|
CheesyDog posted:According to 538, 1100 police-committed killings occur on average annually. depends on the circumstances. Pulled over for a speeding ticket? No. As a fleeing felon, regardless of the fact SCOTUS says you can't legally shoot a fleeing felon? Yes. you're setting up quite the straw man there.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It sure is comforting when prosecutors don't even understand how data work. how am I not understanding how data works? It's been suggested earlier in this thread that if you just give the robber what they want and don't fight with them, you'll be unharmed. That's not always true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It sure is comforting when prosecutors don't even understand how data work. "Statistically speaking, your wife's rape and murder was an unfortunate outlier."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:depends on the circumstances. Pulled over for a speeding ticket? No. As a fleeing felon, regardless of the fact SCOTUS says you can't legally shoot a fleeing felon? Yes. Selling a loose cigarette? Walking home? Standing in a store with a product the store sells?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Interestingly, it's on par with the approximate number of police related shootings, which is being called an epidemic. Awesome, you don't even read the articles you're posting. That article clearly states that the 400 figure is a bare minimum based on self-reporting. And further in: quote:Several independent trackers, primarily journalists and academics who study criminal justice, insist the accurate number of people shot and killed by police officers each year is consistently upwards of 1,000 each year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Statistically speaking, your wife's rape and murder was an unfortunate outlier." she probably argued with her attacker. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Awesome, you don't even read the articles you're posting. That article clearly states that the 400 figure is a bare minimum based on self-reporting. you seem to not realize that the use of the word "approximate" was an explicit acknowledgment of the fact it's not necessarily an accurate number. For someone who keeps beating the drum of "why don't you read" you might want to...read? (Tangent: I do find it hugely problematic there is not a definitive reporting number)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you seem to not realize that the use of the word "approximate" was an explicit acknowledgment of the fact it's not necessarily an accurate number. For someone who keeps beating the drum of "why don't you read" you might want to...read? "approximate" doesn't mean the same thing as "bare minimum based on police department self reporting" Especially when the article provides actual approximate numbers just a few paragraphs later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you'd have a point if I had said "the majority of home invasions end in death." which I didn't say. Police are generally expected to have more restraint and self control than criminals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:"approximate" doesn't mean the same thing as "bare minimum based on police department self reporting" No, it's not, however, the article, whose ultimate point is that the number is unknown which is troubling (a sentiment with which I agree) spends a lot more ink discussing the methodology behind the 400 number than they do the throw away reference to the "thousands" of shootings claimed by unnamed academics and journalists. No cite, no quotes. What does that suggest to you about the author's belief in the accuracy of that number? I agree that there needs to be an actual accounting. But suggesting that the reported number is off by that order of magnitude based on the figures of "some academics and journalists" is pretty weak.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:depends on the circumstances. Pulled over for a speeding ticket? No. As a fleeing felon, regardless of the fact SCOTUS says you can't legally shoot a fleeing felon? Yes. What about when you're pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2769379/Shocking-moment-police-officer-shoots-unarmed-driver-pulling-not-wearing-seatbelt.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Pomp posted:Police are generally expected to have more restraint and self control than criminals. So, Pomp, if someone is stealing a TV, at what point is the force used to subdue them excessive? I note you still haven't answered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:According to 538, 1100 police-committed killings occur on average annually. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest there are vastly more civilian-police interactions in a year then home invasions
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you'd have a point if I had said "the majority of home invasions end in death." which I didn't say. I realize you get dogpiled, so you're understandably defensive, but you did say often which implies a far greater frequency than 0.5%. Yes they're terrible and any is too many, but it's okay to take back 'often'. But let's not compare home invasion robbery deaths to police shooting deaths..I mean, we do hold police to a higher standard, don't we? Though it is kinda funny to say it's on par with the approximate number of police related shootings referencing an article entitled 'How many police shootings a year? No one knows'. I disagree with some of what you say to a fair degree, but you do add a valuable perspective to this thread, so don't let the dogpiling run you off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:On the other hand, there are very few circumstances where a burglar can lawfully and justifiably shoot someone. Additionally, I'm willing to wager that the number of arrests/police interactions per year greatly exceeds the number of home invasions. Therefore, as a percentage, more home invasions will end in death than will police encounters. you can't in the same breath say that police shootings are an epidemic of serious concern (and I don't disagree that the police force has become disturbingly militarized and agree that there needs to be more focus on community outreach and specific efforts to recruit more minority cops...and yes...shooting statistics should absolutely be tracked) but then say that there's a statistically insignificant risk of being killed during a home invasion, owner present, such that "if you just give them what they want it'll all be okay."