Ferguson conflict - What is the problem, and how to solve it?

[swansont]

That is quite a striking statistic. What fraction of those cases would one expect to result in an indictment? I have no clue nor do I have a clue how one could even in theory arrive at such a number.

 

I have no idea, but even if some are instances of a prosecutor bringing a case because of public pressure, the difference between those and the rest of the cases is still huge - "U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

[Ten oz]

Possibilities (other than racial bias) include juror bias, prosecutor bias and case strength. Interesting statistic: in 80 out of 81 Dallas cases between 2008 and 2012 involving police shootings, the grand jury failed to indict. Similar elsewhere, I suspect.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

I read that article last week. Motivations are very difficult to prove but it seems clear that there is a statistical evidence reflecting a major change in how these cases are viewed by grand juries.

Other statistics like our (USA) staggering prison population, spending on what is becoming a heavily militarized police force, and redundant stand your ground style use of force protection laws reflect an encouragement of heavy handed enforcement/punishment in my opinion. The issue is broader and more pervasive than just being about race and juror bias I believe.

 

 

That is quite a striking statistic. What fraction of those cases would one expect to result in an indictment? I have no clue nor do I have a clue how one could even in theory arrive at such a number.

From Swansont's link:

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

That's only .00007% of juries not returning with indictments. Those numbers are staggering. So when you ask what fraction of those cases one would expect to result in indictments I think it's fair to assume that fraction match the statistical average. Why would it be different less police under investigation are being handled different?

[zapatos]

....spending on what is becoming a heavily militarized police force...

It is not so much spending on the police force as it is the police being given the military's used equipment.

 

Since Congress first approved the 1033 program in 1990, local police have received more than $5.1 billion in military-grade property – from surplus desks to Mine Resistant Ambush P (MRAPS), M-16s, and Kevlar body armor. In 2013 alone, more than $449 million in military equipment was transferred; the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and FEMA paid for it through grants appropriated by Congress.

 

Although DOD officials say Ferguson police did not use any of its military-grade tactical equipment (which is still under review in a separate federal investigation), the war zone-like images that came out of Ferguson sparked new concerns.

So when you ask what fraction of those cases one would expect to result in indictments I think it's fair to assume that fraction match the statistical average. Why would it be different less police under investigation are being handled different?

But of course the police are handled differently. Under certain conditions police are allowed activities under the law that would land you in jail. Police may legally drive over the speed limit, enter a private residence, forcibly grab someone off the street and throw them in a car, or even kill under the proper circumstances.

Because we ask the police to perform duties that often result in injury or death to citizens or themselves, they tend to get the benefit of the doubt when their performance is in question.

While statistics may tell you that police as a group are targeting minorities, they don't help much when it comes to specific situations. Even if the entire state of Missouri, and specifically the police of Ferguson are racist scumbags, you still have to look at Darren Wilson's actions in seclusion. He may be the only non-racist on the force. He may have broken the law many times before but acted correctly in the case of Michael Brown.

It is very difficult to know whether or not Wilson feared for his life or the lives of innocent bystanders. Only he knows for sure. And unless you are confident he is lying in this particular case, you are going to be hard pressed to get an indictment or conviction.

[Ten oz]

It is not so much spending on the police force as it is the police being given the military's used equipment.

Post 9/11 police forces around the United States were given a windfall of money and legislation like the Patriot Act also broadened the powers of many law enforcement agencies. The Department of Homeland Security did not even exist until 2002 and they have a 61 billion dollar budget. The issue is bigger than donations from the military.

 

 

But of course the police are handled differently. Under certain conditions police are allowed activities under the law that would land you in jail. Police may legally drive over the speed limit, enter a private residence, forcibly grab someone off the street and throw them in a car, or even kill under the proper circumstances.

Because we ask the police to perform duties that often result in injury or death to citizens or themselves, they tend to get the benefit of the doubt when their performance is in question.

