Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:36 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:sure, if the groups involved decide to do the leg work on that....again, documentation that shows these jurisdictions are doing this would go a long way.
It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that, in most of the other countries we're discussing here, injuries from random bullets out of the sky would be heavily reported. The burden of proof is on you to show that such injuries have happened, before you can expect documentation that those injuries are investigated by police.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:We've got about 765k cops in the US. Actual cops, with arrest powers, etc. Some of them may have desk jobs but hell, let's count 'em all. So, they shoot what, a thousand people a year? Maybe more, but still. That's at least a 765:1 ratio.

The US general population manages a murder rate of only about 16,129:1.

So...ya. It's a cop problem.
Add it up, even if police murdered all of those thousand, and I defy you to prove that, it just means that as a culture that we are violent. Cops are, and so is the general public. There are 108 countries which have a lower homicide rate than we do.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:18 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:We've got about 765k cops in the US. Actual cops, with arrest powers, etc. Some of them may have desk jobs but hell, let's count 'em all. So, they shoot what, a thousand people a year? Maybe more, but still. That's at least a 765:1 ratio.

The US general population manages a murder rate of only about 16,129:1.

So...ya. It's a cop problem.
Add it up, even if police murdered all of those thousand, and I defy you to prove that, it just means that as a culture that we are violent.
It doesn't "just" mean that, because those number mean "as a culture" police are 20 times more violent than the general population.

And you defy us to prove what? Those are homicides, which are counted the same whether justified or not. Do you think some of the news reports of police shooting people are incorrect, and that those people aren't actually shot by police?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:23 pm UTC

On the topic of warning shots, the research on the subject seems to suggest that they work quite well... This paper claims:

Many police departments have had a policy against warning shots for years. Such a policy is due to the concern that a warning shot may be misplaced and result in unintended injury or death to a suspect or bystander. On the other hand, there is evidence that a safely placed warning shot can shock a suspect into compliant behavior that precludes shooting the suspect. Thus, warning shots may prevent injury or death rather than cause it. In reviewing dozens of cases in which officers or civilians fired a warning shot, the authors found the shots were effective in the vast majority of cases, and no further shots were fired. Case after case showed that criminals ceased to flee and surrendered, even though they had committed serious crimes. In the cases where warning shots were fired, the arrests remained valid; and the courts were not concerned about the use of warning shots. Research shows that warning shots have resulted in little legal litigation. If an officer's option is to fire a safely placed warning shot or shoot to kill or incapacitate a suspect, the option of the warning shot is less likely to lead to a civil action against the department. Perhaps it is time to look at the possible use of warning shots in certain cases in which it would be an alternative to injury or death.


FWIW, it seems to be a pretty common practice in nearly all of Europe, as well as several other countries, such as China. According to this, firing warning shots into the air are part of the rules of engagement for UN peacekeeping forces (or were as of 1994, at least).

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:25 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
DSenette wrote:
Diadem wrote:
DSenette wrote:it is ENTIRELY and 100% an irresponsible idea. it goes against EVERY SINGLE RULE of gun safety on the planet.

We have already established that police forces in at least 2 countries use warning shots regularly. So your statement that it goes against 'EVERY SINGLE RULE of gun safety on the planet' is clearly a lie.

no, no it isn't. the basic rules of gun safety, is you never point a gun at anything you're not willing to kill/destroy. and you never fire a gun in a way that you aren't sure of where the round is going to end up.

Ok, I hate to be snide, but at this point I really have to check. You do know that the world is bigger than just the USA right? And you do realize that other countries also have firearm safety rules? Those aren't unique to the USA.

You continue to claim, despite being corrected, that firing warning shots goes against 'EVERY SINGLE RULE of gun safety on the planet'. But it clearly does not go against gun safety rules in both The Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and also at least Germany and Sweden, and probably most or all other European countries. All of those countries are located on this planet.

uh, no? because I said gun safety rules, not gun safety laws...cus...there are like...no gun safety laws that I know of in the US.

gun safety rules, are rules that anyone picking up a gun should follow to safely handle a gun...and firing it in an unknown direction, is never a safe way to discharge a fire arm

stuff like, don't look down the barrel of a gun, treat all guns as loaded, never point a gun at anything you're not willing to kill/destroy.....those aren't laws...those are rules....that you should follow...to be safe with a gun

the fact that another country is doing something unsafe doesn't magically make that action safe.

Diadem wrote:
DSenette wrote:
Diadem wrote:
DSenette wrote:this is a REDICULOUS idea, irrespective of any one's use of it.

So firing warning shots is a ridiculous idea because of an extremely small chance that you might injure someone, but shooting to kill is completely fine.

There's something seriously, horribly wrong with your priorities.

firing warning shots, and shooting someone that isn't posing a direct threat to you or others, are BOTH VERY BAD THINGS.

You're moving the goal posts here.

No one is claiming that firing warning shots is not a serious thing. We're claiming that firing warning shots is preferable to taking targeted shots at people. Either should obviously only done against people who are posing a direct threat to you or others.

The claim you are making is that firing a warning shot is more dangerous that firing a direct, aimed, meant to kill, shot at someone. That claim is patently absurd.


no, I in fact, never said that firing a warning shot is more dangerous than firing a direct shot at someone...I'd like you to point to where I did please

what I'm saying is that firing a warning shot is potentially EXACTLY as dangerous as a direct, aimed, meant to kill, shot at someone. because the outcome of an aimed shot(someone being killed or harmed) is a VERY LEGITAMITELY REAL outcome of firing an un-aimed shot at an unknown surface, or firing a shot straight up in the air.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:30 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
DSenette wrote:sure, if the groups involved decide to do the leg work on that....again, documentation that shows these jurisdictions are doing this would go a long way.
It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that, in most of the other countries we're discussing here, injuries from random bullets out of the sky would be heavily reported. The burden of proof is on you to show that such injuries have happened, before you can expect documentation that those injuries are investigated by police.

I'm sure random bullets falling from the sky are reported here pretty well too..

but if you're going to say that it's ok to shoot a firearm in the air because they'll be able to track that bullet to a police officer, and that guy will get reprimanded...then....by golly that's silly

if you're saying that it's ok that police in the UK shoot a firearm in the air because there are no records of people being hit by stray bullets in the UK that were fired by cops making warning shots......then I'd love to see the documentation that shows that no one has ever been harmed by someone firing a warning shot.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Angua » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:50 pm UTC

We're saying it's safer for police in the UK to shoot warning shots than to automatically empty a clip into every single person that slightly moves while a gun is being pointed at them.

