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: 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]