Quote:DOJ estimates 400-500 per year innocent civilians killed by police.
Innocent?
I imagine 400-500 per year civilians are killed by police. I'm not sure all of them are innocent. Jim Fisher reported in 2011 that 607 people were killed. He further states however that:
Quote:
Most police shooting victims were armed with handguns. The next most common weapon involved vehicles (used as weapons), followed by knives (and other sharp objects), shotguns, and rifles. Very few of these people carried assault weapons, and a small percentage were unarmed. About 50 subjects were armed with BB-guns, pellet guns or replica firearms.
Quote:I don't care what the averages are, that's far to many. That's more citizens killed by police in a decade than we lost soldiers in Iraq.
Of course, 1 innocent person is far too many...
However, the majority of those officer related homicides were justified and upheld in a court of law. Even if none of those were ruled justified, numbers that indicate you are twice as likely to die of a lightning strike as getting killed by a police officer is hardly proof that criminal police homicide is endemic in the United States.
You are far, far, far more likely to be killed by someone who is unemployed than a police officer.
Quote:Of course, 1 innocent person is far too many...
However, the majority of those officer related homicides were justified and upheld in a court of law. Even if none of those were ruled justified, numbers that indicate you are twice as likely to die of a lightning strike as getting killed by a police officer is hardly proof that criminal police homicide is endemic in the United States.
You are far, far, far more likely to be killed by someone who is unemployed than a police officer.
Except someone unemployed doesn't hold a position of authority over you and me. Officers DO hold a position of authority over the average citizen which means when they're responsible for more deaths in America than soldiers in Iraq we have a problem.
We can trade statistics and justifications or causes all day, but the fact remains a militarized police force isn't good for anyone. That was my original point.
Quote:Innocent?
I imagine 400-500 per year civilians are killed by police. I'm not sure all of them are innocent. Jim Fisher reported in 2011 that 607 people were killed. He further states however that:
It's cited as innocents in the article according to the USDOJ. If they're fabricating information then I'll recant my citing it.
Quote:Innocent?
I imagine 400-500 per year civilians are killed by police. I'm not sure all of them are innocent. Jim Fisher reported in 2011 that 607 people were killed. He further states however that:
It's cited as innocents in the article according to the USDOJ. If they're fabricating information then I'll recant my citing it.
Quote:Except someone unemployed doesn't hold a position of authority over you and me. Officers DO hold a position of authority over the average citizen which means when they're responsible for more deaths in America than soldiers in Iraq we have a problem.
We can trade statistics and justifications or causes all day, but the fact remains a militarized police force isn't good for anyone. That was my original point.
No officer holds a position of authority over an average citizen, like you and I.
Officers only hold authority over those who break the law.
I fail to see this militarized police state you talk about. When have you ever seen a police officer militarized short of riots or SWAT scenarios?
Quote:It's cited as innocents in the article according to the USDOJ. If they're fabricating information then I'll recant my citing it.
Do you have a link to the article?
AFAIK, the US Government doesn't (or at least didn't) keep track of police-related fatalities. (In fact, that was a reason Jim Fisher did his report iirc)
Quote:
I collected this data myself because the U.S. Government doesn't. There is no national database dedicated to police involved shootings. Alan Maimon, in his article, "National Data on Shootings by Police Not Collected," published on November 28, 2011 in the "Las Vegas Review-Journal," wrote "The nation's leading law enforcement agency [FBI] collects vast amounts of information on crime nationwide, but missing from this clearinghouse are statistics on where, how often, and under what circumstances police use deadly force. In fact, no one anywhere comprehensively tracks the most significant act police can do in the line of duty: take a life."
Quote:No officer holds a position of authority over an average citizen, like you and I.
Officers only hold authority over those who break the law.
I fail to see this militarized police state you talk about. When have you ever seen a police officer militarized short of riots or SWAT scenarios?
Absolutely, when was the last time you went to a county fair? They always have the reclaimed MILITARY grade transportation vehicles out. When working at the Walgreens off of Normandy BLVD I had 3-4 regular officers that where decked out in full riot gear every night.
If the officer does't hold authority over you until you've broken the law, explain DUI check points. Explain Stop and Frisk. The Officer holds legal authority over the citizen all the time, they're not allowed to use it with out due cause but if your in an officers way and he tells you to move your obligated by law to move.
Quote:Do you have a link to the article?
AFAIK, the US Government doesn't (or at least didn't) keep track of police-related fatalities. (In fact, that was a reason Jim Fisher did his report iirc)
I linked it earlier it's the one talking about more civilian deaths since 2000 than soldiers in Iraq.
Quote:I linked it earlier it's the one talking about more civilian deaths since 2000 than soldiers in Iraq.
It seems they don't actually to the DOJ report (they just mention the DOJ). I'm not sure the website you listed is credible or not (doing more research they have a lot of 9/11 conspiracy stuff). Given that they didn't actually link to the DOJ report, it makes me question it even more.
Innocent civilians could be interpreted several different ways. But given there is no national database of police killings, I find it highly doubtful that the source actually includes only innocent civilians.
Quote:Absolutely, when was the last time you went to a county fair? They always have the reclaimed MILITARY grade transportation vehicles out. When working at the Walgreens off of Normandy BLVD I had 3-4 regular officers that where decked out in full riot gear every night.
If the officer does't hold authority over you until you've broken the law, explain DUI check points. Explain Stop and Frisk. The Officer holds legal authority over the citizen all the time, they're not allowed to use it with out due cause but if your in an officers way and he tells you to move your obligated by law to move.
Well, I'm not one to dispute your claims, but I've never seen military vehicles at a county fair unless they were there as exhibition. I also find it hard to believe that 3-4 fully decked out riot squad police officers walked into Walgreens every night. They wore their shields and gas masks/helmets and brought in their tear gas and shotguns and everything? Or were they just in their body armor?
