Police shootings at Dallas BLM protest.

[MigL]

My apologies if I misunderstood your post, Swansont.

Doesn't matter anyway. The world is going to hell in a handbasket.

What with people committing 'suicide by cop' in California by refusing to stop and show their hands.

And the latest count of the dead in Nice up to 73, and >100 injured.

 

And, if the resulting paranoia gets D. Trump elected we're really screwed.

Edited July 15, 2016 by MigL

[DrmDoc]

My apologies if I misunderstood your post, Swansont.

Doesn't matter anyway. The world is going to hell in a handbasket.

What with people committing 'suicide by cop' in California by refusing to stop and show their hands.

And the latest count of the dead in Nice up to 73, and >100 injured.

 

And, if the resulting paranoia gets D. Trump elected we're really screwed.

 

It seems to me that both candidates are running campaigns of fear. Trump is campaigning on fear of everyone and Clinton on fear of Trump. It also seems to me that Clinton ran a similar campaign against Obama with fear of his inexperience and, as we know, she lost. I think Clinton will lose again if she doesn't step-up, change her narrative, and focus on what she can and will do to secure our nation and what makes her a better candidate without constantly referencing Trump and inciting fear. I think the American public is fearful enough without being constantly pushed over the edge and continually hammered with anxieties they already have and understand. I think we want our candidates to make us feel confident rather than afraid of our future and the future of this country. Essentially, they should be emphasizing what they will do rather than what could happen if they are not elected.

[Ten oz]

 

It seems to me that both candidates are running campaigns of fear. Trump is campaigning on fear of everyone and Clinton on fear of Trump. It also seems to me that Clinton ran a similar campaign against Obama with fear of his inexperience and, as we know, she lost. I think Clinton will lose again if she doesn't step-up, change her narrative, and focus on what she can and will do to secure our nation and what makes her a better candidate without constantly referencing Trump and inciting fear. I think the American public is fearful enough without being constantly pushed over the edge and continually hammered with anxieties they already have and understand. I think we want our candidates to make us feel confident rather than afraid of our future and the future of this country. Essentially, they should be emphasizing what they will do rather than what could happen if they are not elected.

In the 1984 general election Walter Mondale won 91% of blacks, 66% of latinos, but only 34% of whites and result was a landslide win for Reagan. That year whites made up 86% of all voters.

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1984/

 

In the 1988 general election Michael Dukakis won 89% of blacks, 70% of latinos, but only 40% of whites and the result was a landslide win for Bush. That year whites made up 85% of all voters.

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1988/

 

In the 2012 general election Barack Obama won 93% of blacks, 71% of latinos, but only 39% of whites and the result was a solid win for Obama. That year whites made up 72% of all voters.

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

 

 

A lot has changed in the world between 1984 and 2012, the wall came down, we have fough 2 wars in Iraq, home phones have disappeared, the EU exists, and etc. And yet a look at how groups in the U.S. vote reflects very little change. Barack Obama basically won a statistically identical demographic split of the vote as did Michael Dukakis, as did Walter Mondale. People, voters, do not flip and vote differently based on issues current news cycle. There is a long term trend that defies current events.

 

Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 general elections. Bush in 2004 is the only time since 1988 Republcans have won. That was post 9/11, Bush was an incumbent, and even still he only won by 1.4%. His electoral college win was the second slimest in history. And whites made up close to 10% more of all votes in 04' than they will in 16'. So while issues matter and there are some votes who will be influenced by fear I don't believe anything either candidate can do will change who votes for them much. Again, the long term trend defies the current news cycle. People are already self identify as one or the other. While I would love to proclaim that I am not partisan I am. There is nothing in the short term (a single election cycle) any republican could do to earn my vote. Just as there are many conservatives that would never flip to Democrats in a single cycle, not matter what.

