Another incident with black men getting shot by police

[Valsuelm]

If information given by this site is anywhere near correct there is quite lot incidents where police causes death of another person in USA, as according site there has been already 104 such incidents in this year alone and only three days when somebody has not died because of actions of police officers and for last year they have recorded 1966 such incidents.

http://killedbypolice.net/

 

Anybody know if information in the site is mainly correct or false as going through all their links would take too much for me actually to check site's legitimacy myself. 

 

Considering they source everything, if there's anything erroneous it's more than likely due to an article being wrong. The number of deaths it cites in 2014 is 1104 as of this post, not 1966. The 1966 number seems to be the total number of police killings listed on the site since it started tracking them in 2013.

 

There are no accurate governmental figures on how many people are killed by police nationwide, so someone took it upon themselves to start compiling the info. Go them and hooray internet for making it relatively easy.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Volourn]

I don't care about the number of deaths. I care about the unjustified murder of innocents. There should be ZERO. And, one happens, there shouldn't be excuses made for the peice of **** who does it.

[Malcador]

The only projectiles are paintballs or Pepper balls, even a granny could take it.  This thing is purpose built to save lives! The US need to develop its own version and flood the skies with drone delivered justice.  Still though, looking forward, our version also needs a built in Taser and net gun.

Tell some meathead the tool he has is nonlethal and he'll start using for anything and everything, people are lazy after all. And shooting projectiles at people does pose a risk of injury regardless. Amusing to hear justice in the context of riot control, at least in the instances I've seen in practiced

 

Hm, wonder if you knock one out of the sky will they charge you with assaulting an officer.

[BruceVC]

 

So about 500 deaths caused by police a year in a nation of 316 million people.  Basically I have about the same odds of winning the lottery as I do of getting killed by the police.  I think I can increase my odds by buying more lottery tickets OR buying more crystal meth.   

 

 

I don't care about the number of deaths. I care about the unjustified murder of innocents. There should be ZERO. And, one happens, there shouldn't be excuses made for the peice of **** who does it.

 

Volo I can see your point but we should also recognise Hurlshots post, 500 is a  very small number. At least this tells us the problem of Police killing civilians is not as widespread as some want us to believe ?

[Valsuelm]

So about 500 deaths caused by police a year in a nation of 316 million people.  Basically I have about the same odds of winning the lottery as I do of getting killed by the police.  I think I can increase my odds by buying more lottery tickets OR buying more crystal meth.  

 

You fail at math. The average based on the data there is about 1114 deaths a year. Regardless, even 500 is no small number given what we're talking about.

 

The police are killing more than 3 people a day on average based on this data, and the data is likely incomplete (though as time goes on and more people are aware of the site it will become more complete). How many of those killings are justified? One really can't say based on the data available, but no doubt many of them are not.

 

For all the people who are horrified at accidental gun deaths, you're almost twice as likely to be killed by a cop than an accidental discharge of a firearm according to 2010 CDC data.

 

But as I've pointed out in another thread, governmental data isn't always accurate, and sometimes even conflicts with itself. In this case the FBI statistics are drastically different from those shown at killedbypolice.net. Not surprising really as the FBI relies on the self reporting of various police agencies in regards to how many people they kill (which I've little doubt is the prime reason killedbypolice.net exists). So far as I can tell though, they fail to mention that fact anywhere in their statistics.

 

Another interesting statistic is to compare police killings of others vs the number of police deaths. The average number of police deaths per year (this includes accidents and job related illnesses) for the period of 2004-2013 was 150. So for every police job related death in a year they kill ~7.4 people. If you remove all definite accidents from the equation (it's inconclusive if the officer was purposefully drowned or accidentally drowned for example, so I left statistics like that in the equation (though it's probably safe to say more if not all of the drownings were an accident)) police kill more than 17 people a year for each one of them that dies by means other than an accident or job related illness. The real number of course is going to be higher than that, but we cannot calculate it with great accuracy due to the limitations of the data.

 

If you compare the number of people police killed during the period for which killedbypolice.net has been keeping track to the number of murders in the US from 2007-2011  (I unfortunately could not find data from the exact same period for comparison, but we're talking averages and they generally aren't going to change that much from year to year), police kill a number of people equal to ~8% of the official FBI homicide rate. And they kill people at a rate of ~12% of the official homicide by way of firearm rate. So you're only about ~8 times more likely to be murdered by someone who isn't a police officer with a gun as you are to be killed by the police, even though there are more than 300 times the number of average citizens compared to the number of police.