Also, I see nothing wrong with having modified rules for people who are professionally pointing guns at other people than for civilian gun safety. What you are saying is basically the equivalent of saying that you should never go faster than the speed limit and never run a red light while ignoring that if you're professionally trained in a professional situation, then that is something you are able to do relatively safely (I'm sure there are plenty of case reports of blue-light vehicles ending up in a crash while being blue-lighted). One rule for basic safety is not required for people who are doing it as part of their job - yes this may require more training on the part of police officers but it is pretty necessary.

Also, in case you missed it earlier:
LaserGuy wrote:On the topic of warning shots, the research on the subject seems to suggest that they work quite well... This paper claims:

Many police departments have had a policy against warning shots for years. Such a policy is due to the concern that a warning shot may be misplaced and result in unintended injury or death to a suspect or bystander. On the other hand, there is evidence that a safely placed warning shot can shock a suspect into compliant behavior that precludes shooting the suspect. Thus, warning shots may prevent injury or death rather than cause it. In reviewing dozens of cases in which officers or civilians fired a warning shot, the authors found the shots were effective in the vast majority of cases, and no further shots were fired. Case after case showed that criminals ceased to flee and surrendered, even though they had committed serious crimes. In the cases where warning shots were fired, the arrests remained valid; and the courts were not concerned about the use of warning shots. Research shows that warning shots have resulted in little legal litigation. If an officer's option is to fire a safely placed warning shot or shoot to kill or incapacitate a suspect, the option of the warning shot is less likely to lead to a civil action against the department. Perhaps it is time to look at the possible use of warning shots in certain cases in which it would be an alternative to injury or death.


FWIW, it seems to be a pretty common practice in nearly all of Europe, as well as several other countries, such as China. According to this, firing warning shots into the air are part of the rules of engagement for UN peacekeeping forces (or were as of 1994, at least).
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby PeteP » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:52 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
DSenette wrote:sure, if the groups involved decide to do the leg work on that....again, documentation that shows these jurisdictions are doing this would go a long way.
It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that, in most of the other countries we're discussing here, injuries from random bullets out of the sky would be heavily reported. The burden of proof is on you to show that such injuries have happened, before you can expect documentation that those injuries are investigated by police.

I'm sure random bullets falling from the sky are reported here pretty well too..

but if you're going to say that it's ok to shoot a firearm in the air because they'll be able to track that bullet to a police officer, and that guy will get reprimanded...then....by golly that's silly

if you're saying that it's ok that police in the UK shoot a firearm in the air because there are no records of people being hit by stray bullets in the UK that were fired by cops making warning shots......then I'd love to see the documentation that shows that no one has ever been harmed by someone firing a warning shot.

And again a weird misrepresentation from you, please stop that. If you don't know what gmalivuk is actually answering too looking at what he quoted should be enough (or rereading the post from you he is replying to), so I don't think I have to elaborate. (Thinking about maybe it's not misrepresentation but just you randomly talking about things that aren't an answer to the post you are quoting. Which would be a bit weird but if so I apologize for assuming it's misrepresenting what he is actually saying.)

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:53 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:It doesn't "just" mean that, because those number mean "as a culture" police are 20 times more violent than the general population


You'd expect the police to be in more violent confrontations than the general population though. You're having them seek out and apprehend criminals. Comparing them in general to the overall population is not an apples to apples comparison.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr's reference was to murder, not just homicides, as was mine. How many killings by police are murder and how would you show that? Do we live in different places? The police have a problem, that's certain. But if the police exist in a violent culture with millions of guns, and if politicians have been banging the fear crime drum since the 70's, and if history places old west gunfighters on a hero's pantheon, and then constantly reinforces it, you get what you get. The most interesting thing about the UK is that when asked cops say they don't want to pack guns. That is a cultural difference.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:33 pm UTC

Angua wrote:We're saying it's safer for police in the UK to shoot warning shots than to automatically empty a clip into every single person that slightly moves while a gun is being pointed at them.

Also, I see nothing wrong with having modified rules for people who are professionally pointing guns at other people than for civilian gun safety. What you are saying is basically the equivalent of saying that you should never go faster than the speed limit and never run a red light while ignoring that if you're professionally trained in a professional situation, then that is something you are able to do relatively safely (I'm sure there are plenty of case reports of blue-light vehicles ending up in a crash while being blue-lighted). One rule for basic safety is not required for people who are doing it as part of their job - yes this may require more training on the part of police officers but it is pretty necessary.

it's safer for police to not discharge their weapons at all. it's most definitely safer for police to not empty the magazine into someone or multiple someone's. it's also safer to train your police in proper threat response so that a slight twitch from a suspect doesn't result in that person being filled with bullets. but it is still, safer to not fire warning shots, than to fire warning shots.

as different safety rules based on profession.....ONLY if their professional status stands as a real and measurable mitigating factor of the risks involved with the activity.

a surgeon has different rules about removing someone's kidney, because the fact that they are a surgeon actually mitigates the risk involved with taking a kidney out.

you don't expect a lumberjack to treat his chainsaw any differently than you do joe schmoe in the garden. because it doesn't matter that one guy is a professional.....ignoring proper safety of the tool you're using will result in the same action...getting really fucking hurt.

the vehicle speeding thing is slightly murky....but...not by much. in an actual case where the police have to drive at high speed through traffic, they've got lights on the cars to somewhat mitigate risk. plus, for the most part (and especially in the UK as far as I'm aware) police forces get a lot more driving training than just about anyone else...which does to towards mitigating the risks.

when you're pointing a gun, in an arbitrary direction, without aiming, or knowing full well what is/isn't in the line of fire, you have nothing to mitigate the risk. the laws of physics still apply to that bullet the same as anyone else.

the risk is real enough that in many jurisdictions in the US firing a gun in the air (by civilians) is illegal...should be for the cops too because them being a cop, doesn't mitigate the risk of the action.

Angua wrote:Also, in case you missed it earlier:
LaserGuy wrote:On the topic of warning shots, the research on the subject seems to suggest that they work quite well... This paper claims:

Many police departments have had a policy against warning shots for years. Such a policy is due to the concern that a warning shot may be misplaced and result in unintended injury or death to a suspect or bystander. On the other hand, there is evidence that a safely placed warning shot can shock a suspect into compliant behavior that precludes shooting the suspect. Thus, warning shots may prevent injury or death rather than cause it. In reviewing dozens of cases in which officers or civilians fired a warning shot, the authors found the shots were effective in the vast majority of cases, and no further shots were fired. Case after case showed that criminals ceased to flee and surrendered, even though they had committed serious crimes. In the cases where warning shots were fired, the arrests remained valid; and the courts were not concerned about the use of warning shots. Research shows that warning shots have resulted in little legal litigation. If an officer's option is to fire a safely placed warning shot or shoot to kill or incapacitate a suspect, the option of the warning shot is less likely to lead to a civil action against the department. Perhaps it is time to look at the possible use of warning shots in certain cases in which it would be an alternative to injury or death.


