bbauska

Secondly, the number quoted by RickyP is minute compared to the number of interactions with the police

Well we don't have those numbers available to us.
We also don't have the numbers of interactions that result in
arrest, or violence by the police or violence by the civilian.
By the way, the ways by which police forces report data is not consistent, not comprehensive and the FBI has no way of enforcing the standards. Without consistent reliable data, it makes it harder to evaluate and understand whats going on...which many police services prefer. Did you know that the reporting of shootings by police is under reported because of this situation?

What we only have are the numbers for worst possible result. A death. And when the worst happens, 95% of the time its happening to the civilian. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that when an encounter between police and civilians results in a death - 95% of the time its the civilian. The Civilian is at much greater risk. The rationale that police are risking their lives constantly may be true. But the risk is greatly exaggerated when you consider the ratio of deadly outcomes.

What is increasingly clear, is that cell phones ubiquity and the ability to video record has shown that when violent interactions between police and civilians occurs - often the police act without cause and without justification.
You think that if Floyd's murder hadn't been recorded that there would have been charges?
Technology has provided civilians a way to hold to account the actions of police in a way that they haven't been held to account.
It was Rodney Kings beating that was the first incident of a recording and it lead to the LA riots...What all of the recordings do for people who have had decades of bad encounters with police is confirm their negative experiences. What it does for people who have not had bad experiences with police is open there eyes to the reality of such an event. And makes them consider that perhaps the people who are supposed to serve and protect need more accountability and better training, And that the apparent impunity with which the organizations operate needs to evolve towards more transparent justice.

2nd degree murder, and aiding and abetting a 2nd degree murder is not impunity IMHO.

I am all fine with police officers being held accountable, just like civilians who shoot 77 year old retired police chiefs. Death penalty for both. Care to top that? I want the highest penalty because it is the highest crime.

To me it does not matter if you wear a uniform or not. A crime is a crime, and they both must be dealt with severely and with finality; just like the crime they committed.

You are stating that all of the civilian deaths are wrong because someone dies. That is false.

Are you condoning that actions of those who "Peacefully protest" by looting, shooting, and assaulting others? Is this the civil disobedience you are calling for? I hope not.

Just yesterday, I scrubbed the crosswalk near my business because someone wrote "All Cops are Bastards". That is false, not all cops are. That is just as bad as saying all <insert race/gender/protected class> are thugs because of an incident.

All I want is ANY incident dealt with and criminals punished to the fullest extent of the law.

bauska

You are stating that all of the civilian deaths are wrong because someone dies

.

no I'm not. Quote me where I said this.
However I will say that having so many interactions end up in lethal violence is a pretty good indication of a failing system of policing.
For comparison: In the UK last year, 3 people died at the hands of police, and there's no doubt they needed killing at the time. That's 100 times less than what the number would be if the UK society and policing were identical to the US.

bbauska

Are you condoning that actions of those who "Peacefully protest" by looting, shooting, and assaulting others?

no

bbauska

All I want is ANY incident dealt with and criminals punished to the fullest extent of the law

Under the current conditions, is that possible?

If police were better educated, and better trained, there would be far fewer interactions escalating to violence.
If people of color believed that the justice system was truly impartial and that they truly had equal access to the protections of the law - interactions with police wouldn't be as fraught with danger.(for both parties)
If guns were NOT prevalent, interactions would be 1) less likely to escalate to lethal violence 2) less fraught with tension.
If police were held to standards of performance consistently, then over time attitudes of civilians would change.
Cases like this:
https://globalnews.ca/news/6938998/breo ... -shooting/

highlight all the problems of
- gun ownership ,
- laws that promote violent encounters (no knock warrants)
- poor police training

None of this will change easily.And I doubt that the political will exists to make the kinds of systemic changes to policing and the justice system that are really required.

Ricky:

For comparison: In the UK last year, 3 people died at the hands of police,

How many UK police were killed by suspects? (I think the answer is 0).

rayjay

How many UK police were killed by suspects? (I think the answer is 0).

PC Andrew Harper was killed in 2019 (dragged by a truck)
PC Matt Lannie was killed in 2020.

I think that is also an indication that the relationship between police in UK is significantly different than in the US.

- UK police are unlikely to encounter armed suspects, and if they do specially trained, armed rapid response teams are called.
- UK police "police by consent", and are trained to de-escalate situations and use only an appropriate level of force.

Obviously in the USA, police have to assume that anyone they encounter is armed. And therefore dangerous. And that specifically creates tension in any encounter. However, it doesn't mean that police have to resort to firing their weapons as the only alternative in an encounter.
There is no doubt that some of the deaths of "civilians" in encounters are unavoidable. But a great many could be avoided.

Here's an example of a mass murderer being apprehended where in many other jurisdictions I don't doubt there would have been shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOW05IVejNE

It's a complicated issue, with comparisons to other less violent countries not really helpful. And facile answers not likely to be accurate....but I'll try anyway!


(1) In order to be a police officer anywhere in this country...you should be a highly trained professional who has passed a national set of standards.

(2) Access to information. This is a tricky issue, because police officers have privacy rights, too. But we cant weed out bad officers who are getting a lot of complaints, if we dont know who they are. At the very least someone (The Justice Department?) Should know every complaint that is made against officers, and every officer involved shooting--as much information as we can get about officers and police departments so they can determine where there are potential problems.

(3) Officers who are too fearful, have implied bias, or who are psychologically too ready to use force should be weeded out. I dont know how effective psychological testing is in identifying that, or whether problems can be identified in training, or whether supervising officers cant be trained to look for issues...but hopefully something can be found to weed out psychologically unfit officers at an early stage of their careers.