Under certian conditions is key. A police officer can not forcibly grab, enter a private residence, and etc whenever they see fit. There are still laws in place protecting the rights of ordinary citizens. Police officers still are responsible to follow standards. Choke holds and shooting unarmed people go against those standards. Benifit of the doubt is broadly awarded to police. Most police officers make arrests and write citations daily without any issues. Their written statements in court treated good as gold. The conviction rate in the united states is 97%. Perhaps a little less benefit of the doubt would not be a terrible thing. At a 97% conviction rate ordinary citizens are getting very little benefit of the doubt. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

 

While being a police officer can be dangerous I think it is worth pointing out that it is not one of the more dangerous jobs in the United States. A quick look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that being a construction worker, Taxi driver, Truck driver, Power line installer, Miner, Farmer, Sanitation worker, and several others is all more dangerous. None of those more dangerous jobs are afforded special privileges based on their risk assessment. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

 

 

While statistics may tell you that police as a group are targeting minorities, they don't help much when it comes to specific situations. Even if the entire state of Missouri, and specifically the police of Ferguson are racist scumbags, you still have to look at Darren Wilson's actions in seclusion. He may be the only non-racist on the force. He may have broken the law many times before but acted correctly in the case of Michael Brown.

I did not reference anyone as a racist scumbag or suggest a broad conspiracy where police target only minorities. During Occupy Wall Street there was video of lots of white protestors being handled very aggressively by the police.

 

He may be the only non-racist on the force. He may have broken the law many times before but acted correctly in the case of Michael Brown. It is very difficult to know whether or not Wilson feared for his life or the lives of innocent bystanders. Only he knows for sure. And unless you are confident he is lying in this particular case, you are going to be hard pressed to get an indictment or conviction.

I disagree that only Wilson knows for sure. There were witnesses. Dorian Johnson for example was with Michael Brown from the very start of the incident. Maybe Dorian is lying or maybe he is telling the truth but Dorian does know what happened. Others saw the final shots and know whether or not Brown was attacking or holding his hands up. Memories can be flawed and it is possible some witness believe they saw things they did not but that goes both ways and includes Wilson himself. A trail where the evidence could've have been debated openly would've been preferred in my opinion. Edited December 6, 2014 by Ten oz

[swansont]

 

Under certian conditions is key. A police officer can not forcibly grab, enter a private residence, and etc whenever they see fit. There are still laws in place protecting the rights of ordinary citizens. Police officers still are responsible to follow standards.

 

But that's just it — the rights are not being protected. Police are not following standards and they are not being held accountable, as the Eric Garner case, and others, show. Unarmed people are being killed by the police, (and they are disproportionately black) and not a whole lot of accountability has followed.

 

It is very difficult to know whether or not Wilson feared for his life or the lives of innocent bystanders. Only he knows for sure. And unless you are confident he is lying in this particular case, you are going to be hard pressed to get an indictment or conviction.

 

That's not the standard to get an indictment. It's not the same as a trial. One of the many objections here is that he should not have been called to testify at the grand jury — that was not following normal procedure.

[zapatos]

Post 9/11 police forces around the United States were given a windfall of money and legislation like the Patriot Act also broadened the powers of many law enforcement agencies. The Department of Homeland Security did not even exist until 2002 and they have a 61 billion dollar budget. The issue is bigger than donations from the military.

But it is the donations from the military that are making the police "a heavily militarized police force".

 

Most police officers make arrests and write citations daily without any issues.

Which is what we should expect. We also shouldn't be surprised that given the vast number of encounters police have with criminals that on occasion the will be issues.

 

Perhaps a little less benefit of the doubt would not be a terrible thing.

Couldn't agree more.

 

But I also feel that in a highly stressful situation, where violence is occurring, that it is unreasonable to expect that an officer will always remember and properly execute the choke hold taught two years ago when he is now struggling with some huge guy who is intending to do him harm.