FWIW, it seems to be a pretty common practice in nearly all of Europe, as well as several other countries, such as China. According to this, firing warning shots into the air are part of the rules of engagement for UN peacekeeping forces (or were as of 1994, at least).

I didn't miss it....to the last part.....it being common practice, or even legally allowed doesn't mean anything about the safety of the act.

the discussion there is also predicated on a fairly nebulous statement of "safely placed" warning shot.... a safely placed shot is one where you know what you're shooting at, what it's made of, what would happen if the round penetrates what you're shooting at, where the round might go if it ricochets.....something you're not likely to know in random situations.

the efficacy of a warning shot as a preventative tool has no bearing on it's general safety or whether or not it should really be a desirable action. tear gas is pretty unlikely to kill most people, but we're still pretty pissed when it's used indiscriminately.

PeteP wrote:
DSenette wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
DSenette wrote:sure, if the groups involved decide to do the leg work on that....again, documentation that shows these jurisdictions are doing this would go a long way.
It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that, in most of the other countries we're discussing here, injuries from random bullets out of the sky would be heavily reported. The burden of proof is on you to show that such injuries have happened, before you can expect documentation that those injuries are investigated by police.

I'm sure random bullets falling from the sky are reported here pretty well too..

but if you're going to say that it's ok to shoot a firearm in the air because they'll be able to track that bullet to a police officer, and that guy will get reprimanded...then....by golly that's silly

if you're saying that it's ok that police in the UK shoot a firearm in the air because there are no records of people being hit by stray bullets in the UK that were fired by cops making warning shots......then I'd love to see the documentation that shows that no one has ever been harmed by someone firing a warning shot.

And again a weird misrepresentation from you, please stop that. If you don't know what gmalivuk is actually answering too looking at what he quoted should be enough (or rereading the post from you he is replying to), so I don't think I have to elaborate. (Thinking about maybe it's not misrepresentation but just you randomly talking about things that aren't an answer to the post you are quoting. Which would be a bit weird but if so I apologize for assuming it's misrepresenting what he is actually saying.)

specifically to gmalivuk, if I came off as demanding proof...sorry? I'm not demanding or requesting "proof".....just asking if the information actually exists to answer the question because I can't find it.

the counter to the idea that warning shots are bad, was a list of how many times officers fired warning shots. and how many times police shot people....there wasn't a breakdown of how many times someone was accidentally shot by a cop that fired a warning shot. is there some documentation that does that breakdown? I'm not being snide or anything here. I'd actually like to know. I'm not finding any of that documentation specific to the UK for how many people are hit by random bullets or how many people were accidentally shot by a warning shot. it's not a jump to think that it's happened at least once is it?

which was what those "random things" are about. the intent of the information being presented. if the point that was being made was that lots of places allow for warning shots...ergo...it's safe...well that's kind of silly because a lot of places allow a lot of stuff that's not safe. if the point was, lots of places allow for warning shots, and these places haven't seen any events of collateral damage due to warning shots....then I'd just like to see where that second part comes from. it's quite possible that no one in the UK has ever been hit by a stray bullet fired as a warning shot...in which case....neat...but it not happening yet isn't the same as it not being possible.

also, saying they would be heavily reported isn't the same as saying they are heavily reporting it.

again, not finding stuff specific to the UK....which is why I'd love for someone with better google-fu than I to maybe find it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... splay.html this is in Virginia, and old...but...shows that people are hit by random bullets.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14616491 more general bullets falling out of the sky problems
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Angua » Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:47 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
Angua wrote:
the counter to the idea that warning shots are bad, was a list of how many times officers fired warning shots. and how many times police shot people....there wasn't a breakdown of how many times someone was accidentally shot by a cop that fired a warning shot. is there some documentation that does that breakdown? I'm not being snide or anything here. I'd actually like to know. I'm not finding any of that documentation specific to the UK for how many people are hit by random bullets or how many people were accidentally shot by a warning shot. it's not a jump to think that it's happened at least once is it?

I guess it's possible that they decided not to include that information to be very disengenous about police shootings, but I'd kind of expect that if any of those warning shots had resulted in someone being shot accidentally then it would have been mentioned in the study. Like, why would you count the number of times the police has shot someone, or done a warning shot without mentioning if the warning shot had also resulted in someone being shot??? Maybe the fact you are having a hard time finding this data is because not many people (other than the study that has already been quoted about warning shots being safer and effective) does not really exist. You keep asking for all this data, and either it is an extremely rare happen stance, or there's a massive conspiracy to always cover it up when it happens. I think the former is the most likely.

Also, there are lots of examples of one rule for professionals and one rule for the rest of people - CPR is different for children than adults but when teaching most first aid courses instead of being told that compressions should be 15-2 you get taught the 30-2 that is for adults, with the only variation that you give kids rescue breaths first. This is because it was felt that changing it too much would make people worry that they were doing the wrong thing and be less likely to act, which is more dangerous than doing the less optimal compression. Going 'well, they have better vehicle training' is exactly my point - they will have better gun training and know how they can assess the risks.

And yes, obviously not firing a weapon is the safest option, but it's one that the US police don't seem to be able to get through their heads. If warning shots are just as effective at getting the suspect to stop, but less likely to result in the suspect being killed, then I would accept that. Because you're not showing me the data that warning shots fired by police are that likely to kill (yes, lots of civilians randomly shooting guns in the air is not a good thing, no one is saying we should allow everyone to randomly fire a gun wherever and whenever they want).
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:51 pm UTC

@Dsenette:
You were expecting documentation for investigations of a think you can't even demonstrate has ever happened in the countries under discussion.

When I explained why that's an unreasonable expectation, you responded with some irrelevant nonsense about whether it's "okay" to shoot in the air, which bears no relationship to anything I have yet posted in this thread and *certainly* no relationship to anything I said in the post you were responding to.

Are you bad at reading or are you trolling?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:16 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
DSenette wrote:
Angua wrote:
the counter to the idea that warning shots are bad, was a list of how many times officers fired warning shots. and how many times police shot people....there wasn't a breakdown of how many times someone was accidentally shot by a cop that fired a warning shot. is there some documentation that does that breakdown? I'm not being snide or anything here. I'd actually like to know. I'm not finding any of that documentation specific to the UK for how many people are hit by random bullets or how many people were accidentally shot by a warning shot. it's not a jump to think that it's happened at least once is it?