 

Another interesting comparison is to compare the police killing people rate with the non-police homicide rate. If we conservatively estimate the U.S. population at ~300 million and go by the ~900,000 number. And then use the 1114 average police killings a year and the average 13774 homicides a year previously calculated and used, police kill at a per capita rate of 27 times the per capita homicide average.

 

So yea.... even by a conservative calculation, police kill more than 17 people a year for each one of them killed in the line of duty by means other than an accident, and at a per capita rate of ~27 times that of the homicide per capita average.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Gfted1]

Tell some meathead the tool he has is nonlethal and he'll start using for anything and everything, people are lazy after all. And shooting projectiles at people does pose a risk of injury regardless. Amusing to hear justice in the context of riot control, at least in the instances I've seen in practiced

 

Hm, wonder if you knock one out of the sky will they charge you with assaulting an officer.

I will concede that there is always the possibility of a "magic bullet" killing you if it hits you in the sweet spot. But drones don't have to be exclusive to dishing out justice during riots. Just imagine if the Ferguson police had roof mounted Pepper drones mounted on each cruiser. They could have easily launched the drone, incapacitated the perp with Pepper, Taser or Net technology, and averted a crisis.

 

Iirc, assaulting a police dog counts as assaulting an office but you would probably only be on the hook financially if you down a drone.

[Hurlshort]

 

If information given by this site is anywhere near correct there is quite lot incidents where police causes death of another person in USA, as according site there has been already 104 such incidents in this year alone and only three days when somebody has not died because of actions of police officers and for last year they have recorded 1966 such incidents.

http://killedbypolice.net/

 

Anybody know if information in the site is mainly correct or false as going through all their links would take too much for me actually to check site's legitimacy myself. 

 

Considering they source everything, if there's anything erroneous it's more than likely due to an article being wrong. The number of deaths it cites in 2014 is 1104 as of this post, not 1966. The 1966 number seems to be the total number of police killings listed on the site since it started tracking them in 2013.

 

There are no accurate governmental figures on how many people are killed by police nationwide, so someone took it upon themselves to start compiling the info. Go them and hooray internet for making it relatively easy.

 

 

Yeah, I see that is pretty egregious.  The government should be tracking these numbers closely.  The police are a paramilitary group, despite being run at local levels, they should still be expected to meet certain federal standards, and accurate reporting on a major event like this should not be hard to find.  I am all for full disclosure.  

 

I know some of you think I'm all about defending cops.  On an individual basis, I believe many of your low opinions are baseless and dehumanizing.  As an organization, however, I see a ton of ways that police departments across the nation need to be overhauled and reformed.  Basically I don't think many of you are seeing the forest through the trees.  

 

Demanding reform and better accountability = good

 

Treating every cop like a thug = bad

 

One accomplishes something, the other accomplishes nothing.

[Malcador]

I will concede that there is always the possibility of a "magic bullet" killing you if it hits you in the sweet spot. But drones don't have to be exclusive to dishing out justice during riots. Just imagine if the Ferguson police had roof mounted Pepper drones mounted on each cruiser. They could have easily launched the drone, incapacitated the perp with Pepper, Taser or Net technology, and averted a crisis.

 

Iirc, assaulting a police dog counts as assaulting an office but you would probably only be on the hook financially if you down a drone.

Well, cruiser mounted ones is a bit better than a fleet of cop UAVs around.

 

Demanding reform and better accountability = good

 

Treating every cop like a thug = bad

 

One accomplishes something, the other accomplishes nothing.

Well, treating every cop like a thug will keep you from getting your ass kicked or them otherwise abusing their power on you, up to a point at least. Thugs are generally dangerous, like a feral animal, after all. Is more pragmatic to treat them out of fear rather than anything else, really.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

 

So about 500 deaths caused by police a year in a nation of 316 million people.  Basically I have about the same odds of winning the lottery as I do of getting killed by the police.  I think I can increase my odds by buying more lottery tickets OR buying more crystal meth.  

 

You fail at math. The average based on the data there is about 1114 deaths a year. Regardless, even 500 is no small number given what we're talking about.

 

 

I blame the meth/lottery tickets for my bad math.

 

There are a lot of flaws with these statistics.  1 death caused by police could be seen as too much, it depends entirely on the circumstances.  

[Gfted1]

Well, cruiser mounted ones is a bit better than a fleet of cop UAVs around.