The police are in a tough spot. They don't know the intent of the person they are dealing with. They are scared. Adrenaline is flowing. They are trying to remember if they can do this but not that. Most police don't wish to harm anyone. And they are in a very fluid situation where they have about 3 seconds to make a decision.

And of course the juries are in a tough spot. They weren't there. They don't know what the officer was thinking. They have a tough time really understanding what happened simply by reading a report or talking to people who give 20 different versions of what they saw. I think I can get a rough idea of what it is like to be in combat, or have a baby, or deal with cancer, but unless I do it myself it is hard to judge.

So in my mind, the police rightly get the benefit of the doubt. Not because it is always right, but because mistakes are going to happen.

Just like we tend to give a doctor the benefit of the doubt if they do their best to treat a patient and it turns out they were not as successful as was actually possible, we need to give the police that same benefit of the doubt.

I'm all for going after police who break the law (after all they could shoot me too), and I suspect we don't go after them enough, but if something goes wrong and the person the police were trying to arrest was not cooperating, then we need to be awfully sure of our facts before we indict and try police.

 

While being a police officer can be dangerous I think it is worth pointing out that it is not one of the more dangerous jobs in the United States. A quick look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that being a construction worker, Taxi driver, Truck driver, Power line installer, Miner, Farmer, Sanitation worker, and several others is all more dangerous. None of those more dangerous jobs are afforded special privileges based on their risk assessment.

Let's compare apples to apples. We give all those people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their job. If a farmer misjudges the weather and plants his seed which then rots in the ground because of a long spell of wet weather, we don't criticize him for not doing a better job. He did his best and it didn't work out. No repercussions. Only if he was reckless by not paying attention to weather reports is he criticized.

The same should hold true for the police.

 

I did not reference anyone as a racist scumbag or suggest a broad conspiracy where police target only minorities. During Occupy Wall Street there was video of lots of white protestors being handled very aggressively by the police.

I didn't mean to suggest that you did. I was only trying to show and extreme example, and point out that you still have to look at each case on its own. Just as a woman's sexual past is irrelevant when trying a rape case, a police department's past is irrelevant when trying an officer.

 

A trail where the evidence could've have been debated openly would've been preferred in my opinion.

Well it would certainly have been better for us. We would have a better idea of the facts. But you cannot put someone through a trial simply because it is politically expedient. It would not be fair to try Wilson just because it will make us or the residents of Ferguson happy.

If a Grand Jury feels a trial is necessary, then by all means have the trial. But there is a reason we put the process that we have in place. It is so we can be fair to everyone involved, and limit how much we do based on emotion.

I disagree that only Wilson knows for sure. There were witnesses.

How could a witness possibly know if Wilson feared for his life or not? Edited December 6, 2014 by zapatos

[Airbrush]

Jury was based on the county.

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29189.html

 

Then maybe in the future they might change the law so that the grand jury is composed of the ethnic proportions of the immediate community, in this case of Ferguson, not the county which has very different ethnic proportions.

[zapatos]

Then maybe in the future they might change the law so that the grand jury is composed of the ethnic proportions of the immediate community, in this case of Ferguson, not the county which has very different ethnic proportions.

A change might be nice but I'm not sure how it would be accomplished. There are 90 municipalities (of which Ferguson is one) and 10 unincorporated areas in St. Louis County. How small of an area can support a Grand Jury? Will you pull together a Grand Jury every time there is a new crime? Should the Grand Jury be similar to the accused or the victim? What if Michael Brown had taken a walk and been killed in the exact same way in a rich, white community? I'm not sure that Grand Jury would be fair. You couldn't really have created a Grand Jury from the black residents of Ferguson and felt confident you would get a fair review.

 

It also brings up the question of what other factors should be taken into consideration when constructing the Grand Jury. If the community was mostly Jewish, should the Grand Jury consist mostly of Jews? If the community is mostly illiterate should the Grand Jury consist of mostly illiterate people?