I guess it's possible that they decided not to include that information to be very disengenous about police shootings, but I'd kind of expect that if any of those warning shots had resulted in someone being shot accidentally then it would have been mentioned in the study. Like, why would you count the number of times the police has shot someone, or done a warning shot without mentioning if the warning shot had also resulted in someone being shot??? Maybe the fact you are having a hard time finding this data is because not many people (other than the study that has already been quoted about warning shots being safer and effective) does not really exist. You keep asking for all this data, and either it is an extremely rare happen stance, or there's a massive conspiracy to always cover it up when it happens. I think the former is the most likely.

I think the same...I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, nor am I suggesting that they don't record injuries from stray gunfire...at all....and I'd really like for people to stop suggesting that I am saying either of those two things.

I'm just personally having a hard time finding the documentation....because...reasons. not sure why that's all that offensive.

as I said, it's quite possible that no one has ever been hit with a stray bullet from the police in the UK firing a warning shot. I accept that as a possibility. that's still most likely a matter of luck than of it somehow being safer for cops in the UK to take an unaimed shot at an unknown surface or into the air.

Angua wrote:Also, there are lots of examples of one rule for professionals and one rule for the rest of people - CPR is different for children than adults but when teaching most first aid courses instead of being told that compressions should be 15-2 you get taught the 30-2 that is for adults, with the only variation that you give kids rescue breaths first. This is because it was felt that changing it too much would make people worry that they were doing the wrong thing and be less likely to act, which is more dangerous than doing the less optimal compression. Going 'well, they have better vehicle training' is exactly my point - they will have better gun training and know how they can assess the risks.

well, for US police....that training is generally not there.

in the UK, I'm going to imagine it is....but, to what degree? I don't know what police in the UK get for gun training. my understanding is that the police in the UK are in every way more trained than your average US cop...in all regards. so that obviously applies to gun usage as well. but how does it apply to safely implementing a warning shot? are there evaluation criteria for safe warning shot target? do you learn more physics so you can know the likely hood of a ricochet?

again, as with the other times I've said "is that shown anywhere?" I'm not asking you specifically to provide that, and I'm in no way suggesting you are wrong...I'm just wondering if that information exists.

Angua wrote:And yes, obviously not firing a weapon is the safest option, but it's one that the US police don't seem to be able to get through their heads.
agreed (not sure if I've done something to let anyone believe otherwise)

Angua wrote: If warning shots are just as effective at getting the suspect to stop, but less likely to result in the suspect being killed, then I would accept that. Because you're not showing me the data that warning shots fired by police are that likely to kill (yes, lots of civilians randomly shooting guns in the air is not a good thing, no one is saying we should allow everyone to randomly fire a gun wherever and whenever they want).

I MIGHT be able to find data for the US about warning shots....maybe...I dunno...not sure if the information exists. not sure if it's broken out that way. still not sure if it's broken out that way in the UK...I literally do not know, and I'm not suggesting that I do.

absolutely everything I'm saying with regards to firing an unarmed round either into the air, or into an unconfirmed barrier (the ground, a wall, a car) are based on ballistics.

statistically speaking, you have a lot more chance of someone getting hit by a random bullet when you've got a lot more people firing guns in the air. so, the lack of people being hit by random bullets from cops firing warning shots could purely be down to statistical probability. you're only firing one shot, there's LIKELY not a fuck load of people knocking about in the area (otherwise you'd hopefully be a lot more deliberate with your shot)....but, that, as a feature isn't actually showing that it's less dangerous (as an activity) to fire a warning shot.

I'm talking about the inherent danger of the activity in and of itself. which, by my thoughts, isn't mitigated all that well with training (I mean...maybe if it's exceptionally high level training but...still).

my position in the discussion is that cops should not be increasing the danger of a situation when they show up on the scene

gmalivuk wrote:@Dsenette:
You were expecting documentation for investigations of a think you can't even demonstrate has ever happened in the countries under discussion.

When I explained why that's an unreasonable expectation, you responded with some irrelevant nonsense about whether it's "okay" to shoot in the air, which bears no relationship to anything I have yet posted in this thread and *certainly* no relationship to anything I said in the post you were responding to.

Are you bad at reading or are you trolling?

I'm not expecting a fucking thing. I'm ASKING if anyone knows if it exists. period. I didn't say "show me the data or your point is invalid" (at least I don't think I did). on the whole, YOU PEOPLE are better at finding data than the general public. it's kind of a feature of this forum.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:24 pm UTC


Ok, enough about warning shots.


User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:02 pm UTC

Is there a way to serialize bullets to make them reliably 'identifiable' even after impact?

It would probably be pretty useful to have a method of reliably identifying whether or not a bullet belonged to a police officer (and better yet, link a bullet to a specific police officer's gun).

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:16 pm UTC

as a way to identify bullets sold to police agencies...assuming you can force them all to purchase bullets from one company (or convince all companies that do sell bullets to police to follow the rules)....probably. fairly difficult for most duty rounds since they're hollow points...which are designed to deform a lot. maybe something on the base of the bullet...or an RFID chip embedded in the core of the base. of course, that also doesn't include backup pistols carried by cops (which aren't supplied by the department)...they'd likely load whatever they please in those.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:32 pm UTC

That's... something else I've wondered about.

Is it illegal / against policy for police to use personal guns on-duty in other countries? That always seemed really unprofessional to me; like, if police need backup firearms, they should receive them from the department -- and if it's an issue over them not being comfortable with the firearm the department supplies them with, the department should offer a set of choices (but this strikes me as silly; I don't know a lot about guns, but I can't imagine that there's a significant benefit to allowing each officer to use a different type of gun).

Like, if a police shoots someone on-duty, and the gun/bullet used isn't a department gun/bullet, I can't understand why that officer isn't in serious trouble.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:03 pm UTC

reasons for cops to have different guns than the standard issue could be size of gun vs size of guy's hand. personal fit preference (glocks have a weird grip angle to some people). preferred caliber (many departments use 10mm or 9mm some folk still prefer .40 or .45 or a .357). preference to a revolver over automatic (for the old folk). can't imagine the department keeping one of everything around, or keeping the one turned in when someone leaves hoping someone else wants that one later.

as for backups...fairly certain the reason in the US is for if your main gun fails or is taken from you. usually the backup is a small revolver somewhere like on an ankle holster. why they're not provided by the department? cost? liability? same reasons as the first one should apply

I know of some places in the US where you can purchase your own duty gun if you get approval and such. not sure if you're reimbursed or not

edit: those reasons for different guns aren't "but I like this one better cuz it's shiny" preferences....those items actually to affect individual accuracy
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:32 pm UTC

Okay, and maybe that's a bit unfair of me to presume; I work with various heavy tools, and I know that different people work better with lighter, heavier, or different-sized tools. That being said, it seems to me that all guns a police officer uses in any official capacity ought to be supplied by the department; aside from some specific exceptions (such as snipers), the military doesn't (as far as I know) let you use personal firearms -- and the military is (or at least should be) discharging those firearms much more regularly than a police officer.