No no, the cruiser mounted ones can fly too, they just launch directly from the cop car and provide an immediate and local source of non-lethal force projection. There would still need to be hangars full of drones that would be deployed en masse at a moments notice for local flare-ups and general surveillance. Im just trying to save lives here, one mook at a time.

[Malcador]

You work for Lockheed Martin, don't you.

[Gfted1]

Pffft, Northrop Grumman. (I wish)

 

Hilariously, I was looking for a shopped picture of the X-47B with a robotic arm hanging underneath spraying a crowd with a can of Pepper spray when I came across the drone I linked above. In lieu of that here is a video of the first X-47B drone carrier landing:

 

[Gromnir]

 

 

So yea.... even by a conservative calculation, police kill more than 17 people a year for each one of them killed in the line of duty by means other than an accident.

 

talk about math fails.   the cdc info val linked for 2010 to show accidental firearm deaths (why?) we see that there were 412 law enforcement deaths that year. am not certain how val reads the chart, but stabbings and shootings ain't accidents. and "auto crashes" specifically ain't listed as accidents. felony murder rule makes so that a goodly number o' people who die in car crashes resulting from high speed chases is gonna end up providing a possible felony murder charge. is not considered an accident when a fleeing or drunken motorist gets somebody killed. if is conservative calculation, and we can show 70 shootings alone...a conservative calculation?  

 

random news reports is a meaningful possibl;e source, but am not certain how much more weight we give such than cdc numbers.  how many o' us has read news stories, particularly internet news stories, that gets details wrong. george bush sr. were mistakenly reported as dead by a couple news agencies following his vomiting incident in japan 'cause some loon claiming to be bush's personal physician claimed that the president were dead. cnn were literal in the middle o' reporting the false news of the president's death when somebody on the cnn set interrupted the false info and replaced with corrected info. 

 

val is oddly hypocritical about news agencies.  news outlets report many deaths in nigeria and he refuses to admit significant deaths 'cause o' suspicion o' news agencies. even when there is satellite imagery o' widespread destruction, val chooses willful ignorance and suspicion o' news.  however, when it is local new agencies breaking up-to-the minute news o' cop deaths, val is oddly accepting.

 

*shrug*

 

and why on earth would you hope for more parity between cop deaths and those killed by cops?  how on earth is that significant? there is a great deal o' violent crime committed in this country. as noted above, we have a very large population.  we also have an economically and culturally diverse population that is disturbingly well armed. we want cops to stop such crime.  is folks further up the food chain that has gotta find ways to make crime less a problem.  cops got dirty job o' dealing with the reality o' often angry people and armed citizens. if we got handguns near complete off the street, we suspect that the ration would even be higher for those killed by cops as 'posed to cops killed by citizens.  folks would still be hurting each other with weapons of opportunity, but w/o handguns, far fewer cops would be at risk. good.  make ratio 100:1.  make 1000:1.  am still not certain what val thinks is significant about the ratio.

 

sheesh.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

oh, and aspirin and similar non-prescription pain killers account for a similar number o' american deaths as does homicides.

 

Right. How many interactions does the average person have with non-prescription painkillers throughout their life? How many interactions with cops?

 

Sure, odds of dying in a car crash or a work-related accident may be much higher in absolute terms, but it just so happens that people drive to and from work every day.

 

Whether a reported 1.4% of police-citizen interactions where force is involved (including verbal coercion) is too much is up for debate. At any rate, data is difficult to find and draw conclusions from, because in another study, the rate of interactions involving force was 58%, when instead of citizens in general, only police-suspect interactions are considered. I don't know of any meta-analyses that investigate the matter.

 

 

 

Well, treating every cop like a thug will keep you from getting your ass kicked or them otherwise abusing their power on you, up to a point at least. Thugs are generally dangerous, like a feral animal, after all. Is more pragmatic to treat them out of fear rather than anything else, really.

 

Resisting, disrespecting or otherwise antagonizing cops seems to increase the odds that they will use force against you by a significant margin (~6 times more likely, from one report). That does not mean cops are thugs, or at least, data doesn't seem to support that assessment. At least, until we define what is a thug and how often does a thug resort to force in interactions with citizens.

[Gromnir]

there is near 600k police officers in the US.  those police is interacting with folks every day, often in innocuous ways.  most people don't have meaningful discourse with cops. even so, those cops interacting with people, and sadly, given their job, chances are good that there is a problem, however minor, that is demanding the interaction.  aspirin is believed by most folks to be complete safe, but cops is carrying guns for a reason, no?  am guessing it depends on what you mean by interactions' cause... now we get your 1.4%.  if we only count cop interactions as stop and talk to suspects, then no, it doesn't strike us as wacky.   1.4 outta 100 results in coercion that might only be verbal?  well golly?  how utterly... predictable?

