SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports
Congress [just] passed a bill that could result in complete, national data on police shootings and other deaths in law enforcement custody.
Right now, we have nothing close to that. Police departments are not required to report information about police to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Some do, others don't, others submit it some years and not others or submit potentially incomplete numbers, making it near-impossible to know how many people police kill every year. Based on the figures that are reported to the federal government, ProPublica recently concluded that young black men are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than whites.
Under the bill awaiting Obama's signature, states receiving federal funds would be required to report every quarter on deaths in law enforcement custody. This includes not [only] those who are killed by police during a stop, arrest, or other interaction. It also includes those who die in jail or prison. [Additionally,] it requires details about these shootings including gender, race, as well as at least some circumstances surrounding the death.
(Score: 4) by wantkitteh on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:14PM
I am gobsmacked that any police force in the civilised west where the enforcement is carried out with the constant threat of lethal force is allowed NOT to report the number of deaths caused in the line of maintaining peace and delivering "justice". Seriously, American police have been able to operate without even the simplest oversight like that? What the....?!
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:33PM
This was a mistery to me too. Where are my mod points...
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:34PM
One possibility is that the force is not policing, but acts as "prison wardens" with licenses to kill. Another possibility is that the West is not civilized, no matter what the government tells you. IMO, both are true.
I personally believe that destruction of jobs leads to increased crime, and that leads to increased ferocity of policing. No LEO ever killed a person for burglarizing a house at 2pm if that person was busy at work on that day from 9am to 5pm. The deadly nature of policing is a reflection of the deadly nature of crime. Conduct a thought experiment: remove all crime from the society. How will that affect today's police force?
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:45PM
But they tell us that violent crime has decreased in the last 10-20 years...
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by drussell on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:55PM
Sure...
If you don't report any statistics there must be zero crime! :)
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday December 16 2014, @10:07PM
One can pacify a restless group of people by showering it with taxpayer money. Another way is to not report crimes. Yet another way is to change the ways the statistic is calculated. Yet another way is to shift the population in such a way that criminals live in ghettos and kill each other, and nobody cares. (This shift happens naturally, as potential victims leave dangerous areas.)
As no single person can be sure, based on his personal recollection, how it was "back then," anything that is printed on paper or in the Internet can be accepted as truth. For example, the phenomenon of the "knock-out game" did not exist 20 years ago - and it is responsible today for some percentage of violent crime. On the other hand, wars between mafias were waged decades ago - but not today.
The most basic rule of thumb here is simply the count of idle hands. People who are working every day have little energy left for breaking into houses during the night; and they have little reason to do so. Working people are also more social, and more educated to understand life in the adult world. Not to say that crimes won't happen within a society with 100% employment - domestic disputes will take its toll; but property crimes, and violence for sake of violence will be greatly reduced.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday December 17 2014, @07:05AM
While you have a point that crime usually increases with unemployment, it does not follow that violent crime increases. Statistics from most of the Western World show a decrease in violent crime over the last 30 or 40 years, not just American statistics and some governments such as mine who run on a law and order platform really want the statistics to show the opposite so they can more easily expand the law and prison segments of society and especially get rid of those pesky civil rights like our equivalent of your 4th amendment and snoop on everyone while being the most secretive government in memory.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:45PM
Violent crime is dropping in the US - has been for years, in general, *almost* across the board. Of course, it's the categories it's not falling in that....
.....
It was around about here I was going to say something about the rise in police brutality being buried under the rest of the violence stats - my guess is that someone somewhere making enforcement method policy decisions would happily justify the former as responsible for the later - but for some reason all the sites covering these statistics haven't been updated since 2010. Strange...
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:00PM
Not that strange. Most sites publishing any kind of crime stats are making some use of the FBI's UCR stats. It can take a year or two, sometimes more, for those to be published (For example: it's almost 2015 and the 2013 National Incident-Based Reporting System data has not been released yet.) So for the reports you seek for 2011 or later? FBI's data wouldn't have come in until some time during 2013, and certainly it takes some time for these other organizations to build their own reports based on that data. If they were working faster than the FBI does they could probably have put out something on 2011 by now, but I wouldn't yet say it's *strange* that they haven't. This kind of data is always a few years out of date, simply because it takes a few years to collect an analyze all of it.
(Score: 1) by wantkitteh on Friday December 19 2014, @02:39AM
However long it's taking, it's too long.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 16 2014, @10:25PM
The deadly nature of policing is a reflection of the deadly nature of crime.
Of course that is the inconvenient fact that every one wants to hand waive away.
Still, you have to understand that cops are trained to shoot and keep shooting until the perpetrator is no longer a threat, which most departments interpret as "dead". One well placed round to the hip would or shoulder would have been sufficient to stop the genital giant Mr Brown.