 

People aren't all so different. I know how I will be voting already and nothing between now and Nov. will change that. I believe that is the case for the overwhelming majority of people and statistics support that belief. Does that guarantee Clinton wins or Trump wins; of course not. People can stay home, voting rules can restrict or discourage voting, and etc. A lot can happen. 2000 went to the Supreme Court. I am not comment on who will win but rather addressing your notion that world events will drive people to vote one way or another. How people vote is actually schockingly consistent over time.

[DrmDoc]

I am not comment on who will win but rather addressing your notion that world events will drive people to vote one way or another.

 

I believe you'll see that this wasn't my notion, if you review my comments. My comments regarded the campaign tactic of inciting and instilling voters with fear. When we look at the nominating process, which involves like minded voters, I don't think fear has been an effective tactic particularly with the Democratic party nominating process. I think what we saw during the most recent Republican process, were campaigns based on fear of Donald Trump. I don't see how Mrs. Clinton thinks she can win using the failed tactics of Mr.Trump's Republican foes. I think the successful Presidential candidate will be the person who exudes stability, confidence, and security and who runs a campaign base on what she or he has done, can and will do rather than a campaign of fear.

Edited July 15, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

 

I believe you'll see that this wasn't my notion, if you review my comments. My comments regarded the campaign tactic of inciting and instilling voters with fear. When we look at the nominating process, which involves like minded voters, I don't think fear has been an effective tactic particularly with the Democratic party nominating process. I think what we saw during the most recent Republican process, were campaigns based on fear of Donald Trump. I don't see how Mrs. Clinton thinks she can win using the failed tactics of Mr.Trump's Republican foes. I think the successful Presidential candidate will be the person who exudes stability, confidence, and security and who runs a campaign base on what she or he has done, can and will do rather than a campaign of fear.

At this point it is about turn out. Trump will win 60% of white plus or minus a couple and Clinton will win 90% of blacks, 70% of latinos, and 40% of whites all plus or minus a couple. The deciding factor will be turnout.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Ten oz

[DrmDoc]

At this point it is about turn out. Trump will win 60% of white plus or minus a couple and Clinton will win 90% of blacks, 70% of latinos, and 40% of whites all plus or minus a couple. The deciding factor will be turnout.

Although the percentages have remained consistent and turnout has been a factor, there are factors to turnout. Two such factors, as I see, are fear and confidence. I think the candidate that relies on fear to increase turnout will not be as successful as one that inspires confidence and faith in ourselves and our nation's future. I think that is what made Obama successful and why Bernie's campaign inspired similar voter enthusiasm.

[Ten oz]

Although the percentages have remained consistent and turnout has been a factor, there are factors to turnout. Two such factors, as I see, are fear and confidence. I think the candidate that relies on fear to increase turnout will not be as successful as one that inspires confidence and faith in ourselves and our nation's future. I think that is what made Obama successful and why Bernie's campaign inspired similar voter enthusiasm.

I voted for Sanders. I like Sanders. However I do not like when his campaign is use to make any type of forecast. The 55% of the popular vote Clinton received in the primary is better than Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, or Jimmy Carter did. Her win was on the higher side standard of average for a Democratic primary. Even if we scrap the popular vote and look at number of states won she is on the higher side of average. So while I personally supported Sanders statistically his performance is not significant.

[DrmDoc]

I voted for Sanders. I like Sanders. However I do not like when his campaign is use to make any type of forecast. The 55% of the popular vote Clinton received in the primary is better than Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, or Jimmy Carter did. Her win was on the higher side standard of average for a Democratic primary. Even if we scrap the popular vote and look at number of states won she is on the higher side of average. So while I personally supported Sanders statistically his performance is not significant.

 

I think most pundits have been amazed at how successful Bernie Sanders has been from the start of his campaign. I think his successes were a matter of campaign style rather than a matter of numbers and statistics. Although he didn't receive a Clinton equivalent turnout and is not the presumptive nominee, his campaign and campaign style inspired more support, particularly among our youth, than I think many of us initially thought it might. Mrs. Clinton had a nationally recognized name and record with built-in public support; whereas, Bernie's has been grassroots from the start. If turnout numbers, as you've suggested, are key to who will win the Presidency, I think our candidates have to have more than built-in numbers. They will have to also be inspiring in a way that doesn't incite and prey on our fears.