 

random links to 38 pages o' material is perhaps less helpful than you think. we typed 58 and 58% into search and got nothing, so you is gonna need show us where you get 58% and actual context.

 

and yes, we has mentioned the unwritten "attitude test" more than once. am not a fan o' the attitude test, but it is not a myth.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we got stuff for "58" on the search, but it were irrelevant as it were either page numbers or a statistic not corresponding with your 58%

Edited February 5, 2015 by Gromnir

[Valsuelm]

 

oh, and aspirin and similar non-prescription pain killers account for a similar number o' american deaths as does homicides.

 

Right. How many interactions does the average person have with non-prescription painkillers throughout their life? How many interactions with cops?

 

Sure, odds of dying in a car crash or a work-related accident may be much higher in absolute terms, but it just so happens that people drive to and from work every day.

 

Whether a reported 1.4% of police-citizen interactions where force is involved (including verbal coercion) is too much is up for debate. At any rate, data is difficult to find and draw conclusions from, because in another study, the rate of interactions involving force was 58%, when instead of citizens in general, only police-suspect interactions are considered. I don't know of any meta-analyses that investigate the matter.

 

 

 

Well, treating every cop like a thug will keep you from getting your ass kicked or them otherwise abusing their power on you, up to a point at least. Thugs are generally dangerous, like a feral animal, after all. Is more pragmatic to treat them out of fear rather than anything else, really.

 

Resisting, disrespecting or otherwise antagonizing cops seems to increase the odds that they will use force against you by a significant margin (~6 times more likely, from one report). That does not mean cops are thugs, or at least, data doesn't seem to support that assessment. At least, until we define what is a thug and how often does a thug resort to force in interactions with citizens.

 

 

How does that 1.4% include verbal coercion, and how are we defining it? The majority of my police interactions included verbal coercion as I'd define it (as have the interactions I've witnessed others have with police). Also, while it's not a majority, it's certainly more often than 1.4% that I've witnessed or experienced police using physical force. Is that study considering such benign things as all of the times that people happen to walk by police and maybe say hi as interacting? That's about the only way I can see them coming up with such a low number.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

I use verbal coercion about a thousand times a day.  Is that something serious?  

[Valsuelm]

I use verbal coercion about a thousand times a day.  Is that something serious?  

 

Well in comparison with using physical force I'd generally say no. Which is why I wonder why it's even mentioned alongside it.

 

It is not unusual for anyone in a position of authority is to employ verbal coercion, nor is the employment of such necessarily a bad thing.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Valsuelm

[213374U]

there is near 600k police officers in the US.  those police is interacting with folks every day, often in innocuous ways.  most people don't have meaningful discourse with cops. even so, those cops interacting with people, and sadly, given their job, chances are good that there is a problem, however minor, that is demanding the interaction.  aspirin is believed by most folks to be complete safe, but cops is carrying guns for a reason, no?  am guessing it depends on what you mean by interactions' cause... now we get your 1.4%.  if we only count cop interactions as stop and talk to suspects, then no, it doesn't strike us as wacky.   1.4 outta 100 results in coercion that might only be verbal?  well golly?  how utterly... predictable?

 

random links to 38 pages o' material is perhaps less helpful than you think. we typed 58 and 58% into search and got nothing, so you is gonna need show us where you get 58% and actual context.

 

and yes, we has mentioned the unwritten "attitude test" more than once. am not a fan o' the attitude test, but it is not a myth.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we got stuff for "58" on the search, but it were irrelevant as it were either page numbers or a statistic not corresponding with your 58%

 

My bad. You won't find anything searching for "58", because the actual quote is "in 42% of police-suspect encounters, no force was used", on page 300. Note that 58% includes a 37% of instances of verbal force. You may also want to read how a suspect is defined in the study. Any interaction resulting in the use of force automatically labels the subject a suspect, heh.

 

If you want to get an idea about what constitutes an "interaction" for the purposes of the BJS data, scroll down, click on "Public-Police Contact Survey" and read one of the questionnaires. I recommend the 2008 one as the 2011 is a bit cluttered.

 

 

How does that 1.4% include verbal coercion, and how are we defining it? The majority of my police interactions included verbal coercion as I'd define it (as have the interactions I've witnessed others have with police). Also, while it's not a majority, it's certainly more often than 1.4% that I've witnessed or experienced police using physical force. Is that study considering such benign things as all of the times that people happen to walk by police and maybe say hi as interacting? That's about the only way I can see them coming up with such a low number.