[DimaMazin]

 

Can you say this in other words? This does not make sense in English.

 

In the New York City case of police "exceeding norm of law" by killing that huge guy with the chokehold, that guy could not even put his hands behind his back. So the police should have lasoed him, like a cowboy in the rodeo, using a restraint that wraps around the suspect.

Excessively fat guy breaks USA laws to be fatter. His brains should worry about inability of the body to live in extreme conditions when he breaks the laws.

Edited December 7, 2014 by DimaMazin

[mississippichem]

 

I have no idea, but even if some are instances of a prosecutor bringing a case because of public pressure, the difference between those and the rest of the cases is still huge - "U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

Oh alright. That's a large disparity. I can't see the "correction factor" in a hypothetical model for "the suspect is a cop" being able to account for that kind of difference between the probability of an indictment for a general suspect versus police suspect without it including some fairly strong grand jury bias. Thank you for your explanation and sorry for not reading the link.

 

Thank you Ten oz as well.

Edited December 7, 2014 by mississippichem

[Ten oz]

1 - But I also feel that in a highly stressful situation, where violence is occurring, that it is unreasonable to expect that an officer will always remember and properly execute the choke hold taught two years ago when he is now struggling with some huge guy who is intending to do him harm.

2 - The police are in a tough spot. They don't know the intent of the person they are dealing with. They are scared. Adrenaline is flowing. They are trying to remember if they can do this but not that. Most police don't wish to harm anyone. And they are in a very fluid situation where they have about 3 seconds to make a decision.

3 - And of course the juries are in a tough spot. They weren't there. They don't know what the officer was thinking. They have a tough time really understanding what happened simply by reading a report or talking to people who give 20 different versions of what they saw. I think I can get a rough idea of what it is like to be in combat, or have a baby, or deal with cancer, but unless I do it myself it is hard to judge.

So in my mind, the police rightly get the benefit of the doubt. Not because it is always right, but because mistakes are going to happen.

4 - Just like we tend to give a doctor the benefit of the doubt if they do their best to treat a patient and it turns out they were not as successful as was actually possible, we need to give the police that same benefit of the doubt.

Let's compare apples to apples. We give all those people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their job. If a farmer misjudges the weather and plants his seed which then rots in the ground because of a long spell of wet weather, we don't criticize him for not doing a better job. He did his best and it didn't work out. No repercussions. Only if he was reckless by not paying attention to weather reports is he criticized.

The same should hold true for the police.

 

 

5 - Well it would certainly have been better for us. We would have a better idea of the facts. But you cannot put someone through a trial simply because it is politically expedient. It would not be fair to try Wilson just because it will make us or the residents of Ferguson happy.

If a Grand Jury feels a trial is necessary, then by all means have the trial. But there is a reason we put the process that we have in place. It is so we can be fair to everyone involved, and limit how much we do based on emotion.

 

 

6 - How could a witness possibly know if Wilson feared for his life or not?

1 - Eric Garner resisted in the form of not giving his hands willing to be cuffed. He did not punch, kick, headbutt, bite, or otherwise actively assualt any of the officers. He was selling cigarettes not herion. To describe that as an highly stressful situation where violence is occuring is somewhat exaggerated in my opinion.

 

2 - Are police in the United States in a more difficult position in your opinion than they are in other nations with comparable levels of development and education?

 

The FBI reports that in 2011, cops in America killed 404 suspects in acts of "justifiable homicide." Astonishingly, though this number likely doesn't include every civilian fatality that year since it relies on voluntary reporting and doesn't include police homicides that aren't justifiable.

Still, 404 is a large number. By comparison, just six people were killed by police in Australia over the same period. Police in England and Wales killed only two people, and German police killed six.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8#ixzz3LEIkPGou

 

3 - Juries in the United States have no problem convicting people despite the "tough spot" you mentioned. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Per 100,000 people 707 are incarcerated. Let's compare that to : England 148, France 103, Canada 118, Germany 78, Australia 133, and etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

 

4 - Between 15,000 and 19,000 malpractice suits are brought against doctors each year.

