geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Now, why should he have been shot? Because he reached into an area the officers could not see to retrieve the knife. It could have been a gun--it could have been anything. However, when you encounter someone like this young man who has threatened to do violence, you tell him what you want him to do--keep his hands in your sight. When they go out of your sight, if you have time, you warn him. If you don't have time or do not know what he is doing, you have to shoot. You have no choice. If you wait to see what it is, you've already been shot--or, as in this case, received a knife wound.

Why didn't they shoot him?

In short, they did not shoot him because he was black and they have been warned to avoid being the next focus of the national media. With all due respect to the officers involved, that is not a good enough reason to die.

While you are probably right that the facts support the reading that he should have been shot according to standard operating procedure and policy training, but is it really a bad thing that he wasn't? Are we really saying that a man NOT being shot to death is bad?

Another way to put it is an officer of the law decided to put himself in harms way so as to not be forced to kill a fellow citizen and human being. That sounds pretty awesome to me, and I expect most people. I understand why we have training and standards, and I understand that it would have probably been legally justified, but just because something is legally justified doesn't necessary mean that it's the ideal way forward. It sounds like the cops were real heroes here. Perhaps we should give them praise and not criticism.

Sorry, but any cop who sacrifices his life for a person acting criminally is a bad cop. If he has kids or a wife, he nearly gave up being with them and supporting them to avoid shooting someone trying to kill him. That is the opposite of what officers are hired and trained to do.

freeman3 wrote:The Washington Post has set out to keep track of the total number of fatal shootings by police.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

At current pace that would be 1,000 fatal shootings this year by police (as noted below, 8 people were shot by German police last year, 0 by British police)

1 out of 13 fatal shootings in the US is done by police officers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... n-the-u-s/

Perhaps experts could shift through these cases and give advice on how to lower the rate of police shootings. But I think at some point we are going to have to require officers to take a little more risk before they resort to lethal force. 1,000 people killed by police is not acceptable in civilized society, particularly when crime has been falling for quite some time.http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/

If you want to make the case, please tell me how many who are killed by police are non-violent.

fate

If you want to make the case, please tell me how many who are killed by police are non-violent.

Since police shooting incidents, including deaths caused by police shootings have been significantly under reported .... it makes one wonder how one would go about gathering this evidence.
It also makes the numbers reported in Bbauskas link wrong. They don't include police shootings. Partly because there have been no adequate data bases for police shootings.

The problem with identifying causes and righteousness of police shootings is that there is inadequate reporting of the events and inadequate evidence or investigations of the events. Why inadequate?
Till now, police testimony has always carried most of the weight. And the blue wall has protected officers in most jurisdictions. Eye witness accounts have less weight than police and there is not always a lot of impartial evidence. (Sometimes there are accusations that this evidence is tampered with...)

On a large scale, the personal experience of minorities encountering police has not engendered trust. The prevalence of events that have video evidence that casts doubt on many actions has fed this mistrust.
Mandatory body cameras may be the one new policing element that can rebuild trust by providing third party evidence of encounters.
If police shootings go down because of mandatory body cameras then we can conclude that
many of the past shootings would not have occurred if the police involved had known they were being recorded.
Its a basic problem. Who polices the police?

Well, the question is not "who " (violent,non-violent,black, non- black) but whether what they did required the use of lethal force, DF. In any case, let's assume you are right Brad and DF that unjustified police shootings are very small--what does that say about our society that (apparently) 1,000 people have to be killed each year to keep order? Why can German and British police keep the peace without killing people ? Is it simply about the availability of guns? A more stratified society ? War on drugs? Problems with African-American community due to a legacy of segregation, discrimination, poverty, gangs, and drugs? (Fact that half of victims in Washington Post count are white indicates a broader problem) These numbers should (I would think) require some introspection as to why our society requires that the police kill so many whereas other advanced western societies don't have this problem at all.

freeman3 wrote:Well, the question is not "who " (violent,non-violent,black, non- black) but whether what they did required the use of lethal force, DF. In any case, let's assume you are right Brad and DF that unjustified police shootings are very small--what does that say about our society that (apparently) 1,000 people have to be killed each year to keep order? Why can German and British police keep the peace without killing people ?

I don't know. I do know you could move the British police to LA and they would find it quite challenging to defend themselves and others without using deadly force on occasion. If you interact with gang members, you understand why this is. When you are dealing with people who do not value life in the same way that most Westerners do, you have to deal with them differently.

Who would shoot someone because they "dissed" him? There is a "Godfather"-like mentality that rules over many areas of this country.

Is it simply about the availability of guns?

Here's a tidbit: I'd venture to say that many of the guns criminals use are "illegal." To put it another way: either the guns are stolen, not registered, or being carried by those on parole or probation. Do those laws stop them?

A more stratified society ? War on drugs? Problems with African-American community due to a legacy of segregation, discrimination, poverty, gangs, and drugs? (Fact that half of victims in Washington Post count are white indicates a broader problem) These numbers should (I would think) require some introspection as to why our society requires that the police kill so many whereas other advanced western societies don't have this problem at all.

