Police threat in US too high

a reply to: boohoo

Ummm...about the OP and this thread's topic:

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.

What I need for you to understand is this: I have yet to see statistics on non-deadly shootings by LEOs in the line of duty. Maybe they exist, but probably not. So, when you ask me about all of that, the intelligent answer is, "I don't know the specifics."

So, since we don't know the specifics, and this thread opened with the quoted line above, and the OP's two quotes discuss deaths of citizens at the hands of police, I guess you'll have to excuse my reading comprehension skills and would think it relavent to cite stats on officer-involved deaths.

Furthermore, you can't arrest someone if they're dead, so I would have to assume (maybe to my fault) that "arrests" means any official stop or responded call that is in response to a suspected breaking of a law. Not sure if that's a massive leap in logic one would have to make, but hopefully that clears that up for you...at least as to how I'm looking at the stats. I'm sure in the FBI report, it specifies the definition of "arrest" as used specifically in those stats. But, please understand that the linked story at Politifact breaks it down pretty well, as does my quote from them--and they include links to the FBI documents, if you'd like to take a look.

But let's keep in mind, even if those 22,500 (my extremely inflated estimate of ALL officer-involved shootings, I would suppose) were a ratio to instead of a percentage of the 12,196,959 arrests that year, it still equals out to a ration of 1:542. I would still say that the 8,200 number is closer to realistic (but still high, IMO), which would give a ration of shooting deaths to actual arrests at 1:1,487.

So, for all your anecdotal examples of excessively rare things that happen, I'm using the best known figures that we have (the same numbers that analysts use, mind you) and erring on the side of caution to estimate a more accurate number, and the ratio is STILL ridiculously low. Keep in mind, you still don't address the fact that many (if not most, from what I've seen posted on this site) are justifiable reactions by the officers, even if emotions run high and try to tell people otherwise.

To answer your question, the foundation of my original comment is based on tangible numbers and data, with a (possibly) extremely bloated number for an estimate of unreported deaths from LEOs. What you're doing is trying to pretend that my point is invalid, even though I've changed numbers to compensate for what you're pointing out, and posting examples of issues that I'm not even discussing or including in my data...the data upon which my argument stands, in lieu of an argument based on hand-picked examples that make you think you're proving a broad point.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Keep in mind, you still don't address the fact that many (if not most, from what I've seen posted on this site) are justifiable reactions by the officers, even if emotions run high and try to tell people otherwise.

I've answered this before on ATS, firefighters know that when they go out to save someone or put out a fire that they may die, they have far less expectation than LEO's, that a piece of equipment will somehow change that reality. Military personnel know that when they go out to war they may die and not be able to fire a single shot in self defense, if ordered not to and they also have far less expectation than LEO's that an independently chosen action will somehow change that reality.

I won't mince my words, police need even tighter rules of engagement than they have now, EVEN if it results in their death, firing or resignation. They are not Judge Dredd, acting as Enforcer of the law, judge, jury and executioner. They should ALWAYS have to choose between surviving a conflict or losing their job. They are certainly "justified" to do their best to live another day, but that doesn't mean they should keep their job either. Killing somebody, should equal instant lay-off or firing, justified shooting or not. If such were the case, "incidents" of fatal shootings would drop off a cliff. LEO's have far too much responsibility within American society to have ANY leeway or compromise. In fact, policing should be a temporary position, with no long term employees "on the beat". Veteran LEO should be moved into admin positions that have no authority to arrest, in effect, having LEO term-limits. Police and law enforcement agencies need a checks and balances system, I can't say exactly what that is, but pensions, no-fault shootings, and liability payouts covered by local governments has made these guys little "teflon don's".

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. This is in contrast to fire fighters whom have been known to quit the profession for not being able to save someone (I've known two personally in my lifetime).

PLEASE NAME SOME LEO'S THAT HAVE QUIT, OUT OF GUILT, FOR AN ACCIDENT THEY CAUSED, WHOM WERE ALSO NOT FIRED OR FORCED OUT FIRST?

The fact that MOST LEO's appear to just suck it up and keep on driving, accruing subsequent investigations during their careers, assures me that they are NOT sane or remorseful.

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 the WWII, Army Private, Eddie Slovik, whom was the last conscripted, active-duty, pacifist, executed by firing squad (and there were others before him).

So when these LEO's keep working in the same roles, 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.

a reply to: boohoo

Meh...your attempted use at logic is only producing more logical fallacies (to include changing the subject of my post and going off on a tangent LEOs who don't quit after a shooting death that occurs in the line of duty).

I'm no mind-reader, so I can't answer your random questions about why other humans do or don't do certain things. Do you hold the same belief that Soldiers in the Army who have killed someone who was assaulting them (or just identified as the enemy) and then re-enlist are also sociopaths and out for the "power of the position?"

There is the entire opposite side to your question that you fail to consider: Maybe LEOs take on the job knowing that, at some point, they may regretibley have to take the life of another human being--possibly accidentally or in a case of mistaken idetity or intention--yet, are still willing to take on that burden knowing full well that their life may never be the same afterward...all of that while possibly having their own life taken at the hand of another human as well.