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice}

 

5 - What laws are enforced are often in direct relationship to the wants of the residents and businesses in an area. I can walk on to any college campus here in California and use my nose to follow the smell of pot in the air to locate any number of people illegally using the drug. The police ignore it. Go to a poor neighbor and the police are making arrests left and right. Being drunk in public bar hopping on a Friday night is all good downtown of most cities where Business want the money. Yet being drunk in public is a crime people get charged with all time. We pick and choose what to enforce and when. Of criminal justice system makes examples of certian types of people for political gain when it sees fit. Our prisons have hundreds of thousands of inmates who were arrested doing things that are actually common place in our society broadly.

 

6 - Witnesses don't know how Wilson was feeling but they know if he is telling the truth about events. They know whether or not Brown was attacking or had his hands up.

[DimaMazin]

1 - Eric Garner resisted in the form of not giving his hands willing to be cuffed. He did not punch, kick, headbutt, bite, or otherwise actively assualt any of the officers. He was selling cigarettes not herion.

Even Putin fights against smoking. And only relative to this thing he is my ally. Propagation of smoking is dangerous crime for development of civilization.

Edited December 7, 2014 by DimaMazin

[zapatos]

1 - Eric Garner resisted in the form of not giving his hands willing to be cuffed. He did not punch, kick, headbutt, bite, or otherwise actively assualt any of the officers. He was selling cigarettes not herion. To describe that as an highly stressful situation where violence is occuring is somewhat exaggerated in my opinion.

I never mentioned Eric Garner.

 

2 - Are police in the United States in a more difficult position in your opinion than they are in other nations with comparable levels of development and education?

Absolutely. We have more guns per capita than any other nation in the world. The US has 90 guns per 100 residents while England and Wales have 6.2 guns per 100 residents. And that doesn't even account for the relatively small number of handguns in England and Wales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

There are also other police practices in England I've heard of that make it less likely that police will end up in a confrontation in the first place.

 

 

3 - Juries in the United States have no problem convicting people despite the "tough spot" you mentioned. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Per 100,000 people 707 are incarcerated. Let's compare that to : England 148, France 103, Canada 118, Germany 78, Australia 133, and etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

I don't know what your point is. Are you suggesting that the average officer reviewed for excessive force should be as likely to be incarcerated as the average drug dealer? This exactly gets to my point. The police are not the same as the average offender. We PUT them in a difficult position. I think it likely that if you give a law abiding person a gun and ask them to deal with the law breakers, and authorize the use of force, that they will on occasion hurt someone. We are ASKING them to do so. To suggest that police should be as likely to go to jail when they are acting in their role as police officers as the average drug dealer/burglar/killer/etc. is ridiculous.

 

I have no idea what the comparison to different countries could mean unless they have all the same laws as we have.

 

4 - Between 15,000 and 19,000 malpractice suits are brought against doctors each year.

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice}

Is that a lot or a little? Did they win or lose the suits? Were those suits related to bad outcomes for good faith effort? Or were they related to negligence? What is your point in simply listing the number of suits?

 

 

5 - What laws are enforced are often in direct relationship to the wants of the residents and businesses in an area. I can walk on to any college campus here in California and use my nose to follow the smell of pot in the air to locate any number of people illegally using the drug. The police ignore it. Go to a poor neighbor and the police are making arrests left and right. Being drunk in public bar hopping on a Friday night is all good downtown of most cities where Business want the money. Yet being drunk in public is a crime people get charged with all time. We pick and choose what to enforce and when. Of criminal justice system makes examples of certian types of people for political gain when it sees fit. Our prisons have hundreds of thousands of inmates who were arrested doing things that are actually common place in our society broadly.

