How three teenagers invented an app to police the cops

Mainly because police departments do not keep these kinds of statistics, so the data is horribly incomplete. And as anybody knows, you can massage the data to show anything you want when you don't have the complete picture:

Officials with the Justice Department keep no comprehensive database or record of police shootings, instead allowing the nation’s more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies to self-report officer-involved shootings as part of the FBI’s annual data on “justifiable homicides” by law enforcement.

That number – which only includes self-reported information from about 750 law enforcement agencies – hovers around 400 “justifiable homicides” by police officers each year. The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics also tracks “arrest-related deaths.” But the department stopped releasing those numbers after 2009, because, like the FBI data, they were widely regarded as unreliable.

source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/0...

The other problem with your data is that there is no firm evidence how each of these scenario's played out. Did the person being shot pull a firearm? What about brandishing a weapon or charging the officer, or attempting to assault the officer? We don't know because this kind of evidence is never taken into account. All people see is a cop who killed a citizen, nobody knows the exact circumstances around every single one of these instances - which makes ALL the data that much more suspect.

So yeah, when you look at the raw numbers, they look bad, but when you add in the circumstances by which these played out, you'd probably find out a lot of these were justified - which is why cops tend to get a lot of leeway in these kinds of scenarios, and are rarely charged.

Of course most of the time media sources don't invent stuff like this - but tell me, without the widespread publicity, would anyone even hear about this guy?

Now one can say that it's only fringe outlets that go anti-vaxx nowadays. But mainstream sources do exactly the same type of reporting - omitting or not doing the math, blowing things out of proportion by literal orders of magnitude, etc. - when it comes to GMOs, or e-cigs, or immigrants, or terrorists, etc. The feedback loop between readers and publishers can turn just about absolutely anything into a nation-wide scandal.

So if that's true why isn't information gathered about every single round of ammunition that's fired? Because every time that trigger is pulled is a time when someone (the officer, a member of the public) is at risk of death, and pulling the trigger carries a very real risk of killing the alleged perpetrator. (Or innocent bystanders).

It's baffling to me that statistics like these are not kept.

Maybe this would be too high a burden. But at least they should keep numbers on how many people they kill, and what the precise situation was around that death.

If it were an ordinary business, policing would be in a deep contraction, due to the steady drop in violent crime rates in the last two decades. Fewer people would have jobs as cops, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, bailiffs, and prison guards.

Instead of either laying off unneeded personnel, stopping new hires to let the numbers drop by attrition, merging municipal police departments or turning them into sheriff subsidiaries, or giving police employees the same benefits and pension plan cuts as all other municipal workers, municipalities just send their superfluous officers out to drum up more revenue.

That started out as selective enforcement. Certain crimes, if prosecuted vigorously, have enough statutory fines attached to make them actually profitable. Say hello to speeding and parking tickets. Certain towns turned themselves into speed traps to tax those passing through too quickly. More.

Then governments started expanding their malum prohibitum crimes. Crimes that didn't have fines attached got minimum sentences, and the courts and prisons became machines to turn tax money into guaranteed jobs in criminal justice. After all, you can't just let those violent criminals go. You would never get reelected if you did that. More!

Now, the cops just take your stuff on a civil forfeiture claim or as "evidence", and never return it (cash, vehicles), or they throw it to the ground and/or stomp on it (recording devices). Now, the courts tack on a bunch of extra fees for anyone issued a civil citation. Now, the prisons are run by for-profit corporations, with minimum occupancy agreements with the government authorities. If they want more, what could happen next?

I would think that cities like Chicago would be itching to reduce their future unsustainable pension obligations by investigating every complaint vigorously, and firing the highest-paid police officers for cause if there is even a whiff of official misconduct. Wouldn't that be better than going bankrupt?

It might, if there were even one uncorrupted public official left in that town able to do the job.

It's long past time for the law-and-order budgets to be brought back under control. The only places in the U.S. that should be hiring more cops are the oil and gas boom towns.

But it isn't about the rational course of action. It's all about the money that can't stop flowing through the system that is now too big to fail.