and will say again...

The "Thin Blue Line" must fall. The gang mentality of 'them' vs 'us' is driving the wedge between society and police deeper. Law Enforcement needs to recognize this before it's too late!

Police Chiefs and Mayors need to take a lead on this. You will not get it from this administration.

Number of people killed by cops a year - 2,000. A high-ball estimate. (OP source)

Number of police/civilian interactions a year - 53,000,000. A low ball estimate. (BJS numbers for 2018)

Percentage of people killed by cops a year compared to interactions - 0.00003774. (Math)

Man, that’s really out of control isn’t it? Especially when you take into account the number of those killed who were armed and violently resisting.

Unions suck. An APC is just a truck with thick windows. They have their uses, but get over used. If qualified immunity is taken away, there will be absolutely zero discretion exercised from that day forward and the cops who stick around knowing they can get sued for nearly anything won’t be the kind of cops who can fix the issues of today. The problem isn’t qualified immunity, it’s the misapplication of it. Take it away entirely and it’ll be a whole different ball game that nobody will like.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Exactly. The only way to teach a kid to do the right thing is to have real punishment with actual consequences.
Otherwise, how can you blame them for being bad?

Getting rid of the union safety net and the cronyism and showing them the same jail cell as anyone else would find, would be a good start.

You hit on another part of the truth there.

Some of the problems we're having across the board start in the home with lack of proper parenting on all sides. Parents (or parent) who either don't know how to say no and apply discipline or who straight up don't want to preferring instead to be a friend.

a reply to: Shamrock6

If qualified immunity is taken away, there will be absolutely zero discretion exercised from that day forward and the cops who stick around knowing they can get sued for nearly anything won’t be the kind of cops who can fix the issues of today. The problem isn’t qualified immunity, it’s the misapplication of it. Take it away entirely and it’ll be a whole different ball game that nobody will like.

Yes. This is something I keep in mind as I try to find balance and harmony in my own reasoning.

As someone very very wise once told me ( ), whereas I have the freedom and choice to run away from any perceived danger, our LEOs have a responsibility to run toward it. We don't just expect it, we demand it. But our LEOs are not all-knowing and all-seeing, they do have to use their own judgment in split-second decisions, and sometimes will err. We cannot penalize good people doing their best under the worst of circumstances. We need to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable, honest mistakes vs willful brutality.

We do need qualified immunity for our LEOs. We do not need blanket immunity.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

These studies are always a fun to read.
Numbers can be made to say pretty much anything when viewed from the right perspective.

The best way to prevent most of this excessive violence is to have every police officer have a body cam and microphone.
Those are cheap enough today that there is no excuse not to have them.
The cost could have been covered with the resources saved by preventing the current riots.

When the preppers talk about being armed, the lefties said, 'oh you can't fight the police and military... so you are a joke to even spout off about 2nd Amendment stuff.'
Now they complain about the police having 'military grade' equipment.
I think I remember Obama being the dude making sure that the surplus military equipment was able to get to those police departments. He is black... right?

a reply to: Boadicea

I wonder how other countries do their policing...

it's either give a blank check or don't police?

how has the death rate of unarmed police not skyrocketing I don't know...

the gun is the almighty!

a reply to: Shamrock6

Math ... a great argument. 2,000 homicides?

If the Chinese sent their military here and killed 2,000 Americans ... what do you think the response would be?

If the TSA shot 2,000 people at airports ... what do you think the response would be?

Now, don't get me started on the rampant death rates in hospitals. My math skills are terrible.

a reply to: butcherguy

The 1033 program is what allowed surplus military equipment to be transferred to local law enforcement. That was enacted in 1990 under Bush.

He is a Republican...right?