[Ten oz]

 

I think most pundits have been amazed at how successful Bernie Sanders has been from the start of his campaign. I think his successes were a matter of campaign style rather than a matter of numbers and statistics. Although he didn't receive a Clinton equivalent turnout and is not the presumptive nominee, his campaign and campaign style inspired more support, particularly among our youth, than I think many of us initially thought it might. Mrs. Clinton had a nationally recognized name and record with built-in public support; whereas, Bernie's has been grassroots from the start. If turnout numbers, as you've suggested, are key to who will win the Presidency, I think our candidates have to have more than built-in numbers. They will have to also be inspiring in a way that doesn't incite and prey on our fears.

Sanders ran a great campaign. I am not saying otherwise.

 

Anything in isolation can feel significant. If you flip a coin 10 times and hit heads 10 times it will be a big deal. Flip it another 90 times and when it all averages out to be within the statistical tolerances that first 10 flips will not turn out to have been significant. Both Sanders and Trump had primary runs that out performed expectations. However it is important in my opinion to separate beating expectations from beating statistical trends. Sanders did great for Sanders but only average for 2nd runner up in the Democratic Primary.

 

Which brings us back on topic. Specific lines of discussion seem very sensible or improtant until messured against the overall trend. We can discuss suicide by cop, behavior in the black community, and other variables but ultimately the stats don't lie; we have a serious issue with cops killing people:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

 

How can behavior of people during traffic stops, suicidal people wanting to die by cop, and etc be responsible for this overwhelming problem. The trend defies any explanation I have seen. The problem is larger than can be addressed in isolation. In isolation Michael Brown's actions may have XY&Z, Tamire Rice could've should've would've, Dlyan Noble just wanted to die, and etc. Add it all up though and the trend is staggering and defies any explanation that each of the idividual cases can provide.

[arc]

 

"Anything in isolation can feel significant"

 

 

"How can behavior of people during traffic stops, suicidal people wanting to die by cop, and etc be responsible for this overwhelming problem. The trend defies any explanation I have seen. The problem is larger than can be addressed in isolation. In isolation Michael Brown's actions may have XY&Z, Tamire Rice could've should've would've, Dlyan Noble just wanted to die, and etc. Add it all up though and the trend is staggering and defies any explanation that each of the idividual cases can provide."

 

 

Defies explanation until you consider untreated mental illness may be more prevalent in society than in the past.

Edited July 15, 2016 by arc

[Ten oz]

 

"Anything in isolation can feel significant"

 

 

"How can behavior of people during traffic stops, suicidal people wanting to die by cop, and etc be responsible for this overwhelming problem. The trend defies any explanation I have seen. The problem is larger than can be addressed in isolation. In isolation Michael Brown's actions may have XY&Z, Tamire Rice could've should've would've, Dlyan Noble just wanted to die, and etc. Add it all up though and the trend is staggering and defies any explanation that each of the idividual cases can provide.

"

 

 

Defies explanation until you consider untreated mental illness may be more prevalent in society than in the past.

Hundreds of times over more so than Europe?

[arc]

Hundreds of times over more so than Europe?

The brutality of this country's racism has left no marks?

Edited July 15, 2016 by arc

[Ten oz]

The brutality of this country's racism has left no marks?

Come on, there is no history of racism and brutality in Germany and the UK?

Take black vs white out of equastion and white police officers killing white citizen is still hundreds of times greater than we see elsewhere in the western world.

[Phi for All]

Take black vs white out of equastion and white police officers killing white citizen is still hundreds of times greater than we see elsewhere in the western world.

 

Police in the US train with officer safety foremost in mind. They're shown dashcam footage of every officer who wasn't in control of the situation, or hesitated and got shot, or had their gun stolen by some "low-life scumbag criminal" (also drilled into their heads). I think they learn to assume just about everybody has a gun, and since their number one duty is to go home at the end of the day in one piece, I think this training makes them obsessive about being fooled into complacency and put at risk for not being hardass enough.

