SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the "don't-do-the-crime-if-you-can't-do-the-time"-is-that-just-for-citizens? dept.
Virginia House of Delegates Passes Bill to Eliminate Qualified Immunity for Police:
The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill that would eliminate qualified immunity for police officers in the commonwealth in a narrow vote on Tuesday, setting up Virginia to become the first state in the union in which police officers could be sued for a wide variety of conduct standard to legal law enforcement work.
The bill passed when it was voted upon for the second time, after a provision that would've held police departments accountable for behavior of off-duty police officers was stripped from the legislation.
Chesterfield, Virginia Police Chief Jeffrey Katz criticized the legislation, stating that it would lead to a climate in which Virginia police officers decline to respond to public emergencies, criminal acts and threats to public safety out of fears that they'll face years of costly litigation, potentially from criminals who have demonstrably committed crimes.
[...] "What you're going to have is officers making the decision, that I better wait," he explained in an interview on Wednesday. "When you start to look at legislation of this nature... you have to make that calculated decision whether it's worth it to come to work everyday and subjecting yourself not only the possibility of physical injury, but years and years of litigation."
[...] The legislation will lower the burdens for potential lawsuits against law enforcement officers in Virginia, and will allow them to be filed in any court in the state.
The bill would still need to pass the Virginia Senate. It would then go to the Governor who may, or may not, sign it into law.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:52PM (6 children)
OK, I read the link. I read both of your newer links. Sorry, I'm not inclined to dig very deep into the allegations. I can't tell at first reading whether Lott is admitting to fucking up, or he's just a target of character assassination.
The fact is, the CDC concluded independently that DGU (defensive gun use) is a common occurrence. Strangely enough, the CDC never published it's own work. Some details here -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#230f684299aa [forbes.com]
My attitudes and opinions on guns don't depend on Lott, of course. There are many other studies that support Lott's conclusions, no matter how accurate that 98% figure is, or isn't.
Bottom line, more guns, less crime. Again, the highest crime rates in this nation are experienced in those locations with the most draconian gun laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @01:52AM (3 children)
Do those places have high crime rates because of draconian gun laws or do they have draconian gun laws as a reaction to high crime rates?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 14 2020, @03:02AM (2 children)
Irrelevant. The laws are ineffective, in addition to being unconstitutional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @03:59AM (1 child)
Not irrelevant. You said "Bottom line, more guns, less crime." If those high crime areas had high crime rates before the gun laws were enacted then your hypothesis is invalid. If those areas had low crime before the laws and high crime after, then your hypothesis is supported. Your comment about them being ineffective and unconstitutional is irrelevant and goalpost moving. And if the laws are really ineffective then that also undermines your hypothesis.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 14 2020, @04:22AM
For starters, I've not moved any goalposts. I've always held that an unconstitutional law is just that - unconstitutional, and therefor, invalid.
Laws aren't written in response to crime, so much as they are written in response to public perception of crime. There is little indication that crime increases or decreases as a result of new laws, repealed laws, stricter or laxer policing policies, or even the amount of money thrown into crime prevention and/or law enforcement. Over the decades, crime has risen and fallen, completely independent of crime policy.
If there is any governmental policy or governmental action that affects crime rates, that policy or action can be attributed to a reduction in the poverty level of the population in that area. The more productively employed citizens, the lower crime rates go. The more unproductive layabouts in the population, the higher the crime rates go.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Monday September 14 2020, @02:03AM (1 child)
I was hoping for more than a link to an op-ed to back your assertion. Arming everyone to the teeth will make us all safer? Show me the evidence, show me the data.
I don't want you to think I'm anti gun per se. My father, a fighter pilot, taught me to shoot and my formal firearms training was from military instructors as a cadet. You never forget that, ever. I'm still a fairly good shot but not as good as I used to be. I am however vehemently anti gun violence and see it as plague that infects this country yet strangely fails to infect other developed nations to anywhere the same degree. Why is that? I don't believe that the people of this country are any more prone to violence or mental illness than any other developed nation but we do have a shit load more guns. Hmmm ...
I know that many people find gun ownership comforting and sincerely believe they are safer. My next door neighbor's wife was talked into getting a pistol and has only shot it once when she bought it five years ago. I think she's a danger to herself and everyone around her but she fell for the lie that the NRA, the propaganda arm of the small arms manufacturing industry, has been pushing for the last forty years. Fear sells, frightened people are controllable. I haven't found scientific evidence to support the NRA's position. In fact they fought to suppress research on gun violence, what does that tell you.
You might find this paper published in the BMJ of interest https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542 [bmj.com] but overall scientific research seems to be thin on the ground. I'd like to see more and in depth work done.
If you want to have a safer police force (and consequently less likely to shoot civilians) then live in a state with fewer guns. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302749 [aphapublications.org]
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 14 2020, @04:09AM
I've given both of those papers the once-over. That is, I've read them through. I've NOT digested them.
One problem I see with the BMJ paper, is, no reference is made to gun free zones, anywhere in the paper. Whether the mass shooting takes place in a gun-friendly state, or a gun-hostile state, it is very common for these mass shootings to take place in a gun free zone. In fact, it seems that as gun free zones increase, the likelihood of a mass shooting goes up. It's almost like gun free zones attract nutcases.
The second paper regarding job related deaths. I always find fault with any paper that details how dangerous police work is, when they fail to point out that police work is safer than many other professions. Hollywood and most of America romanticizes police work, making it seem like very dangerous work. Yet, there are a number of professions with higher mortality rates on the job. Even considering that a cop is much more likely to meet a homicidal maniac than any commercial fisherman, police work is much safer than commercial fishing.
You might consider both of those complaints as being petty, or even spiteful. But, papers that purportedly attempt to understand the problems of police work should probably consider both of those factors.
Oh - digestion is taking place as I sit here. The Swedley and company paper makes zero attempt to correlate community relations, and/or community resentment to police mortality on the job. We have had a number of police homicides in the past 5 years or so. As one might assume, a large number of those homicides have taken place in cities with legitimate complaints about the police. No, of course I haven't researched that, but right off the top of my head, I can name New York, Dallas, Baton Rouge, and Los Angeles. Each of those cities has their own peculiar community relations problems. Chicago? I don't remember a police homicide recently, but that would be worth checking out.
Thanks for the links. I don't know if or when I'll dive deeper into them, but I'm considering what I've read.