And most criminals understand they are going away for the rest of their life for shooting at a cop, so they might as well take one or two of them down on the way. Suicide by cop is very very common.
Cops should probably be trained to shoot to incapacitate instead of kill. Or maybe most cops should not carry guns at all.
They don't in most parts of the UK. But then UK gangs aren't all running around with Tech-9s.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday December 17 2014, @01:36AM
I agree with most of your post, with one nitpick:
Cops should probably be trained to shoot to incapacitate instead of kill.
There isn't a way to do that. There is only one proper way to apply lethal force, and that is with lethal intent. Any other use is a misuse of the tool. When an officer of the Law unholsters their firearm it should be with the clear understanding that they are choosing to end the life of the person with whom they are interacting.
The problem with our current policing practice is the over-frequent use of lethal force in situations where it is not appropriate. Police officers should be rigorously trained on threat assessment, risk assessment, and use of non-lethal methods to de-escalate encounters with their fellow citizens; instead, many approach routine traffic stops with their hand already on the grip of their pistol.
Perhaps the proper solution is the next thing you suggested:
Or maybe most cops should not carry guns at all.
Instead of giving every Academy graduate a firearm, make them earn the right by showing self-restraint. Take away the right to carry if it's abused in any way.
PS - Good grief, when did I become a pacifist???
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 1) by frojack on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:49AM
While I understand your points, I can't agree with this part:
There is only one proper way to apply lethal force, and that is with lethal intent. Any other use is a misuse of the tool.
With all due respect Spook, I couldn't care less about the misuse of the tool. Tools don't have rights or feelings. They will get over it. People won't.
Further, there are plenty of situations where lethal tools are used in non-lethal ways, or to non-lethal degrees.
The only rules we have here are the ones we wrote ourselves.
Take that standard issue police gun range target [americantargetcompany.com], move all the rings down such that the 7 ring extends to the hands. That alone would save lives.
Add a three shot rule. You fire three shots, then stop and re-assess the threat, then two more. Most police simply empty the gun. (How dangerous to the officer would a wounded Michael Brown actually be if the officer re-assessed after three shots. You could have just dodged his charges [nytimes.com] after three shots an let him bleed out. He never brandished a weapon.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday December 17 2014, @01:18PM
I couldn't care less about the misuse of the tool. Tools don't have rights or feelings. They will get over it. People won't.
Further, there are plenty of situations where lethal tools are used in non-lethal ways, or to non-lethal degrees.
The only rules we have here are the ones we wrote ourselves.
Thanks for your respectful answer. We may have to simply disagree on this one, but I'd like to take a shot at explaining where I'm coming from on this.
You are correct, the gun doesn't care about who it hurts or how; it's the target whose life is affected or ended who has the largest emotional load here. Regardless of the intent of the shooter, someone being targeted can only rationally assume that the intent is lethal (you can't really know what the shooter is thinking, only what they're doing). In my mind, this point alone justifies the rule of "only use lethal force with lethal intent" - the target will react as if your intent is lethal regardless, as that's really their only option.
Use of a bullet to injure or wound instead of kill is also considered inhumane. Think back to the American Civil War where the majority of non-lethal wounds on the battle field resulted in amputation. The trauma inflicted on a hand or knee by a bullet is not easily repaired and is reported to be quite painful. The blood loss from a bullet wound to the femoral or brachial artery is frequently lethal if not immediately treated, so aiming for the hand or leg doesn't significantly reduce risk of death. Instead it adds large likelihoods of pain and suffering if the target recovers. Making that a standard policy is tantamount to institutionalized torture, and even as a conservative gun nut I have little stomach for it.
You are right, we made these rules ourselves. We made them for good reasons, and even many gun control advocates agree that there are no significant non-lethal uses for guns. This is not because it's impossible to use them non-lethally, but because doing so has historically caused more problems than it's solved.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:15AM
Being a cop doesn't even make the top 10 among most-dangerous jobs. [businessinsider.com]
Want props for having a dangerous job?
Try commercial fisherman or lumberjack or farmer.
The FBI says [fbi.gov]
So, about twice as many cops died from hot-dogging it in their squad cars (probably in hot pursuit of a litterbug or somebody who didn't use his seat belt) than from any actual threat.
--gewg_
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:32PM
No LEO ever killed a person for burglarizing a house at 2pm if that person was busy at work on that day from 9am to 5pm.
Right, because no-one making pittance at their 9-5 ever struggled to provide for their family...
The insane state of medicare in the USA makes your claim even less convincing.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:34PM
Well, of course, if a 9 to 5 worker feels that he is not earning enough then he is definitely entitled to supplement his income with crime. </sarc>
Why would anyone think that they are entitled to better healthcare? There is no upper limit to that, short of complete rebuild of the body. Most countries on this planet cannot match even the medicare. Does anyone in the world owe something to a stranger from the very moment that stranger is born?