 

Another angle that would seem to be covered by the fewer-guns-in-questionable-hands solutions being proposed.

[DrmDoc]

 

Police in the US train with officer safety foremost in mind. They're shown dashcam footage of every officer who wasn't in control of the situation, or hesitated and got shot, or had their gun stolen by some "low-life scumbag criminal" (also drilled into their heads). I think they learn to assume just about everybody has a gun, and since their number one duty is to go home at the end of the day in one piece, I think this training makes them obsessive about being fooled into complacency and put at risk for not being hardass enough.

 

Another angle that would seem to be covered by the fewer-guns-in-questionable-hands solutions being proposed.

 

Except for that part about going home being their "number one duty," what your saying does apply to Philadelphia police training. I say that because I attended their Civilian Police Academy program several years ago. The program was part of a community outreach and neighborhood watch effort sponsored by our Police Department. Indeed, they are shown dashcam footage as part of their training for proper and safe traffic stops. It's a difficult job and their number one priority is citizen safety above their own. However, if the officer involved in the Minnesota shooting--or any officer for that matter--followed the method of training I witnessed and experienced, shootings like Mr. Castile would never have happened. Officers in Philly are trained to approach a vehicle's driver from behind and to maintain a clear view of the vehicle's driver and occupants from that position at an acute angle throughout the traffic stop. The angle of an officer's position during a proper stops means that a nefarious driver would have to extend his hand out the vehicle and backwards to aim and shoot his weapon at an officer. Officers here are trained to instruct the driver and passengers to stay in the vehicle and keep their hands visible at all times during the stop until asked to do otherwise. Noncompliance during a traffic stop in Philly should never result in an accidental police shooting because officers have more than enough time to see a weapon in the hands of a driver before discharging their own. To my knowledge, there have been no traffic stop related accidental shootings in Philadelphia.

[Phi for All]

To my knowledge, there have been no traffic stop related accidental shootings in Philadelphia.

 

I googled copy/pasting your words, and got a hit from two years ago. But then "accidental shootings" seem to be in the eye of the beholder.

[DrmDoc]

 

I googled copy/pasting your words, and got a hit from two years ago. But then "accidental shootings" seem to be in the eye of the beholder.

 

To be fair and honest, the beholder should consider the available evidence. From your link:

 

"Two uniformed 15th Police District officers stopped Tate-Brown because he was driving without headlights, police said. When the officers approached the car, a Dodge Charger with Florida tags, they saw a handgun on its center console. The officers asked Tate-Brown to get out of the car, and when he did, a struggle began. He broke free from the officers and forced his way to the passenger side of the vehicle, where he tried to retrieve the handgun, said Lt. John Stanford, a police spokesman. That's when one of the officers fired, hitting Tate-Brown once in the head, police said. He was pronounced dead at the scene at 3:05 a.m.

Police said the gun in the car, a .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol with eight rounds, had been reported stolen in July 2013."

 

This shooting incident appears to be different from the kind of accidental, perhaps intentional, shooting involving the Minnesota case of Mr. Castile​. ​In the case you've referenced, the officers appear to have followed their training and the driver's actions seem grossly negligent if harm to himself or the officers was not his intent. Of course, this is dependent on whether the police narrative is factual. In Mr. Castile's case, he remained in his vehicle, no gun was visible, he did not struggle with the officer upon exiting his vehicle, and Mr. Castile did not exit and attempt to return to his vehicle to retrieve an allegedly stolen handgun in his possession. Throughout the process involving Mr. Castile, he appeared to have complied with the law and the initial directives of the officer. In Mr. Castile's case, there appears to be no justification for his shooting and the officer will probably have to answer for that.