 

Item 6 of the 2008 questionnaire specifically allows the subject to explain if they were threatened with force, or if actual physical force was used against them. I'm sorry, I mixed up the definitions — the other study I linked uses a "continuum of force" where force is divided into verbal commands (which carry an implicit threat of force), threats which are explicit, and actual physical force ranging from firm grip and pain compliance techniques all the way to strikes with external mechanisms.

 

Note that data gathered covers only the last 12 months, and at any rate, only the last interaction in that period. If I'd completed my education I could tell you precisely how this skews numbers, but sadly, I never did.

 

 

I use verbal coercion about a thousand times a day.  Is that something serious?  

 

I'm guessing that, as a teacher, any threat implicit in your verbal coercion attempts amount to "comply or you will get detention", at worst. When dealing with law enforcement, the implicit threat is "comply or you may be KILLED". Not quite the same thing... I hope.

Edited February 6, 2015 by 213374U

[Volourn]

Depends on the teacher...

[213374U]

Depends on the teacher...

 

[Valsuelm]

Arnold was all words and soft. Jim is more intimidating.

 

(warning: naughty words)

[ShadySands]

[Gromnir]

is hilarious that #s didn't read the study he linked.  the 42% is not some kinda general observation o' police taken as a whole or anything even close.  

 

oh, and nice misrepresentation o' "suspects."

 

Suspects were defined as wrongdoers, peace disturbers, or persons for

whom a complaint was received. More specifically, individuals were considered

suspects by observers if any of the following criteria were met: police

identified the citizen as a suspect, interrogated, searched, issued threats or

warning, used force to prevent or stop wrongdoing, arrested or cited the citizen,

or if the citizen admitted wrongdoing. This presents a somewhat difficult

problem in that part of the inclusion criteria for becoming a suspect involves

the dependent measure (i.e., force), which is akin to partially sampling on the

dependent variable. In the present case, however, this is unavoidable. The

298 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CRIME AND DELINQUENCYalternative would have been to exclude such cases, which clearly would present

a much greater problem—the fact that there would be no way to analyze

any of the force cases because there would be none. Furthermore, there were

several cases in which the officer used force on citizens not labeled as suspects

(e.g., victims requiring restraint after being told their partner was killed

in an automobile accident). Observers were instructed not to regard the inclusion

criteria in such strict terms so as to skew or alter the overall meaning of

the word suspect. Overall, 3,544 police-suspect encounters involving 305

officers were observed.

 

the OBSERVERS determined who were a suspect for the purposes o' the study and the observers included not only folks whom cops claimed were suspects, but others as well.  

 

oh, and #s missed

 

Approximately 240 hours of observation were carried out for officers assigned to each neighborhood. Officer identities were protected throughout the observations periods, and the researchers were granted limited protection from legal process under federal statute. A policecitizen encounter was defined as a face-to-face communication between officers and citizens that was more than a passing greeting. In all, 6,500 citizen encounters were observed in Indianapolis and 5,500 in St. Petersburg. The length of police-citizen encounters ranged from less than a minute to several hours. Among the citizens included crime victims, witnesses, a variety of service recipients, and criminal suspects. The analysis presented here focuses on police-suspect encounters.

 

so, outta twelve freaking thousand encounters that were more than simple greetings in two distressed urban areas (the "most distressed" areas were actual excluded from the study 'cause the number o' encounters woulda' been too small) the observers selected 3,544 Suspect encounters.  in 42% o' those encounters, no force were used.  

 

 

 

Coded observations ranged along a fourpoint

scale, from 1 (no force) to 2 (verbal force), 3 (restraint techniques), and

4 (impact methods) at the encounter level (mean = 1.81, SD = .81).

 

 

so 42% is no force and 37% is simple verbal.... and we is only dealing with suspect encounters... so your original 58% nonsense looks rather silly, no?

 

*shakes head sadly*

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 6, 2015 by Gromnir

[Amentep]

 

I use verbal coercion about a thousand times a day.  Is that something serious?

 

I'm guessing that, as a teacher, any threat implicit in your verbal coercion attempts amount to "comply or you will get detention", at worst. When dealing with law enforcement, the implicit threat is "comply or you may be KILLED". Not quite the same thing... I hope.

 

I'd think that - for the majority of cases - the implied threat of an order from law enforcement is "comply or you will be taken to jail" not "comply or I'll shoot your ass".