I guess I'm also highly skeptical regarding how often a backup firearm ends up saving an officer's life? I mean, let's presume you need to discharge your weapon in a life-or-death situation -- and the weapon fails. Okay. Now you need to fetch your backup. You're telling me that you're in a situation where you have the extra time you need to retrieve your backup weapon and discharge it? That implies that you're not in a situation that's immediately lethal anyway; if you have enough time to retrieve a backup weapon, you probably have enough time to pursue other options besides opening fire.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for a backup firearm to save a life -- it just seems like a serious fringe case. And the cost is doubling the amount of firearms in service (with all the related risks).

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Angua » Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:38 pm UTC

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby DSenette » Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:42 pm UTC

well, the military has a much higher budget...so....they may actually give you a choice between certain fire arms....BUT...the military is also a lot more structured than a police department (hence the problem of police departments having military equipment) and most definitely higher trained so perhaps it's more of a "nope, this is the gun we're giving you, you learn how to use it correctly" kind of thing... I dunno, never been in the military.

as for the backup gun....I think the place it normally saves a life is during a physical struggle...rasslin with a perp, your gun get's knocked away, guy's about to start wailing on you, reach down to your ankle, stick a snubnose in his ribs and squeeze.


historically, in some more Mafioso type jurisdictions...the backup gun was used to plant on people after you shot them. or to whack a guy then dump the gun.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:31 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:historically, in some more Mafioso type jurisdictions...the backup gun was used to plant on people after you shot them. or to whack a guy then dump the gun.


This problem alone would seem like a very good reason why backup guns should be issued by the department.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:20 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:historically, in some more Mafioso type jurisdictions...the backup gun was used to plant on people after you shot them. or to whack a guy then dump the gun.


I think you (and maybe some other people) are mixing up the concepts of "backup" gun and "throw-down" gun.

A backup gun is a legally registered gun that you carry in case of loss or failure of your primary weapon. I have no problem with the police carrying backup guns.

A throw-down gun is unregistered specifically so it can be attributed to the victim of a shooting. It has to be that way, because there's no point in saying, "The perp drew that gun," only to have "CSI" say, "But, officer, that's your gun!"

Carrying an unregistered gun should generally be a crime, because they are so often used in the commission of other crimes. An officer caught carrying an unregistered weapon for throw-down purposes should be summarily dismissed.
In all fairness...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10499
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:29 pm UTC

So, umm, surprise check for throwdown guns and other contraband when doing the surprise drug test?

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:38 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:So, umm, surprise check for throwdown guns and other contraband when doing the surprise drug test?

That's...tough. You can "lose" the gun (and other contraband) anytime inspection is likely; it's a bit harder to leave your bladder behind.

I'm not saying they should have surprise inspections for this kind of stuff, but discovery that an officer is carrying a throwdown should result in dismissal. Because it pretty much indicates either preparation to falsify evidence--or maybe commit an anonymous murder--both of which are specifically outside the job description.

And when it comes right down to it, I'm not sure we should do surprise drug tests. Lots of Rights implications, for everyone tested.
In all fairness...

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby BlackSails » Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:47 am UTC


User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:58 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bystander-dies-hit-nypd-bullets-article-1.2341345

Sometimes its not even on purpose.


"Between 11 and 21...", WTF: he doesn't even know how many clips he was carrying, or used?
In all fairness...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:03 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:We've got about 765k cops in the US. Actual cops, with arrest powers, etc. Some of them may have desk jobs but hell, let's count 'em all. So, they shoot what, a thousand people a year? Maybe more, but still. That's at least a 765:1 ratio.

The US general population manages a murder rate of only about 16,129:1.

So...ya. It's a cop problem.
Add it up, even if police murdered all of those thousand, and I defy you to prove that, it just means that as a culture that we are violent.
It doesn't "just" mean that, because those number mean "as a culture" police are 20 times more violent than the general population.

And you defy us to prove what? Those are homicides, which are counted the same whether justified or not. Do you think some of the news reports of police shooting people are incorrect, and that those people aren't actually shot by police?


Precisely.

Yeah, we may or may not be violent. The issue is the rates of violence. Comparing police against the culture they live in is inherently fair in a way that comparing to police of another culture may not be. As there were concerns of apples and oranges comparisons, I thought it fair to do a quick eyeball to see how US police compare to their own culture. It isn't pretty.

DSenette wrote:no, I in fact, never said that firing a warning shot is more dangerous than firing a direct shot at someone...I'd like you to point to where I did please

what I'm saying is that firing a warning shot is potentially EXACTLY as dangerous as a direct, aimed, meant to kill, shot at someone. because the outcome of an aimed shot(someone being killed or harmed) is a VERY LEGITAMITELY REAL outcome of firing an un-aimed shot at an unknown surface, or firing a shot straight up in the air.


While I'm not a fan of warning shots, since they do represent added danger...I don't think that's a fair description of the danger. Firing esssentially at random(final target uncertain), is significantly less likely to hit someone than aiming at them. That's....why we aim.

So, the danger isn't zero, but it's not equivalent to shots fired at someone either.

Chen wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:It doesn't "just" mean that, because those number mean "as a culture" police are 20 times more violent than the general population


You'd expect the police to be in more violent confrontations than the general population though. You're having them seek out and apprehend criminals. Comparing them in general to the overall population is not an apples to apples comparison.


But they aren't dying at significantly greater rates than the general population(and any delta is primarily due to automobile accidents).

Such a skew in violence in one way, but not the other, is a little odd, don't you think?

And as we see in other civilized countries, police there do not generally seem to exhibit this pattern. So, it doesn't seem inherent to the nature of police work.

morriswalters wrote:Tyndmyr's reference was to murder, not just homicides, as was mine. How many killings by police are murder and how would you show that? Do we live in different places? The police have a problem, that's certain. But if the police exist in a violent culture with millions of guns, and if politicians have been banging the fear crime drum since the 70's, and if history places old west gunfighters on a hero's pantheon, and then constantly reinforces it, you get what you get. The most interesting thing about the UK is that when asked cops say they don't want to pack guns. That is a cultural difference.