Edited July 16, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

 

Police in the US train with officer safety foremost in mind. They're shown dashcam footage of every officer who wasn't in control of the situation, or hesitated and got shot, or had their gun stolen by some "low-life scumbag criminal" (also drilled into their heads). I think they learn to assume just about everybody has a gun, and since their number one duty is to go home at the end of the day in one piece, I think this training makes them obsessive about being fooled into complacency and put at risk for not being hardass enough.

 

Another angle that would seem to be covered by the fewer-guns-in-questionable-hands solutions being proposed.

I agree. There obviously must be a training component involved. People keep pointing to race but in my opinion race merely serves as cover here. By viewing this issue through a filter of race it allows those who don't feel personally impacted or compelled by race to ignore it. The issue goes beyond race though. For example Idaho has 1.6 million people and is 94% white. Police have killed 48 people since 2000. That is more than the UK which has a population of 64 million and is more racially diverse. That is the magnitude of this.

48 killed in Idaho since 2000 - http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/watchdog/article48289280.html

 

Being a police officer is a dangerous job. Getting home safely is very important. Per 100,000 Loggers have that most dangerous job in the country with 110 deaths. Other dangerous jobs per 100k: Fishers 80, roofers 47, Iron workers 25, Electricians 19, taxi drivers 18, and etc. Being a police officer is the 15th most dangerous with 14 deaths per 100k. http://time.com/4326676/dangerous-jobs-america/

 

While every dangerous job in the country take precautions to ensure safety only police are killing people. Taxi driver is a more dangerous job and taxi drivers are not killing thousands of people a year. Of course taxi drivers and police officers face different risks however traffic accidents is the leading cause of in the line of duty deaths for both police officers and taxi drivers. So maybe more energy should go towards making safer police cars.

"Seventy-three law enforcement officers died in traffic-related incidents in 2010. These LOD deaths represented a 37 percent increase from the year before. Although the 2010 totals were a significant increase from 2009 and they approached the record high of 84 officers killed in traffic-related incidents in 2007, they do not, unfortunately, represent an anomaly. For the 13th straight year, traffic-related incidents were the leading cause of LOD deaths."

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=2422&issue_id=72011

[Phi for All]

While every dangerous job in the country take precautions to ensure safety only police are killing people.

 

Out of all the other most-dangerous professions you mentioned, I think only taxi driver can really be compared with being a police officer. In both professions, in addition to being more at risk because of driving, civilians with guns are a big factor. And that has to be the real issue here. If there weren't so damn many guns out there, the police wouldn't have to train in ways that tend towards overcompensation, applying more force than necessary to ensure the police officer goes home safe at night, and the bad guys never get the upper hand.

 

Personally, I think we've reached a point where allowing so many guns in our society has forced a situation where the police can't do their jobs of protecting the public AND maintain their top priority of going home safe at the end of the day. Their training includes reinforcement of quick-thinking, fast-acting, ever-vigilant techniques designed to prevent the officer from being tricked by scumbags. They watch dashcam footage culled from thousands of encounters that shows graphically what happens to police officers who let their guard down. Throw in the crazy and the money from drugs and it's almost a wonder more people aren't shot.

 

I think the top of the crazy pile is staked out by the citizens who openly carry long guns around in public. In a world where the police are supposed to read minds when it comes to armed intent, how the hell is anybody supposed to know you're the good guy when we see you with an AR-15 in the frozen food aisle at the Piggly Wiggly?

[arc]

"Anything in isolation can feel significant"


"How can behavior of people during traffic stops, suicidal people wanting to die by cop, and etc be responsible for this overwhelming problem. The trend defies any explanation I have seen. The problem is larger than can be addressed in isolation. In isolation Michael Brown's actions may have XY&Z, Tamire Rice could've should've would've, Dlyan Noble just wanted to die, and etc. Add it all up though and the trend is staggering and defies any explanation that each of the idividual cases can provide.

 

Defies explanation until you consider untreated mental illness may be more prevalent in society than in the past.

 

 

Hundreds of times over more so than Europe?