You are correct. And as I said, that is not fair. We can't be unfair to Wilson just because we have been unfair to others. What we need to do is stop being unfair to all those you mentioned.

 

6 - Witnesses don't know how Wilson was feeling but they know if he is telling the truth about events. They know whether or not Brown was attacking or had his hands up.

Again, I never suggested otherwise. All I said was only Wilson knew if he feared for his life. I don't know what you are trying to prove with this continued push on this topic. Edited December 7, 2014 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

@ Zapatos, by mentioning the number of guns per person I assume you are implying it is more dangerous for Police in the United State which in turn examples the higher rates of police officers killing people.

The annual report from the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund also found that deaths in the line of duty generally fell by 8 percent and were the fewest since 1959.

According to the report, 111 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers were killed in the line of duty nationwide this past year, compared to 121 in 2012.

Forty-six officers were killed in traffic related accidents, and 33 were killed by firearms. The

number of firearms deaths

fell 33 percent in 2013 and was

the lowest since 1887

.

Even as the job becomes safer for police officers and crime stats continue to drop from their mid-1990s highs, the rate of deaths at the hands of law enforcement remains unchanged.

According to

statistics from the Bureau of Justice

, 4,813 people have died while being arrested by police officers. 60% of those were homicides, a rate of ~400 per year.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131230/15411225716/number-officers-killed-line-duty-drops-to-50-year-low-while-number-citizens-killed-cops-remains-unchanged.shtml

There does not seem to be a connection to actual threats to police safety and the number of people killed by police. I personally find that rather shocking. Why are police killing as many people or more than ever if their own personal safety is better than it has ever been in modern times?

Also I think it is important to point out that per capita crime is actually higher in the previously mentioned countries where police arent not killing people. So it isnt as if the police in those countries have less interactions with people breaking the law. A look at the G7 shows the UK, Germany, Canada, and France all have more crime per capita than the United States. Yet our (usa) police are killing a lot more people.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

 

 

 

[zapatos]

@ Zapatos, by mentioning the number of guns per person I assume you are implying it is more dangerous for Police in the United State which in turn examples the higher rates of police officers killing people.

Basically yes. You asked if I thought police in the US were in a more difficult position than in, for example, England. My response was simply that by having to deal with more people with guns, the answer is 'yes' it is more difficult.

But also because so few Brits have guns, that allows the police in England to generally not carry guns. And of course if you are not carrying a gun you will not be shooting anyone.

As long as we in the US allow the public to be armed, it will be necessary to arm the police, and when everyone is running around with guns, people are going to get shot.

This country has decided that the Second Amendment is worth the lives of many of its citizens.

 

There does not seem to be a connection to actual threats to police safety and the number of people killed by police. I personally find that rather shocking. Why are police killing as many people or more than ever if their own personal safety is better than it has ever been in modern times?

I agree is is pretty bad. In my opinion much of it has to do with training and tactics. In the US the police are often trained to quickly take control of a situation. Be forceful. Let them know who is in charge. Get in their face.

That may work much of the time but if you are dealing with someone who refuses to be pushed around it can quickly escalate into violence. I read that in England that the police tend to take their time with suspects, often keeping their car between the suspect and themselves. This in itself will allow for more time for backup and the opportunity to talk.

 

Also I think it is important to point out that per capita crime is actually higher in the previously mentioned countries where police arent not killing people. So it isnt as if the police in those countries have less interactions with people breaking the law. A look at the G7 shows the UK, Germany, Canada, and France all have more crime per capita than the United States. Yet our (usa) police are killing a lot more people.

Don't get me wrong. I think we have a big problem with the police and how they deal with minorities in this country. Mostly the points I have

been trying to get across are that we should not treat an individual officer harshly simply because statistically police are harsh with minorities. We have to address the racist problem, but we shouldn't scapegoat anyone to do it.