I think the hopelessness of some communities plays a part. However, I don't think just dumping money on them will solve that. There needs to be an effort made to permit those in these circumstances to lift themselves out of the mess they are in. More government programs will employ more government workers, but won't end the problem. Ownership of one's destiny is essential and handouts don't give a sense of ownership.

df

Here's a tidbit: I'd venture to say that many of the guns criminals use are "illegal." To put it another way: either the guns are stolen, not registered, or being carried by those on parole or probation. Do those laws stop them?

He used the term available. Whether a gun is legal or not, it represents a potentially fatal weapon that can be wielded fairly easily In the hands of impulsive people lots of destructive force equals lots of destruction.


df

However, I don't think just dumping money on them will solve that

.

Lot of that going on is there?
Or is there such prescriptive control over any welfare payments that the small stipends often become a way to demean the poor?

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/04/09/d ... are-abuse/

rickyp wrote:df

Here's a tidbit: I'd venture to say that many of the guns criminals use are "illegal." To put it another way: either the guns are stolen, not registered, or being carried by those on parole or probation. Do those laws stop them?

He used the term available. Whether a gun is legal or not, it represents a potentially fatal weapon that can be wielded fairly easily In the hands of impulsive people lots of destructive force equals lots of destruction.

Nothing the government can do to prevent illegal weapons from being used.

df

However, I don't think just dumping money on them will solve that

.

Lot of that going on is there?
Or is there such prescriptive control over any welfare payments that the small stipends often become a way to demean the poor?

Ooh, now who is using anecdotes? Since we began "The War on Poverty," how many trillions have been spent? Better yet, what is the magic number?

Doctor Fate wrote:
Nothing the government can do to prevent illegal weapons from being used.

Apart from enforcing the law.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Nothing the government can do to prevent illegal weapons from being used.

Apart from enforcing the law.

The illegal weapons exist. The people who are forbidden from carrying guns exist.

Police officers are not clairvoyant. They cannot know where all the illegal weapons are, nor can they magically identify parolees, probationers, etc. who are carrying weapons.

Laws don't prevent crime. Mark it.

So if we passed a law making armed robbery punishable by a fine would there be more or fewer armed robberies? Laws do prevent crime.

freeman3 wrote:So if we passed a law making armed robbery punishable by a fine would there be more or fewer armed robberies? Laws do prevent crime.

That's not the law defining the crime, but the punishment.

And, should you be arguing for the deterrent effect of punishment?

Laws do not prevent crime--it merely defines the offense and prescribes the penalty. If laws prevented crime, we would have little crime.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:So if we passed a law making armed robbery punishable by a fine would there be more or fewer armed robberies? Laws do prevent crime.

That's not the law defining the crime, but the punishment.

And, should you be arguing for the deterrent effect of punishment?

Laws do not prevent crime--it merely defines the offense and prescribes the penalty. If laws prevented crime, we would have little crime.

Laws alone do not prevent crime (although they may if people are going to see such such laws and abide by them automatically). But most times a law is passed that is not all that happens is it?

But enforcing the laws does reduce crime.

And there are ways to help law enforcement. Registration, tracking of legal weapons etc. Telling the police who the parolees and probationers are (so that they don't need to rely on "magic"), clamping down when criminals are found with illegal weapons even if that was not the original reason for arrest.

And making gun control law that is enforceable and is not undermined by state-by-state variations would also help.

None of that is "banning" guns, but neither is it simply accepting the existence of illegal guns and shrugging.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:So if we passed a law making armed robbery punishable by a fine would there be more or fewer armed robberies? Laws do prevent crime.

That's not the law defining the crime, but the punishment.

And, should you be arguing for the deterrent effect of punishment?

Laws do not prevent crime--it merely defines the offense and prescribes the penalty. If laws prevented crime, we would have little crime.

Punishment can affect recidivism.

danivon wrote:Laws alone do not prevent crime (although they may if people are going to see such such laws and abide by them automatically). But most times a law is passed that is not all that happens is it?

But enforcing the laws does reduce crime.

Sure, and if police officers know where illegal weapons are being kept, they will enforce the laws against them. However, in most instances, they don't have a "illegal weapons hidden here" sign nearby. So, again, laws against guns do nothing per se to stop gun violence.

And there are ways to help law enforcement. Registration, tracking of legal weapons etc. Telling the police who the parolees and probationers are (so that they don't need to rely on "magic"), clamping down when criminals are found with illegal weapons even if that was not the original reason for arrest.

All of this is done. Next suggestion?

And making gun control law that is enforceable and is not undermined by state-by-state variations would also help.

Too bad. We have a system. You may not like it, but it exists for a reason.

None of that is "banning" guns, but neither is it simply accepting the existence of illegal guns and shrugging.

No one shrugs, least of all cops. However, "enforcing the laws" against guns isn't going to be accomplished by anything you have suggested. It takes traffic stops, interviews with gang members, etc. It is hard work. And, in most cases, such work will uncover a few illegal weapons. There is just no way, short of employing a police state and suspending individual rights, to rid us of illegal weapons.

bbauska wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:So if we passed a law making armed robbery punishable by a fine would there be more or fewer armed robberies? Laws do prevent crime.

That's not the law defining the crime, but the punishment.

And, should you be arguing for the deterrent effect of punishment?

Laws do not prevent crime--it merely defines the offense and prescribes the penalty. If laws prevented crime, we would have little crime.

Punishment can affect recidivism.

Yes, if it is severe enough.