 

 

The brutality of this country's racism has left no marks?

 

 

Come on, there is no history of racism and brutality in Germany and the UK?

Take black vs white out of equastion and white police officers killing white citizen is still hundreds of times greater than we see elsewhere in the western world.

 

This video is a powerful message about treating violence as a contagious disease. But this is really just clever marketing because violent behavior is a psychological disorder. But the stigma that such terms carry in american society makes it unusable in delivering the message.

 

 

This is at the core of everything we are discussing here, fear drives people in the most vulnerable communities to arm themselves against the unchecked violence around them (Chicago"s gang murder rate for example). Many of these guns are stolen and further feed the cycle of trauma to the community. Citizens in the surrounding communities feel unsafe and arm themselves. The cycle grows in size as the fear of gun control causes a rush to buy guns and even ammunition "before it's too late".

 

These gun purchases are driven by fear. Almost all of it is irrational. Add to this the stresses of international and domestic terrorism to even further acerbated the irrational levels of fear and it does begin to resemble a mass public mental heath crisis. Every high crime area in the country had its roots institutional racism and feeds the irrational fear of crime and violence to the surrounding region, driving fear, and more importantly, reinforcing racism.

 

How does the police fit into this?

 

30 years ago most police interactions with the public did not include the public being armed. Now, most cops will come in contact with legally and illegally armed citizens on a daily basis. The fear the police have due to these guns is, although, very rational. This would most likely explain the number of instances in Idaho for example.

 

So, as the video illustrates so well, this cycle begins in those communities that we know, more than any others, have their origins in the historical institutional racism of this country. The resulting violence has spread as irrational fear to the general populace as shown by the mass arming of every community. The increase in police shooting of citizen's correlate to fear that the police have to the armed public in general.

 

If this isn't a public mental heath crisis based on the historical institutional racism then what do you call it?

[Ten oz]

 

Out of all the other most-dangerous professions you mentioned, I think only taxi driver can really be compared with being a police officer. In both professions, in addition to being more at risk because of driving, civilians with guns are a big factor. And that has to be the real issue here. If there weren't so damn many guns out there, the police wouldn't have to train in ways that tend towards overcompensation, applying more force than necessary to ensure the police officer goes home safe at night, and the bad guys never get the upper hand.

 

Personally, I think we've reached a point where allowing so many guns in our society has forced a situation where the police can't do their jobs of protecting the public AND maintain their top priority of going home safe at the end of the day. Their training includes reinforcement of quick-thinking, fast-acting, ever-vigilant techniques designed to prevent the officer from being tricked by scumbags. They watch dashcam footage culled from thousands of encounters that shows graphically what happens to police officers who let their guard down. Throw in the crazy and the money from drugs and it's almost a wonder more people aren't shot.

 

I think the top of the crazy pile is staked out by the citizens who openly carry long guns around in public. In a world where the police are supposed to read minds when it comes to armed intent, how the hell is anybody supposed to know you're the good guy when we see you with an AR-15 in the frozen food aisle at the Piggly Wiggly?

Guns are a huge part of the problem. You are correct. My point about safer police cars was to sarcastically point out how poorly we evaluate risk in this country. Drinving is the most dangerous thing most people in the U.S. do including the majority of gun owners yet millions get their panties in a bunch about needing weapons in their homes to protect their families. In reality a top safety rated car would provide a family better protection.

 

It is a insestuous relationship. Soceity loves guns so police have to worry about people with guns because there are so many guns but at the same time because everyone loves guns hyper focusing on guns become the popular training focus for police partly because there is a need but also because that is simply what some want to focus on. The cool factor of being tactical is a real thing. Some people go into law enforcement wanting to be armed because they think it is cool. And I do not mean that as an insult. People who pursue any career often focus on the cool factors that may be provided. Kids don't dream of being fire fighters because that want to maintenance hoses and wash fire trucks all day. The imagine fighting fires: kicking down doors, saving babies, and etc. Equally people don't dream of being police officers because they want to issue parking tickets and spend their weekends in traffic court. They imagine chasing people down, shooting bad guys, and etc. Those desires do shape the way the train.