The great difficulty with the statistics here is that police in the US are reluctant to collect data about their killings. This does not encourage confidence in them, I should think.

The old west wasn't really violent. Movies include all kinds of violence, including both guns and otherwise, but...shit, martial arts, swords and Japan go way back, but japan isn't actually filled with ninja killers. Pointing at movies, video games, and other entertainment is a common and convenient excuse, but it falls short in explanatory power. The release of a new violent movie or video game does not herald a wave of death or the like. It's just an excuse, not a reason.

DSenette wrote:the vehicle speeding thing is slightly murky....but...not by much. in an actual case where the police have to drive at high speed through traffic, they've got lights on the cars to somewhat mitigate risk. plus, for the most part (and especially in the UK as far as I'm aware) police forces get a lot more driving training than just about anyone else...which does to towards mitigating the risks.


And I'm not a huge fan of cops casually driving around well above the speed limit without lights on, as is entirely normal where I live. It's this sort of "above the law" mentality that is concerning. Not talkin' five miles over, like, 20 mph plus sometimes. If they want to, they just do, and who's gonna pull 'em over?

(edited out a bunch of crap about warning shots, per notice. Downside to writing responses to each post in order, I guess)

The Great Hippo wrote:Is there a way to serialize bullets to make them reliably 'identifiable' even after impact?

It would probably be pretty useful to have a method of reliably identifying whether or not a bullet belonged to a police officer (and better yet, link a bullet to a specific police officer's gun).


No. MD tried anyway. It was an utter waste of money. With everyone, not just police officers.

You run into some statistics issues. Even if you have a "99% success rate", if there's thousands of guns to match against, you're going to get mostly false positives. You can be *fairly* confident when using this information to validate information gained another way, but it's terrible on it's own. The same issue exists with DNA testing. Testing someone to determine it isn't their blood is pretty straightforward and accurate. But you wouldn't want to just go fishing in an entire city's records.

The Great Hippo wrote:That's... something else I've wondered about.

Is it illegal / against policy for police to use personal guns on-duty in other countries? That always seemed really unprofessional to me; like, if police need backup firearms, they should receive them from the department -- and if it's an issue over them not being comfortable with the firearm the department supplies them with, the department should offer a set of choices (but this strikes me as silly; I don't know a lot about guns, but I can't imagine that there's a significant benefit to allowing each officer to use a different type of gun).

Like, if a police shoots someone on-duty, and the gun/bullet used isn't a department gun/bullet, I can't understand why that officer isn't in serious trouble.


Sometimes. It is mostly bad policy. Even the US Military is, despite loving uniformity in all things, remarkably tolerant in practice regarding firearm choice, configuration, and kit loadout.

The reason for this is that effectiveness with a firearm is dominated by user familiarity with the firearm. Walk into a gun shop. Literally everything on the shelf is more accurate than you will likely ever be. Yes, yes, the very expensive guns may have this advantage or that, but practice trumps everything, and practice does not entirely transfer between different firearms. Yeah, some stuff, like basic safety, generally does, but proficiency at hitting things mostly does not(barring guns set up to weigh/feel like specific other guns).

Requiring a department gun and having competent shooters are mostly exclusive goals.

The Great Hippo wrote:I guess I'm also highly skeptical regarding how often a backup firearm ends up saving an officer's life? I mean, let's presume you need to discharge your weapon in a life-or-death situation -- and the weapon fails. Okay. Now you need to fetch your backup. You're telling me that you're in a situation where you have the extra time you need to retrieve your backup weapon and discharge it? That implies that you're not in a situation that's immediately lethal anyway; if you have enough time to retrieve a backup weapon, you probably have enough time to pursue other options besides opening fire.


This is a matter for debate, in some circumstances. The Marines adopts the "no backup" policy as a rule, while others do not. This is in part because the Marines believe everyone is a rifleman, and rifles are WAY better at combat than pistols. Seriously, not even the same league. So, if one person in a team has a malfunction, they'd rather he be clearing it and getting back to maximum effectiveness. But...this may not apply to policing, because you may not be part of a team.

Or exceptions exist like if you're the breacher on an entry team. The shotgun is loaded with frangible rounds for taking the door down, you transition to your backup for room clearing. In that case, it'd be ridiculous not to have a backup, since you don't want to use frangible rounds on people. It's very situational.

Coyne wrote:Carrying an unregistered gun should generally be a crime, because they are so often used in the commission of other crimes. An officer caught carrying an unregistered weapon for throw-down purposes should be summarily dismissed.


Weapon registration is not required in the US. The assumption that such a weapon exists for "throw down" purposes is wildly unwarranted.

CorruptUser wrote:So, umm, surprise check for throwdown guns and other contraband when doing the surprise drug test?


Surprise drug tests are usually not. Not matter what obfuscation methods are used, like reporting to a specific room or whatever by such and such a time, word will circulate, and people will know what that means. The only reason drug tests work at all is that some things take a significant amount of time to go through your system. Not really as a result of surprise. This doesn't really apply to guns. In short, what prevents police from realizing a check is going to take place, and stashing a gun somewhere?

Coyne wrote:
BlackSails wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bystander-dies-hit-nypd-bullets-article-1.2341345

Sometimes its not even on purpose.


"Between 11 and 21...", WTF: he doesn't even know how many clips he was carrying, or used?


That sounds like he's confused if he shot one magazine or two. Which is really odd, yeah. Not remembering if you did a mag change or not is just strange. Losing count in a long fight, sure. But the difference between zero and one is....well, this guy's probably a perfect example for my earlier comment regarding competence.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:But they aren't dying at significantly greater rates than the general population(and any delta is primarily due to automobile accidents).

Such a skew in violence in one way, but not the other, is a little odd, don't you think?

And as we see in other civilized countries, police there do not generally seem to exhibit this pattern. So, it doesn't seem inherent to the nature of police work.


It's not clear if the not dying at a higher rate is cause or effect. Clearly if you shoot the criminals first, it's going to be less likely they kill you.

The only immediate thing that comes to mind in rationalizing it with respect to other countries, is more gun culture again. Threats to the officer (real or perceived) are going to be more deadly in places where guns are more common, on both sides. The byproduct here is likely more deaths.

Deaths are much easier to track than just violence as well. When the police kill someone, it's rare they're going to be able to hide the body. But when police rough someone up, I imagine that's much easier to keep out of the numbers. Combine that with the above point of less prevalent guns, and I imagine the rate of violence that police dish out in other countries is still probably higher than the overally citizen's rate.