If someone thinks that healthcare is a natural right, such as right to breathe, then they are welcome to exercise that right in absence of medical personnel and equipment. They can have all the books about medicine, and they are strongly advised to practice it on themselves. However if, for some strange reason, a person wants someone else to work on their body, then the work and the tools and the facilities have to be paid for. You know, doctors and operating rooms aren't growing on trees. As healthcare becomes better, it also becomes more expensive. If that's not what you like, there are still witch doctors in Swaziland, they will be happy to help you in exchange for a chicken. As healthcare in remote African villages is very affordable, I guess they live longer and happier than any citizen of the first world.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday December 18 2014, @12:19AM
Why would anyone think that they are entitled to better healthcare?
For the simple reason that it's clear [huffingtonpost.com] that privatised healthcare is just an awful way to do things [cbsnews.com].
I do not sympathise with your strong advocacy for applying capitalism to healthcare or with your strong opposition to a welfare state. It simply hasn't shown to be an effective way to handle the issue of health in a society. Yes, this means higher taxes, even for those who happen to be healthy. I'm ok with paying those higher taxes, and yes, I believe it's right to impose those taxes on everyone. (Turns out that in real terms, people end up spending less on healthcare this way anyway.)
There is no upper limit to that
Of course. Fortunately, I'm not advocating an infinite budget for nationalised healthcare, any more than I'd advocate an infinite budget for policing, or anything else.
As healthcare becomes better, it also becomes more expensive.
For a given level of healthcare, the price can be expected to decrease with time, surely? The price of the greatest possible healthcare might increase with time, maybe... I really don't know, it's not self-evident.
If that's not what you like, there are still witch doctors [....]
This really isn't relevant... at all....
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday December 18 2014, @05:03AM
There are good and bad aspects of privatized and socialized healthcare. However the mode of ownership is irrelevant here, as every healthcare activity requires a worker (a doctor, a nurse) and location and equipment and materials. Someone has to pay for all that. Healthcare cannot be free. At best you can optimize it by replacing insurers with the government. This would do wonders, as government is always far more efficient than anyone else :-)
Very well; then I will stop working, and you will be paying for my healthcare and for all my other needs. Deal?
That's because the government, having no need to compete for the patients, will minimize its expenses. You will be treated by poorly trained doctors, in decrepit facilities, with old and unusable tools and with drugs that are not even fit for disposal. If, of course, you will live long enough to see a doctor. In UK many patients die in line; other die from poor treatment. USSR produced many doctors and paid them only a subststence salary; but at least you could see a doctor. The doctor would have no access to modern anything because... you know, it costs money. Do you know that in USSR a dentist was drilling your teeth without anesthesia? Do you know that in USSR a dentist was working alone, without a nurse? Do you know that the dental drills that were in use in USSR were straight from 1920's, judging by their technology? Do you know that there was no such job as dental hygienist? Have you any doubts now why so many Soviet people have bad teeth? But, it was all free - if your heart can survive the pain.
As you say yourself, a drug that was good and expensive 10 years ago may be cheaper today... but not so good anymore. Would you like a surgery, which remains an option, or perhaps you want this new and shiny drug that costs big bucks but requires no sharp objects anywhere near your bowels? The cost of healthcare invariably follows the money that the people are willing to pay. Nobody wants to be half-healed.
As you see, it is very much relevant. You get what you pay for. Any attempts to change that simple formula only result in forcing other people to pay for your needs. Even worse, they are forcing other people to pay for medical needs more than they intended to pay. Young people are healthier; at the same they are poorer. Older people need more money on healthcare... but they tend to have some saved away. The concept of taxing people for healthcare will result in overtaxing young graduates, who already have too much debt. And it will eliminate taxes on people who don't draw a salary anymore but are frequent visitors at the doctor. Essentially, it flips the pyramid of earnings and expenses; it depends on the government to take money from group A and to give some of it to group B (keeping the rest for themselves.) Why do you insist on paying the useless bureaucracy instead of just cutting a check to the doctor? All insurances operate for profit, and it is you who is paying for those profits. Government-assisted extortion will only cost you more, as it is already the case with ACA.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday December 18 2014, @02:45PM
At best you can optimize it by replacing insurers with the government.
Not true. The toxic insurer-patient relationship can be avoided completely. For instance, in a nationalised healthcare system, there is never a need to avoid medical tests in case they come back positive and drive up your insurance costs. Neither do you ever have to worry about being taken to the wrong hospital and having to pay the bill yourself. It is fundamentally different from a capitalistic insurance-based scheme.
This would do wonders, as government is always far more efficient than anyone else :-)
Well, yes, it is more efficient than the privatised approach. Brits pay less per-capita on healthcare, and on average get better treatment than Americans do.