 

As previously mentioned I also think so many police not living in the communities they police matters too. I feel a lot more comfortable in my own community than I do outside of it. Even when I have lived in communities that statistically had high rates of crime I still felt more comfortable being in my own community than in other ones. That is just natural. Being part of a community provided a sense of comfort. It speaks to the unease many police officers report to work with every day that so many choose to live an hour away and commute in.

[DrmDoc]

30 years ago most police interactions with the public did not include the public being armed. Now, most cops will come in contact with legally and illegally armed citizens on a daily basis. The fear the police have due to these guns is, although, very rational. This would most likely explain the number of instances in Idaho for example.

 

So, as the video illustrates so well, this cycle begins in those communities that we know, more than any others, have their origins in the historical institutional racism of this country. The resulting violence has spread as irrational fear to the general populace as shown by the mass arming of every community. The increase in police shooting of citizen's correlate to fear that the police have to the armed public in general.

 

If this isn't a public mental heath crisis based on the historical institutional racism then what do you call it?

I think similar interactions are currently true between the police and public, I think most do not include an armed citizen; however, those who are armed do seem more willing to use their weapons against the police. From the founding of our nation, our law enforcement officers had to regrettably deal with a potentially armed citizenry by force of our nation's Constitution. I agree, our nation appears to be approaching a crisis but it is not one that we didn't similarly experience during the protests of the 1960s. Hopefully, our nation's consciousness and conscience will be similarly raised by current events as they were during that troubled but progressive era.

[Ten oz]

30 years ago most police interactions with the public did not include the public being armed. Now, most cops will come in contact with legally and illegally armed citizens on a daily basis. The fear the police have due to these guns is, although, very rational. This would most likely explain the number of instances in Idaho for example.

 

So, as the video illustrates so well, this cycle begins in those communities that we know, more than any others, have their origins in the historical institutional racism of this country. The resulting violence has spread as irrational fear to the general populace as shown by the mass arming of every community. The increase in police shooting of citizen's correlate to fear that the police have to the armed public in general.

 

If this isn't a public mental heath crisis based on the historical institutional racism then what do you call it?

 

 

I think similar interactions are currently true between the police and public, I think most do not include an armed citizen; however, those who are armed do seem more willing to use their weapons against the police. From the founding of our nation, our law enforcement officers had to regrettably deal with a potentially armed citizenry by force of our nation's Constitution. I agree, our nation appears to be approaching a crisis but it is not one that we didn't similarly experience during the protests of the 1960s. Hopefully, our nation's consciousness and conscience will be similarly raised by current events as they were during that troubled but progressive era.

30 ago was 1986, population of 240 million. That year 179 police officers were killed in the line of duty. Last year in 2015, population of 318 million, 123 police officers were killed. 30 years before 1986 was 1956. In 1956 the population 168 million and 108 police officers were killed in the line of duty. If we look at the decade of the 1980's 1911 police officers were killed. An average of 191 per year. If we look at the last 10yrs (06'-15') 1436 police officers were killed. An average of 144 per year. In the 1950's with a population of about half today's size 1195 police officers were killed in the line of duty An average of 119 a year.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html

 

I present the numbers to illustrate that police today are not being killed at greater rates, Rather the opposite is true. A police officer today is less likely to be killied than 30yrs ago. Why that is can be debated: body armour, training, medical response, etc. However the numbers I provided also correspond with lower levels of crime in society as a whole. The average murder rate in the U.S.through the 1980's was 8.7. The murder have been below 5 every year since 2010 and below 6 since 2000. Average forcible rape rate was 36.6 through the 1980's and has been at 27 of below every year since 2010. So not only are less police being killed but crime in general is down. These number would imply that the extra fear you describe that police feel is not rational.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