While I can't specifically cite any instances, I have heard second-hand (so, yes, legally that'd be hearsay) stories from LEOs about the often psychological, emotional and even spiritual (if that's your thing) damage that a killing in the line of duty does to an individual officer. Marriages have crumbled due to depression, and even suicides by LEO occur, attributed to the very human reaction to taking another's life, even if justified.

But at least I'm glad that you assert that your stance on those who continue to work at LEOs after killing someone (justified or not) is just an assumption. I'm glad you point that much out, at least.

Furthermore, you don't get court-martialed and jailed for not killing the enemy. If you want to claim that, go ahead, but I was in the military, and I was a paralegal in JAG, so I'll have to call BS on that one immediately. As for your terrible example of a pacifist:

I, Pvt. Eddie D. Slovik, 36896415, confess to the desertion of the United States Army. At the time of my desertion we were in Albuff [Elbeuf] in France. I came to Albuff as a replacement. They were shelling the town and we were told to dig in for the night. The following morning they were shelling us again. I was so scared, nerves and trembling, that at the time the other replacements moved out, I couldn’t move. I stayed there in my fox hole till it was quiet and I was able to move. I then walked into town. Not seeing any of our troops, so I stayed over night at a French hospital. The next morning I turned myself over to the Canadian Provost Corp. After being with them six weeks I was turned over to American M.R. They turned me loose. I told my commanding officer my story. I said that if I had to go out there again I'd run away. He said there was nothing he could do for me so I ran away again AND I'LL RUN AWAY AGAIN IF I HAVE TO GO OUT THERE.

—Signed Pvt. Eddie D. Slovik A.S.N. 36896415

That's not pacifism, that's fear and criminal desertion. He knew it would result in a court-martial, and he ignored the last chance AFTER he wrote this letter, to go to a different unit and start over. He chose court-martial out of fear, not pacifism, as you implied.

Your opinion that LEOs who have killed a civilian should immediately and willfully forfeit their job is irrelevent to the realities of life. You don't get to tell people how they should feel, or how they should react, or, quite frankly, anything that should happen on behalf of him/her. To think so is such narcissistic arrogance that I can't even quantify it.

I certainly hope that you never need an LEO to show up on your behalf and, as a last resort, take the life of someone trying to kill you because they were not going to stop until you were dead. Sure would be tough for you to tell that officer to leave the profession instead of thanking him, wouldn't it?

At least I hope so.

ETA: My intention is that this is my last response. We are just going in circles, and taking time out of my life to respond is not worth the reward.

Take Care...we'll agree to disagree.

I keep seeing the thread pop up in MyATS, and i keep thinking....



On a related note: it will do you no good to argue the merits of data that doesn't exist, even if extrapolating the data with the intent of being "liberal"

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Furthermore, you don't get court-martialed and jailed for not killing the enemy. If you want to claim that, go ahead, but I was in the military, and I was a paralegal in JAG

That's not pacifism, that's fear and criminal desertion. He knew it would result in a court-martial, and he ignored the last chance AFTER he wrote this letter, to go to a different unit and start over. He chose court-martial out of fear, not pacifism, as you implied.

As for people getting court-martialed for refusing to engage the enemy, sure its not as common today as it was in WWII, where there were over 2 million court-martials for US. It is still on the books and is well within the discretion of a commander, whether to pursue it or not. My point was that LEO's are under no such law and can refuse to engage in inhumane acts without legal consequences. An LEO losing their job or getting written up, is DEFINITELY not the same as receiving a conviction under military law, not by a long shot.

Also, there are a number of biographical accounts of Eddie Slovik, with most of them clearly showing evidence that he was indeed a pacifists. Its is well documented that he repeatedly requested to sent to a non-combat unit and was refused on m,multiple occasions, even temporarily serving food in another allied forces mess. So, we can certainly disagree about the accuracy of recounted second hand stories, from 70 years ago, but it seems your prior work history certainly clouds your ability to judge his personal story outside of the propaganda that you were fed while in the service.

I now understand why you are defending LEO's. Your career choice shows that you have sworn to uphold the image of the legal system without question. Although you are/were only a paralegal, it will always be in your interests to side with those whom are most likely to employ you and in this is case those overloads/employers are officers of the American judicial system.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I certainly hope that you never need an LEO to show up on your behalf and, as a last resort, take the life of someone trying to kill you because they were not going to stop until you were dead. Sure would be tough for you to tell that officer to leave the profession instead of thanking him, wouldn't it?

Not this again, just ask Jessica Gonzales, if she thinks that the police will show up to save someones life. I'll bet she will tell you how such beliefs play out in real life, based on first hand experience.

The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed. For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver. Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

LEO's are not Judge Dredd, acting as Enforcer of the law, judge, jury and executioner. They should ALWAYS have to choose between surviving a conflict or losing their job. They are certainly "justified" to do their best to live another day, but that doesn't mean they should keep their job either. Killing somebody, should equal instant lay-off or firing, justified shooting or not. If such were the case, "incidents" of fatal shootings would drop off a cliff.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well, the problem is that the data does exist--at least official numbers do. I went "unofficial" to actually benefit the other side's argument, and it still showed their premise to be statistically ridiculous.

But I don't disagree with it does me no good, as ideologues generally tend to ignore logical conclusions, anyhow.

ETA: Your graphic made me chuckle.