DUI check points' constitutionality are constantly being brought to court. I'll give you that one. Stop and Frisk is also another unconstitutional practice. There are a few places where politicians have overstepped their bounds. In general though, Everyday Joe Cop can't force Everyday Joe Citizen to move out of his way or come over to him unless a law is suspected of being broken. You aren't obligated to move if a cop tells you to unless you're loitering or obstructing.
Quote:Well, I'm not one to dispute your claims, but I've never seen military vehicles at a county fair unless they were there as exhibition. I also find it hard to believe that 3-4 fully decked out riot squad police officers walked into Walgreens every night. They wore their shields and gas masks/helmets and brought in their tear gas and shotguns and everything? Or were they just in their body armor?
DUI check points' constitutionality are constantly being brought to court. I'll give you that one. Stop and Frisk is also another unconstitutional practice. There are a few places where politicians have overstepped their bounds. In general though, Everyday Joe Cop can't force Everyday Joe Citizen to move out of his way or come over to him unless a law is suspected of being broken. You aren't obligated to move if a cop tells you to unless you're loitering or obstructing.
The officers wore body armor, Two carried a shot gun, and the other two didn't carry weapons into the store. All four of them had smoke or tear gas grenades. I asked them one day what they did, they told me they serve warrants to high risk targets. It was during the midnight shift so it made sense but I'm just talking about personally experiences.
DUI check points and stop and frisk may very well be unconstitutional but it's still used every day. You're legally obligated to move when an officer puts on his sirens and lights. It's the position of power they hold that makes militarizing them so dangerous.
Quote:It seems they don't actually to the DOJ report (they just mention the DOJ). I'm not sure the website you listed is credible or not (doing more research they have a lot of 9/11 conspiracy stuff). Given that they didn't actually link to the DOJ report, it makes me question it even more.
Innocent civilians could be interpreted several different ways. But given there is no national database of police killings, I find it highly doubtful that the source actually includes only innocent civilians.
It looks like you are correct, I can't find any authentic verification of the DOJ releasing police involved shootings. I've seen numerous sites quote various sources that the estimate is 400-500 police involved shootings lead to deaths per year, but that was the only site calling them innocent. Based on that I'd take back citing that site as credible.
I do think that police are losing reason to be accountable to their communities because they seem to be becoming more reliant on the government administering aid to them.
I still don't know what to make of the shooting, not enough seems to be known yet. The rioting has done absolutely nothing but escalate the situation, and give the police good reason to use military grade force.
EricC85, I agree with you on most of your principals, but in this case, I don't.
The "court" of public opinion labels the actions of the police officer as guilty.
I would love to see the actual report that this police officer made. I'm still betting that the circumstances involved are very different than what is being "reported" by the media.
I was a Deputy Sheriff at one time in my life, and have been on the streets so to speak. I can tell you right now that I would have drawn my weapon if I had to encounter a 6'5 300lb. black man walking down the street holding up traffic. If that suspect made any kind of aggressive move towards me, he would have gotten two to the chest and one to the head, no questions asked. A police officer has the right to defend him/herself if danger is perceived as well as defend the public.
Officers wear body armor for a reason. Put the uniform on and you become an instant target.
Missouri governor issued a state of emergency, midnight curfews in Ferguson
I also must bring up the point of "stop and frisk" and DUI checkpoints. Those programs are designed to make normal law abiding citizens safer.
In the case of "stop and frisk". It's easy to target someone based on how they look, how they are dressed, their demeanor, etc. Don't want to be stopped and frisked? Then don't dress or act like a thug.
Don't like DUI checkpoints? The first clue is to not drink and drive. The arrests made from these kind of checkpoints probably saves lives. How many people are killed each year due to drunk drivers?
Quote:I also must bring up the point of "stop and frisk" and DUI checkpoints. Those programs are designed to make normal law abiding citizens safer.
In the case of "stop and frisk". It's easy to target someone based on how they look, how they are dressed, their demeanor, etc. Don't want to be stopped and frisked? Then don't dress or act like a thug.
Don't like DUI checkpoints? The first clue is to not drink and drive. The arrests made from these kind of checkpoints probably saves lives. How many people are killed each year due to drunk drivers?
And who's to determine what "dressing", and "acting" like a thug constitutes? DUI checkpoints sure, in all honesty I have no actual problem with that, but stop and frisk is a joke.
Quote:EricC85, I agree with you on most of your principals, but in this case, I don't.
The "court" of public opinion labels the actions of the police officer as guilty.
I would love to see the actual report that this police officer made. I'm still betting that the circumstances involved are very different than what is being "reported" by the media.
I was a Deputy Sheriff at one time in my life, and have been on the streets so to speak. I can tell you right now that I would have drawn my weapon if I had to encounter a 6'5 300lb. black man walking down the street holding up traffic. If that suspect made any kind of aggressive move towards me, he would have gotten two to the chest and one to the head, no questions asked. A police officer has the right to defend him/herself if danger is perceived as well as defend the public.
Officers wear body armor for a reason. Put the uniform on and you become an instant target.
On an isolated incident you can make a case for anything. If you take a step back however and examine the cause and effect the shifting of police from protect and serve to stop and frisk has lead to animosity against authority and the people themselves.
You can speak better than I about the situation as you where once an officer. And yes today the uniform makes you a target but it also makes you an authority figure with tremendous power.
The 4th amendment is clear the military and police serve different functions in society. The more militarized a police force becomes the focus moves away from interaction and becomes about reaction. When you have a reactionary police force violent aprenhension is unavoidable.
Quote:Missouri governor issued a state of emergency, midnight curfews in Ferguson
Ala martial law that's the net result