Despite decreases in crime and the number of police killed the number of police involved in justifiable homicide cases appear to be up since 2000; at least per the FBI count as I am sure you are aware we do not actually have a national tracking system local department report numbers voluntarily.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/08/15/how-the-number-of-justified-police-homicides-has-changed-since-the-1990s/

[DrmDoc]

I present the numbers to illustrate that police today are not being killed at greater rates, Rather the opposite is true. A police officer today is less likely to be killied than 30yrs ago. Why that is can be debated: body armour, training, medical response, etc. However the numbers I provided also correspond with lower levels of crime in society as a whole. The average murder rate in the U.S.through the 1980's was 8.7. The murder have been below 5 every year since 2010 and below 6 since 2000. Average forcible rape rate was 36.6 through the 1980's and has been at 27 of below every year since 2010. So not only are less police being killed but crime in general is down. These number would imply that the extra fear you describe that police feel is not rational.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

 

I've reviewed my comments and did not find where I might have suggested or made such a claim of extra fear among police. However, given the Dallas shootings, current protests, threats, and increasing hostility towards police, I think there could very well be extra fear among their ranks however irrational the statistics suggest. Regardless, fear of any sort is not an excuse for not following correct police procedures and respecting the equal rights of all citizens to life and liberty.

[Ten oz]

 

I've reviewed my comments and did not find where I might have suggested or made such a claim of extra fear among police. However, given the Dallas shootings, current protests, threats, and increasing hostility towards police, I think there could very well be extra fear among their ranks however irrational the statistics suggest. Regardless, fear of any sort is not an excuse for not following correct police procedures and respecting the equal rights of all citizens to life and liberty.

I had highlighed arc's comments in bold. My post primarily was with regards to his 30yrs reference. I included yours to piggy back on comments like ""our nation appears to be approaching a crisis but it is not one that we didn't similarly experience during the protests of the 1960s". While what we see today does seem bad is clearly isn't worse. I would argue that is is better. Statistically it is provably better.

 

As for the current climate giving police a reason for fear you listed "current protests" and "increasing hostility" towards police. I assume comments like those to mostly be in reference to Black Lives Matters. Just last year the Dallas police headquaters was attacked by a man in an Armored van. Snipers were able to kill him. Police found 4 bags of explosives around Dallas headquaters.The attacker was James Boulware a white male upset at police over his own legal situation. In Las Vegas 2014 militia advocates in the area for the Bundy ranch standoff targeted police in an attack at a pizza shop next to Walmart and killed 2 officers.

 

I mention those 2 cases because they are well known but there are many others. The politics of race and our capitalist media's ability to profit off race doesn't always lead to an accurate picture being painted. The police killed in Las Vagas didn't lead to a national discussion about hostility towards police. Yet militia groups in this nation have sizable numbers. The armed occupation of the Malheur wildlife refugee at the beginning of the year was another dangerous protest by related militia groups. Yet when attempting to justify police fear we often find ourselves debating race. Have groups ike BLM actually been more substantial? We have mass shooting in this country seemingly every month.

 

I recall during the Ferguson protests media commonly covered hearsay reports of gunshots being heard or violence directed toward police. Watching the news it appeared to be riot conditions night after night. From time to time a camera man would accidentally pan to far and we'd get a glimpse of other camera men and news vans. They were lining the streets far as the eye could see. Some nights between camera men, sound guys, hair & make up, reporters, and etc there was more media on the street than protesters. A camera for almost every protester. This sort of inflation of reality is nothing new. After Katrina the media reported that roving gangs were murdering people in the superdome. The truth; not one person was murdered in the superdome. Recscue helicopters were grounded after reports they were shot at. The post katrina congressional investigation and the Coast Guard's post Katrina investigation bith showed no there was no evidence helicopters were fired on. False reports of violence slowed our response and worsened the situation. So when you say Dallas and BLM may justify extra fear despite what the statistics suggest I recommend caution. As mentioned in an earlier post in isolation anything can seem significant. In my opinion looking at the actually numbers is the best method of determining what is actually significant.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Ten oz