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you'd have a point if I had said "the majority of home invasions end in death." which I didn't say. I'm sorry, I wasn't familiar with the term. You are correct there. Buy now I'm more confused. Why did you respond to pomp saying most people who steal from you don't want to hurt you with a stat solely about people breaking into homes with the intent to harm the occupant?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
On the other hand, there are many circumstances where a cop can unlawfully and unjustifiably shoot someone and never face prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:On the other hand, there are very few circumstances where a burglar can lawfully and justifiably shoot someone. It would be a case by case thing and there's not a solid answer, but you should stop once you have the suspect subdued, and certainly not do anything that would reasonably risk killing them you annoying, disingenuous gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No, it's not, however, the article, whose ultimate point is that the number is unknown which is troubling (a sentiment with which I agree) spends a lot more ink discussing the methodology behind the 400 number than they do the throw away reference to the "thousands" of shootings claimed by unnamed academics and journalists. No cite, no quotes. What does that suggest to you about the author's belief in the accuracy of that number? 1100 is not even a single order of magnitude above 400, so you'll need to work on your math skills as well. I'm also skeptical of your implication that we should trust law enforcement self-reporting more than academic and journalists. Also, the article names and quotes several of those unnamed academics and journalists, including D Brian Burghart, Jim Fisher, and Gawker Media. If you're interested in further analysis, which goes into more detail about the work of some of these sources: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/reminder-the-fbis-police-homicide-count-is-wrong/
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Additionally, I'm willing to wager that the number of arrests/police interactions per year greatly exceeds the number of home invasions. Therefore, as a percentage, more home invasions will end in death than will police encounters. Are you also willing to wager on what proportion of home invasions that involve a homicide also have a prosecutor undermining charges against the suspect(s)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Also, don't immediately jump to extreme options like american police love to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:I realize you get dogpiled, so you're understandably defensive, but you did say often which implies a far greater frequency than 0.5%. Yes they're terrible and any is too many, but it's okay to take back 'often'. But let's not compare home invasion robbery deaths to police shooting deaths..I mean, we do hold police to a higher standard, don't we? I still think it's far to call 430/year "often." Bear in mind too, that's a national number. I work in an extremely violent city where we are well above the national average for homicides of all variety. What is "often" here may be "infrequent" elsewhere. Part of the problem with national level statistics. The problem areas get averaged out with everything else. Case in point...Connecticut. Affluent state. Also has three of the nation's ten most violent small cities. But Fairfield and Greenwich and wherever else yuppies live blow the income and crime rate curve. And yes, we do hold police to a higher standard...that's not my point. My point is not "hey you're more likely to get killed in a home invasion, so cop shootings are ok." My point is "just give them what they want and they won't hurt me" might be a valid strategy in a mugging, but a home invasion, where the owner is present is a whole different threat level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:1100 is not even a single order of magnitude above 400, so you'll need to work on your math skills as well. I'm also skeptical of your implication that we should trust law enforcement self-reporting more than academic and journalists. you know, for someone who resorts to hyperbole so often, you seem to have trouble recognizing it when others use it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Are you also willing to wager on what proportion of home invasions that involve a homicide also have a prosecutor undermining charges against the suspect(s)? you're crossing streams here. Please refer to the numerous times I have said I thought McCullough should have recused himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
My point is "just give them what they want and they won't hurt me" might be a valid strategy if you're white, but a police encounter where the person is black is a whole different threat level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:My point is "just give them what they want and they won't hurt me" might be a valid strategy if you're white, but a police encounter where the person is black is a whole different threat level. Doesn't get much whiter than this: http://www.ibtimes.com/cheshire-murders-hbo-documentary-reveals-added-level-horror-unspeakable-connecticut-crime-1356201 And actually, people of color make up a disproportionate number of violent crime victims, so I'm not so sure it's a viable strategy for them either. But we're confusing two issues here. One can think that excessive force is wrong AND that some criminals are in fact violent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Pomp posted:It would be a case by case thing and there's not a solid answer, but you should stop once you have the suspect subdued, and certainly not do anything that would reasonably risk killing them you annoying, disingenuous gently caress. So whatever you, with the full benefit of hindsight, deem to have been justified on a case-by-case basis. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Actually, let's continue with this comparison. Much like interacting with a robber, both the safest and most common advice for a black person interacting with a cop shouldn't make any sudden movements, keep your hands visible at all times, reassure them when you reach anything for anything they ask for. Stay calm, don't mouth off, don't do anything out of anger, and comply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So whatever you, with the full benefit of hindsight, deem to have been justified on a case-by-case basis. Got it. I'm not an ostensibly trained official who is expected to know how to deal with the situation as it happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
everyone in this thread is enacting brutality on me by making these terrible arguments holy poo poo some offenders are violent and violence may be required to subdue and arrest them. that does not give the police carte blanche to quickdraw on every 12 year old or black guy within 3 seconds of contact
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:14
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:everyone in this thread is enacting brutality on me by making these terrible arguments holy poo poo However, the fact that they are unlikely to face much if any consequences for doing so pretty much does!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:everyone in this thread is enacting brutality on me by making these terrible arguments holy poo poo I'm afraid "certain" posters will "hulk out" on me though. Are you sure I can't shoot them? I am very afraid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I still think it's far to call 430/year "often." Bear in mind too, that's a national number. I work in an extremely violent city where we are well above the national average for homicides of all variety. What is "often" here may be "infrequent" elsewhere. Part of the problem with national level statistics. The problem areas get averaged out with everything else. Case in point...Connecticut. Affluent state. Also has three of the nation's ten most violent small cities. But Fairfield and Greenwich and wherever else yuppies live blow the income and crime rate curve. I suppose I'm just in the unique position of having been the victim of a home invasion wherein the perpetrator returned the stolen item after a short and ill-advised pursuit and apologized(in a particularly rough area)..and having been arrested and repeatedly threatened with the prospect and "falling down" and having my face hosed up while being respectful and totally compliant. But I guess his justification was he called me gay and I had a pretty face worthy(My vanity forces me to assume that to be his reasoning) of being hosed up(in a particularly tranquil area). Anecdotal, sure, but a funny world we live in isn't it? Sure, I was fearful in both situations, but only one of those I could be nearly certain there would be no consequences for the aggressor, because the other "witnesses" also had guns and badges and weren't willing to do anything to rein in a hyper-aggressive rear end in a top hat, just silently standing by. So no, people shouldn't roll over (and many will never) and allow themselves to be robbed, even if it's often the wiser choice. But part of the problem is how the police respond to situations, and escalate them to violent and/or deadly levels while more often than not suffering maybe a slap on the wrist. Certainly very little if any punishment or infrequently enough, to discourage the behavior. Until they face the prospect of consequences, and those institutions begin to admit there's a problem, it will only worsen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Pomp posted:I'm not an ostensibly trained official who is expected to know how to deal with the situation as it happens. Then why do you insist on posting your admittedly unqualified opinions about the use of force?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Wow guys, I understand the whole "don't use force to stop people who are absconding with your poo poo" but if a person is threatening you with force and demanding that you give them something? Give them bullets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Then why do you insist on posting your admittedly unqualified opinions about the use of force? Way to miss the point of the post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:51
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Then why do you insist on posting your admittedly unqualified opinions about the use of force? So if a layman looks at a incident, for example a thief being shot while on the ground with his hands behind his back and says "Wow, that's hosed up!" they should be ignored in favor of an expert who says that everything is on the up and up?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Wow guys, I understand the whole "don't use force to stop people who are absconding with your poo poo" but if a person is threatening you with force and demanding that you give them something? Give them bullets. I'm perfectly happy to let the open carry crowd have their fun. Others should comply if they have a reasonable expectation that doing so will ensure their safety and should still not want the police to summarily execute the perpetrator.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
e: upon reflection this post seems inflammatory and why, I'd simply blanch to think I'd given that impression!
woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:
Congrats, you just shot a cop executing a no-knock raid and will now be sentenced to death in a sham trial after being beaten severely when taken into custody.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:00
|
|