Very well; then I will stop working, and you will be paying for my healthcare and for all my other needs. Deal?
All your other needs? That would be basic income [wikipedia.org], not nationalised healthcare. That's another topic.
That's because the government, having no need to compete for the patients, will minimize its expenses. You will be treated by poorly trained doctors, in decrepit facilities [falsities continue]
Again: Brits pay less per-capita on healthcare, and on average get better treatment than Americans do.
As you say yourself, a drug that was good and expensive 10 years ago may be cheaper today... but not so good anymore.
This issue is tangential, but: not so good anymore? Why not?
Nobody wants to be half-healed.
But there's often a balance. Neither an insurer nor the NHS will be always be willing to unconditionally spend as much as necessary for the very greatest treatment. It's just not practical.
Even worse, they are forcing other people to pay for medical needs more than they intended to pay. Young people are healthier; at the same they are poorer.
Well sure. It's just like with anything that's nationalised: tax reasonably.
Why do you insist on paying the useless bureaucracy instead of just cutting a check to the doctor?
Because I like the idea of a national safety-net for those who can't afford healthcare. I realise that maintaining a healthy population (and therefore a healthy work-force) is in the best interests of both the country and its citizens. I don't mind that the cost of healthcare is spread across all citizens, including those who are luck enough to be healthy (myself included). (Of course, literally paying your doctor per-treatment is so problematic that it's essentially never proposed as a viable strategy: we really have either insurance or nationalisation.)
Government-assisted extortion will only cost you more, as it is already the case with ACA.
I'm afraid I don't know the details of ACA.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:51PM
Its probably hype, and totally misleading nonsense.
Ask any officer in the US. You fire your gun in the line of duty, and you are off the streets on desk assignment until the issue is completely investigated.
In most states, it requires another agency to conduct the investigation. In big departments, they have their own internal affairs unit doing the investigation. These are ALL reported to many different places, but not always to the FBI.
Go read the second link again and count the number of weasel words...
A St. Louis Post-Dispatch report this week on police shooting data found that out of some 18,000 U.S. police departments, only 1,100 — or six percent of all departments — reported a single fatal police shooting that was considered justifiable between 2005 and 2012. We don’t know whether those who didn’t report simply opted not to report that information, or didn’t have any shootings.
Most police departments go years, decades even, without shooting anybody.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:03PM
Ask any officer in the US. You fire your gun in the line of duty, and you are off the streets on desk assignment until the issue is completely investigated.
First, I don't talk to the police, unless it's this "Am I being detained or am I free to go?". Second, it's not against the law for cops to lie to you. Why would I believe anything a cop says?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0x663EB663D1E7F223
(Score: 3) by wantkitteh on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:30PM
We don’t know whether those who didn’t report simply opted not to report that information, or didn’t have any shootings.
...does not equate to...
Most police departments go years, decades even, without shooting anybody.
The simple fact that there isn't a piece of paper with "zero fatalities this year ftw beer and donuts all round!" written on it shows a major ongoing problem with fatality reporting in the US. It took me 30 seconds refining my search terms on Google to come up with those figures for the UK going back 10 years.
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/deaths-during-or-following-police-contact [ipcc.gov.uk]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 16 2014, @10:06PM
Federalism. The reasoning is federalism.
Many many many people believe the federal government can't dictate how states and municipalities enforce laws. Sometimes up to and including rejecting enforcement of the bill of rights. I'm not trying to start a quarrel about how wrong they are, just that their attitudes influence the relationship between the federal government and more local law enforcement.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:35PM
I've seen a few documentaries about enforcement of marijuana prohibition laws in the US on the TV over here in the UK. It seems they all feature a thread about some cop somewhere who can't accept that state marijuana legalisation has taken place and keeps harassing the clinics and dispensaries and arresting the people who work there. Not saying anything about marijuana legalisation, just that the state/federal jurisdiction conflict works both ways.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday December 16 2014, @10:18PM
...and from thence, and similar places, comes the impression many USA residents have of the "brutes with badges." There are, no doubt, many honorable men and women working to make the world a better place service on the force. Unfortunately, and particularly in places such as NYC with "stop and frisk" and many red-light-camera areas, locals are afraid of those sworn to Protect and Serve, because it seems like their loyalty is not to the community but to some group with power over their budget/paycheck.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:07AM
I am gobsmacked that any police force in the civilised west where the enforcement is carried out with the constant threat of lethal force is allowed NOT to report the number of deaths caused in the line of maintaining peace and delivering "justice".
Who says that is going on? This is more an attempt at standardization, getting police throughout the US to report such figures in the same context and to the same destination.
(Score: 1) by wantkitteh on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:22PM
RTFA, dumbass,