I also believe that all other things being equal and no evidence that one person is right and the other wrong, if it comes down to the word of the officer or the suspect, then the tie should go to the officer.

[Ten oz]

Basically yes. You asked if I thought police in the US were in a more difficult position than in, for example, England. My response was simply that by having to deal with more people with guns, the answer is 'yes' it is more difficult.But also because so few Brits have guns, that allows the police in England to generally not carry guns. And of course if you are not carrying a gun you will not be shooting anyone.As long as we in the US allow the public to be armed, it will be necessary to arm the police, and when everyone is running around with guns, people are going to get shot.This country has decided that the Second Amendment is worth the lives of many of its citizens.

I completely agree regarding the second admendment. I disagree a police officers job in the U.S. is more difficult. There are no statistics to reflect that police are in anymore danger. The potential threat is theoretically greater but isn't actually being realized.

Our culture loves guns and that is absolutely a huge problem. So on the board issue here I think we are on the same page.

 

I agree is is pretty bad. In my opinion much of it has to do with training and tactics. In the US the police are often trained to quickly take control of a situation. Be forceful. Let them know who is in charge. Get in their face.That may work much of the time but if you are dealing with someone who refuses to be pushed around it can quickly escalate into violence. I read that in England that the police tend to take their time with suspects, often keeping their car between the suspect and themselves. This in itself will allow for more time for backup and the opportunity to talk.

I agree

 

Don't get me wrong. I think we have a big problem with the police and how they deal with minorities in this country. Mostly the points I havebeen trying to get across are that we should not treat an individual officer harshly simply because statistically police are harsh with minorities. We have to address the racist problem, but we shouldn't scapegoat anyone to do it.I also believe that all other things being equal and no evidence that one person is right and the other wrong, if it comes down to the word of the officer or the suspect, then the tie should go to the officer.

The issue is bigger than race. Even in states like Idaho where the percentage of whites is higher than european countries like England police are still shooting and killing more people than are police else where in the world. Subtract out all the minorities killed by police nation wide and U.S. Police are still killing a greater number of people. So the problem is more pervasive than just what we are seeing in Ferguson. Until the tide changes I think all cases deserve extra scrutiny.

[zapatos]

I completely agree regarding the second admendment. I disagree a police officers job in the U.S. is more difficult. There are no statistics to reflect that police are in anymore danger. The potential threat is theoretically greater but isn't actually being realized.

Our culture loves guns and that is absolutely a huge problem. So on the board issue here I think we are on the same page.

I'm having trouble finding any good comparisons, but what I have found indicates that while the population of the US is roughly five times that of Great Britain, we have 10 times the number of police deaths.

 

The issue is bigger than race. Even in states like Idaho where the percentage of whites is higher than european countries like England police are still shooting and killing more people than are police else where in the world.

In England the police don't generally carry guns. Comparing police shootings in the US and England doesn't tell us much. We also have better baseball players than England but that doesn't really suggest that we have better athletes.

[Ten oz]

I'm having trouble finding any good comparisons, but what I have found indicates that while the population of the US is roughly five times that of Great Britain, we have 10 times the number of police deaths. In England the police don't generally carry guns.

In England more police are killed than police kill citizens. In the united States police kill over 10 citizens for every one officer killed.

I would also be interested in seeing which stats you are referencing. Not all police deaths in the line up duty are police being attacked. Vehicle accidents are one of the top cop killers in the country for example.

 

In England the police don't generally carry guns. Comparing police shootings in the US and England doesn't tell us much. We also have better baseball players than England but that doesn't really suggest that we have better athletes.

The links I have provided reference lots of countries not just England. The same differences exist between the United States and many other countries. If police carrying guns is a neccessary stand for comparison compare the united states to Germany or Canada. In Germany and Canada police have guns. You will see that in the United States our police are still killing more citizens.