Thinking about it a bit more, I was going to say its evident police get into more violent situations per unit time than the average citizen would. But this isn't necessarily true. It largely depends on how much violence this is between citizens, and how many citizens fall into demographics where they are MUCH more prone to being in violent encounters (like gang members). I think it's still enough confounding factors that comparing police violence rate to overall society's violence rate is not really a great comparisson to draw conclusions on.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:34 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:But they aren't dying at significantly greater rates than the general population(and any delta is primarily due to automobile accidents).

Such a skew in violence in one way, but not the other, is a little odd, don't you think?

And as we see in other civilized countries, police there do not generally seem to exhibit this pattern. So, it doesn't seem inherent to the nature of police work.


It's not clear if the not dying at a higher rate is cause or effect. Clearly if you shoot the criminals first, it's going to be less likely they kill you.


In the short term, perhaps. THAT guy you just shot won't shoot you. But if you embrace a policy of shooting people pre-emptively, you're going to come across as kind of a huge threat.

And then they shoot you pre-emptively.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:In the short term, perhaps. THAT guy you just shot won't shoot you. But if you embrace a policy of shooting people pre-emptively, you're going to come across as kind of a huge threat.

And then they shoot you pre-emptively.


We don't see any real evidence of that happening though. I'd also imagine most of the cases are less blatent than actively having a policy of pre-emptive shooting.

The whole point was again, using the number of police deaths to say they are being too violent, when being violent will reduce deaths, is not terribly useful. Hell even if reducing police violence increased the number of police deaths, depending on the numbers it could still be worthwhile.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:31 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Thinking about it a bit more, I was going to say its evident police get into more violent situations per unit time than the average citizen would. But this isn't necessarily true. It largely depends on how much violence this is between citizens, and how many citizens fall into demographics where they are MUCH more prone to being in violent encounters (like gang members). I think it's still enough confounding factors that comparing police violence rate to overall society's violence rate is not really a great comparisson to draw conclusions on.
This is poorly expressed. Police will be exposed more to the results of violence. By any measure. The key point is to remember that we pay them for this function. From gunshot victims, domestic violence, rapes, child abuse and any of the other nasty things that most of us manage to avoid. Drunk frozen to death on the street? There go the cops. And cops not directly exposed talk. I would guess this leads to something like the reverse of rose colored glasses.
Chen wrote:Hell even if reducing police violence increased the number of police deaths, depending on the numbers it could still be worthwhile.
Join the police force and repeat that. No one in a rational state could sell that. What you want is for less of everybody to die.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:02 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:This is poorly expressed. Police will be exposed more to the results of violence. By any measure. The key point is to remember that we pay them for this function. From gunshot victims, domestic violence, rapes, child abuse and any of the other nasty things that most of us manage to avoid. Drunk frozen to death on the street? There go the cops. And cops not directly exposed talk. I would guess this leads to something like the reverse of rose colored glasses.


But I wasn't talking about exposure to the results of violence, but rather exposure to direct violence. A police officer will likely be exposed to more violence than a white collar office worker, over the course of their lives. Will they be exposed to more violence than a member of the bloods or crips? Maybe, maybe not. There was a comparison of police killings to society killings. We know we put police into situations where they may kill someone FAR more often than say the office worker gets into such a situation. Without knowing the relative weights here, comparing just the results is not going to give effective numbers.

Join the police force and repeat that. No one in a rational state could sell that. What you want is for less of everybody to die.


Clearly you'd want less of everybody to die. That's not always a possible option. If you could have it such that 1% more cops died but 10% less citizens died, that would be a HUGE improvement. Clearly no cop would want to enact such a policy which is why it would need to be enacted from a higher governing body. And yes you might get less cops as a result. So maybe you adjust incentives to get more cops, and so on. There's no magic button that is going to solve anything in one fell swoop. Clearly every change is going to lead to other changes and such.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby DSenette » Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:07 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Is there a way to serialize bullets to make them reliably 'identifiable' even after impact?

It would probably be pretty useful to have a method of reliably identifying whether or not a bullet belonged to a police officer (and better yet, link a bullet to a specific police officer's gun).


No. MD tried anyway. It was an utter waste of money. With everyone, not just police officers.

You run into some statistics issues. Even if you have a "99% success rate", if there's thousands of guns to match against, you're going to get mostly false positives. You can be *fairly* confident when using this information to validate information gained another way, but it's terrible on it's own. The same issue exists with DNA testing. Testing someone to determine it isn't their blood is pretty straightforward and accurate. But you wouldn't want to just go fishing in an entire city's records.


I think GH's question about serialization was more about being able to identify a round fired by police specifically. which would be a lot easier (in theory) than serializing all rounds sold.

so, any round sold to a police department would have to be the specially identifiable ones...to show that that round was fired by a police officer.

I also think he meant for the serialization to occur at the time of manufacture, not at the time of firing (like bullet/barrel matching)...so any recovered serialized bullet could be tracked back to a purchase. like "box A" of 9mm contains rounds 9mm01 through 9mm50 (etc..), joe sixpack bought box A of 9mm...perhaps we should ask him where his bullets are?

or, officer brown says he fired twice, yet we found over 30 bullets in the victim that have serial numbers purchased by officer brown's department....and officer brown was the only cop on the scene
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:46 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Chen wrote:Hell even if reducing police violence increased the number of police deaths, depending on the numbers it could still be worthwhile.
Join the police force and repeat that. No one in a rational state could sell that. What you want is for less of everybody to die.
The fact that police would be against it doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile or rational.

Even something extreme like ten times as many killings of police in exchange for 1/10 as many killings by police would result in net lives saved. And isn't that supposed to be the point? Cops put their lives on the line to save the lives of other people?

Objections to Chen's suggested trade-off are usually more emotional than rational.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:51 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:In the short term, perhaps. THAT guy you just shot won't shoot you. But if you embrace a policy of shooting people pre-emptively, you're going to come across as kind of a huge threat.

And then they shoot you pre-emptively.


We don't see any real evidence of that happening though. I'd also imagine most of the cases are less blatent than actively having a policy of pre-emptive shooting.

The whole point was again, using the number of police deaths to say they are being too violent, when being violent will reduce deaths, is not terribly useful. Hell even if reducing police violence increased the number of police deaths, depending on the numbers it could still be worthwhile.


Things don't *always* escalate all the way to outright murder...but it does foster an environment of endless hostility. See also, Baltimore.

A little bit of extra killing isn't a way to make things safer.

Chen wrote:But I wasn't talking about exposure to the results of violence, but rather exposure to direct violence. A police officer will likely be exposed to more violence than a white collar office worker, over the course of their lives. Will they be exposed to more violence than a member of the bloods or crips? Maybe, maybe not. There was a comparison of police killings to society killings. We know we put police into situations where they may kill someone FAR more often than say the office worker gets into such a situation. Without knowing the relative weights here, comparing just the results is not going to give effective numbers.