(4) Code of silence. Something has to be done about getting officers to intervene when other officers act inappropriately or report them...but I dont how know you change that culture. I am guessing you would need very strong leadership from police chiefs on down and holding officers accountable when they fail to intervene or at least report misconduct..but I know it aint easy. Making sure that officers are very well-trained and knowledgeable so that they KNOW misconduct when they see it might help.

(5) A certain percentage of officers should come from the community they police. Having to answer for one's conduct in the community you live in...can only help.

freeman3

It's a complicated issue, with comparisons to other less violent countries not really helpful

.

You know, those less violent countries got that way because of some identifiable socio economic characteristics, social policies and - especially in the case of policing - specific training, education and policies.

In any industry, private companies look around the world to see how things are down elsewhere and try to incorporate "best practices" into their businesses. But it can't be done with policing?

If the "not invented here"... or we're different with different problems - are genuine excuses for not looking elsewhere, the same rhetoric will apply to why Alabama is different, and Indiana is different and you can't have the same rules and standards that those liberals in Massachusetts have...
That's actually a pretty standard argument in the federal system of the US for pretty much everything including policing.
And yet its national standards that are required.

Ricky:

rayjay
How many UK police were killed by suspects? (I think the answer is 0).


PC Andrew Harper was killed in 2019 (dragged by a truck) [RJ: I don't believe that the truck was driven by a suspect}
PC Matt Lannie was killed in 2020.

I think that is also an indication that the relationship between police in UK is significantly different than in the US.

- UK police are unlikely to encounter armed suspects, and if they do specially trained, armed rapid response teams are called.
- UK police "police by consent", and are trained to de-escalate situations [RJ: In the US too, although obviously there are some rotten apples] and use only an appropriate level of force.

Obviously in the USA, police have to assume that anyone they encounter is armed. And therefore dangerous. And that specifically creates tension in any encounter.

That's my only point. Saying that UK police don't kill as many suspects is a faulty statistic. The UK police aren't as scared as US police officers in parts of this country where they risk their lives every day.

All that being said, this was a terrible tragedy and I'm glad that the 4 officers are being prosecuted. I support the protesters, but not the looters. I do support gun control and of course I am against racism. But we do have to acknowledge US culture and history to have a meaningful discussion.

George...what the heck is going on with NYPD? Video of police officers using batons on peaceful, unarmed protesters.

According to this article, refroming the police is essentially impossible...there is a structural problem with policing in the US and reducing police funding is the best way to get better outcomes.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ed9 ... ee016ed79e

And here's an article that indicates reform is possible:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/po ... fa8bab6e29

But these numbers don’t tell the whole story. While the nationwide total of people killed by police nationwide has remained steady, the numbers have dropped significantly in America’s largest cities, likely due to reforms to use-of-force policies implemented in the wake of high-profile deaths. Those decreases, however, have been offset by increases in police killings in more suburban and rural areas. It seems that solutions that can reduce police killings exist, in other words — the issue may be whether an area has the political will to enact them.

I do think there has been an attitude change on how white people react to the BLM movement and white realization that there is racism and a problem that needs to be addressed. Here to the moral arc of the U.S. and the universe points upward.

Who thinks defunding the police is a good idea? To me that is just crazy. However, I am fine with cities doing that and the police officers there going to where they are appreciated. I am sure that the inner cities in Phoenix, NYC, LA and Nashville will be safer this way.

Good luck with that.

Total defunding would be ridiculous but these budgets for city police departments are absurd. New York has a 6 billion dollar police budget; LA has about a billion dollar budget. Before George Floyd Mayor Gil Garcetti was proposing a routine 7% increase in the police budget--now he wants to reallocate 150 million to other programs. Police departments have become sacred cows and if youre throwing money at them and theyre a huge percentage of the city budget...how are you going to reform them? And it just leads to more intrusion of the police into public life: like any government program recipents have a way of justifying the necessity of their budget. That tends to result in police departments heavily policing poor and minority nrighborhoods, who dont have political power to stop it.

I think getting a handle on police budgets is one part of the solution. I would rather take some of that money to use it for programs that can help to prevent crime and bloated police departments resistant to reform.

The data compiled by Five Thirty Eight is interesting...but is actually an argument for reducing police funding. "Specifically, cities that reduced police shootings also made 35 percent fewer arrests in 2018 than 2013, compared to only a 4 percent drop in arrests in cities where police shootings increased or remained constant." Those lower arrest totals were atttributed to reforms that reduced enforcement of low-level crimes. That doesnt look like it's primarily use of force reforms that are that working but simply the best way to reduce police shootings is to reduce police encounters with civilians.

(You kind of wonder about the stats, too. It seems rather bizarre that decreases in big-city killings woukd be off-set by increases in surburban and rural areas. Do changing demographics have something to do with it--people moving away from the city, crime moving out to surburban and rural areas?)

Refocus the police on dealing with violent crime and reduce interactions with the public. Take that saved money and put it into programs that can reduce crime. That's what I see.

freeman3

Total defunding would be ridiculous but these budgets for city police departments are absurd.

Here's one thing that should be eliminated. The use of civil forfeiture laws as a money making enterprise by police forces.I think its an outrage. These funds are often used to buy essentially military equipment.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/sept ... nforcement

I know that the biggest problem for Canadian policing is encounters between police and mentally ill people. It probably accounts for more than half of the fatal encounters. I suspect its just as bad if not worse in the US?

If two things happened with a portion of enormous police budgets this situation could be improved.
1) Increased spending on mental health resources. Especially for the homeless.
2) increased spending on training police on strategies and tactics to deal with the mentally ill safely and non-violently.

I saw a report on CNN today that two of the cops were rookies, one them was only on his third shift.