[zapatos]

I would also be interested in seeing which stats you are referencing. Not all police deaths in the line up duty are police being attacked. Vehicle accidents are one of the top cop killers in the country for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013

 

In England more police are killed than police kill citizens. In the united States police kill over 10 citizens for every one officer killed.

That is irrelevant in terms of whether or not it is more dangerous to be a policeman in the US versus England. Edited December 8, 2014 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryhttp://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013That is irrelevant in terms of whether or not it is more dangerous to be a policeman in the US versus England.

Those links don't provide any info for police deaths in any of the other countries I've mentioned. It reflects 30 police death in the U.S. from gunfire. Police are killing over 400 per year (low estimate). You are trying to imply the police shoot more people in this country in response to being further in harms way than other police. However I already addressed that in post #214. Police shootings have been falling by the year and are currently at record lows for modern times. Despite the fall in shootings of police the number killed by police remains steady. There is not a direct relationship between the two.

 

It is worth pointing out that more police are killed than kill in other countries like England because you are implying police here are killing as a reaction to themselves being killed. Because the threat of guns is so great. Assuming that's true that reaction is 10:1 while in other countries it is less than 1:1. Our police are killing way too many people.

 

I also don't think it is accurate that 10 times as many police are shot and killed in the U.S. vs U.K.. Some of these stats are difficult to find but I did find this: Since 1945 in U.K. 256 police have been shot and killed. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-19634164

 

The U.K. only has 15% of the police we here in the United State have (136,000 vs 900,000). So at their rate if they were of the same size that 256 police would by 1,707 shot and killed.

 

While I could not find a specific stat showing police in the U.S. killed by guns since 1945 as most site lump allin the line of dity deaths together (car accidents, heart attacks, etc) I did find a site show it by year over the past decade. 548 police shot since 2004. http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html

 

If we round that number up to 600 (error high) a decade and multiply it times 8 decades for comparison to the U.K. figures we get 4800. That isn't 10 times greater than the U.K.

[zapatos]

Those links don't provide any info for police deaths in any of the other countries I've mentioned.

Correct, I only addressed the one country you mentioned.

 

It reflects 30 police death in the U.S. from gunfire. Police are killing over 400 per year (low estimate). You are trying to imply the police shoot more people in this country in response to being further in harms way than other police. However I already addressed that in post #214. Police shootings have been falling by the year and are currently at record lows for modern times. Despite the fall in shootings of police the number killed by police remains steady. There is not a direct relationship between the two.

You are confusing two different issues. A fall in the number of police shot by citizens in the US does not tell us if it is more or less dangerous to be a policeman in the US than in England. It only tells is it is less dangerous to be a policeman in the US now then it was some time in the past.

 

...you are implying police here are killing as a reaction to themselves being killed.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that police are killing here because everyone has guns.

[StringJunky]

I think the reason more people in the US are killed by policeman versus European countries is because there is no public right to bear arms in the countries mentioned therefore, it seems to me, the police don't have to default to a lethal stance so quickly as they do in the US.

[Ten oz]

Correct, I only addressed the one country you mentioned.

 

You are confusing two different issues. A fall in the number of police shot by citizens in the US does not tell us if it is more or less dangerous to be a policeman in the US than in England. It only tells is it is less dangerous to be a policeman in the US now then it was some time in the past.

 

No, I'm not. I'm saying that police are killing here because everyone has guns.

I agree guns are a huge problem and we need gun control is the United States. I think there are a lot of complicated reasons for our (USA) gun loving culture. Those factors bleed over and impact our attitude about killing people. So I think we are having somewhat of a chicken or the egg argument here. But I completely agree that there are too many guns in the United States.

[MigL]

In Switzerland, IIRC, every male of legal age is required by law to keep a rifle in their home and to serve 2 weeks per year, as they are all members of the armed forces. These aren't necessarily handguns of course, but...

They don't shoot each other or the police !

[DimaMazin]

Black revolts were already in UK and in France. Now some people want to turn USA into Africa or Latin America. Police should apply more forces.