I think folks are over-emphasizing the danger police face. The average police officer will *never* need to fire his gun in the line of duty. Even in the US.

Yeah, exposure is higher, but...we're still talking about low frequency events. A day of ticketing speeders is a routine activity, and the worst you're likely to face is unhappy and disgruntled because you're ticketing them.

Clearly you'd want less of everybody to die. That's not always a possible option. If you could have it such that 1% more cops died but 10% less citizens died, that would be a HUGE improvement. Clearly no cop would want to enact such a policy which is why it would need to be enacted from a higher governing body. And yes you might get less cops as a result. So maybe you adjust incentives to get more cops, and so on. There's no magic button that is going to solve anything in one fell swoop. Clearly every change is going to lead to other changes and such.


It seems deeply unlikely that we're at or even close to pareto optimum for cop deaths vs civilian deaths, so no, we don't really need to worry about those tradeoffs yet.

DSenette wrote:I think GH's question about serialization was more about being able to identify a round fired by police specifically. which would be a lot easier (in theory) than serializing all rounds sold.


In a country the size of the US, that's still a problem of ridiculous scale. Plus, the usual difficulty is not identifying that the police fired rounds. It's fairly trivial to test to see if a person has fired a gun recently due to powder residue. And there's the issue of the matching empty shells everywhere around him, the hot barrel, etc. Gunfire is usually pretty overt.

The difficulty comes AFTER you've established that the guy fired rounds. Look in this thread, we have endless examples where it's pretty clear that yeah, the police just dumped rounds into this dude. And then....what?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:15 pm UTC

Chen wrote:But I wasn't talking about exposure to the results of violence, but rather exposure to direct violence. A police officer will likely be exposed to more violence than a white collar office worker, over the course of their lives. Will they be exposed to more violence than a member of the bloods or crips? Maybe, maybe not. There was a comparison of police killings to society killings. We know we put police into situations where they may kill someone FAR more often than say the office worker gets into such a situation. Without knowing the relative weights here, comparing just the results is not going to give effective numbers.
Why would you want to? And why is it important. The per capita rate of intentional killings is sufficient. Cops and Crips are part of the same culture. They will never be exposed to the risks that a black teenage male will face. Even that black males counterpart, the white male of equivalent status, won't see that level of violence.

Perception of violence is the forming factor for cops. They see and hear about it, and develop a bias, which implies they are at great risk, when in the scheme of things, that risk is low.
Chen wrote:If you could have it such that 1% more cops died but 10% less citizens died, that would be a HUGE improvement.
What your saying is true, but no one in their right might would try to sell that proposition. This is a question of psychology and and imagined versus real. That would be translated as save criminals and kill cops. It isn't fair. But the power structure would argue it exactly that way. Perception of crime in this country has cost people elections including possibly one Presidential election.
gmalivuk wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Chen wrote:Hell even if reducing police violence increased the number of police deaths, depending on the numbers it could still be worthwhile.
Join the police force and repeat that. No one in a rational state could sell that. What you want is for less of everybody to die.
The fact that police would be against it doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile or rational.

Even something extreme like ten times as many killings of police in exchange for 1/10 as many killings by police would result in net lives saved. And isn't that supposed to be the point? Cops put their lives on the line to save the lives of other people?

Objections to Chen's suggested trade-off are usually more emotional than rational.
I agree, but the body politic isn't rational, they just think they are.

elasto
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:41 am UTC

The police really need to get over their approach of 'use violence now, ask questions later'. Every time they do so, the ripples of disrespect and mistrust spread deeper and wider.

The former US No1 tennis player James Blake was wrestled to the ground and handcuffed in New York as he was preparing to attend the US Open on Wednesday.

Blake, who is African-American, was detained by five white plainclothes police officers as he stood outside a Manhattan hotel. They had mistaken him for a suspect in an identity theft case.

The 35-year-old said he had been talking to a tennis writer when he noticed someone moving towards him. “Maybe I’m naïve, but I just assumed it was someone I went to high school with or something who was running at me to give me a big hug, so I smiled at the guy,” Blake told the New York Daily News.

Blake was instead thrown to the ground by the plainclothes officer, who told him to roll on to his front. The former world No4 suffered a cut and bruising in the incident. After Blake had been handcuffed for 15 minutes, one of the officer’s four colleagues realized they had got the wrong person and he was released. The officer who had thrown Blake to the ground did not apologize.

The former US Open quarter-finalist said he was unsure if his arrest was down to racial profiling but believed the use of force was not needed. “I don’t know if it’s as simple as [racial profiling]. To me it’s as simple as unnecessary police force, no matter what my race is. In my mind there’s probably a race factor involved, but no matter what there’s no reason for anybody to do that to anybody.

“You’d think they could say, ‘Hey, we want to talk to you. We are looking into something. I was just standing there. I wasn’t running. It’s not even close [to appropriate]. It’s blatantly unnecessary. You would think at some point they would get the memo that this isn’t OK, but it seems that there’s no stopping it.”

Blake, who has a British mother and American father, retired from tennis after the 2013 US Open. He won 10 titles in his career and finished fourth in the men’s singles at the 2008 Olympics.

“Today James Blake was detained by police in midtown Manhattan in regards to an ongoing investigation into fraudulently purchased cell phones, after being misidentified by a cooperating witness,” the NYPD said in a statement issued Wednesday afternoon. “Once Blake was properly identified and found to have no connection to the investigation, he was released from police custody immediately. In regards to the alleged improper use of force, the Police Commissioner directed the internal affairs bureau to investigate.”


link

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:16 am UTC

It costs money, too:

Baltimore: Freddie Gray, $6.4 million; Dondi Johnson, $7.4 million; and Jeffry Alston, $39 million. Total for these cases, $52.8 million; $84.87 per resident.

New York City: Eric Garner, $5.9 million; Sean Bell, $7 million; and Abner Louima, $8.75 million. Total for these cases, $21.65 million; $2.58 per resident. NYC paid $964 million in settlements over the last decade; $114.68 per resident.

Chicago: Laquan McDonald, $5 million; and Rekia Boyd, $4.5 million. "Commander Jon Burge and his 'midnight crew' of detectives on the city's South Side used electric shock, beatings, suffocation and even Russian roulette to coerce confessions out of suspects"; more than $100 million in settlements for the cases so far and the city just created a fund of $5.5 million that they hope will cover 80 other victims. In all, $521.3 million since 2004; $191.72 per resident.
In all fairness...


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Deva, Zohar and 8 guests