Investigation: Police Shootings • Hacker News Board

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#131

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:48 PM UTC

kennelliott wrote: post #72

tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way to get the union of "Fleeing suspect" and "deadly weapon" (or, better: "fleeing suspect" and "firearm") from the data?

The best we could advise you to do is select both "Deadly weapon" (under the "Weapon" category) and "Other" (under "Threat Level"). Deadly weapon includes all firearms, and the Other (threat level) category includes, but is not limited to, individuals who were fleeing. There will be some information in the blurbs that may indicate if the person was fleeing specifically. We hope that in future versions we will be able…

But you have the data somewhere, right, because you gave it a number (roughly a quarter of all fatalities). Could I derive that number from your data set on Github?

(I'm not questioning the number; I'd just like to see if I can generate more context for it).

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#132

Post by shkkmo » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #122

shkkmo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet it is misleading to support the claim of a "war on traffic fatalities" with a graph that measures something else. The first graph show we have made driving far less dangerous per mile . The second graph shows the likelihood that any given person will die due to traffic.

I would make the reverse argument. Someone driving 100 miles today is far less likely to die doing it than, say, 30 years ago. The odds look about 3:1, eyeballing the chart. That, to me, seems like driving is far less dangerous than it was. The fact that people drive more miles today than before is an entire separate concern. One could even argue that making driving safer has also made it more popular, though I would…

You seem to be missing the point. The graph was posted to show evidence for a 'war on car fatalities' not a 'war on the dangers of driving'.

This is akin to announcing a 'war on cancer fatalities' but only caring about improving cancer treatments, not removing carcinogens on the environment.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#133

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:51 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #107

tptacek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not in the data set, but the correct category for McDonald is "Deadly weapon" but not "Attack in progress". McDonald is the reason I'd like the "firearm" breakout, because "deadly weapon", "no firearm", and "no attack in progress" describes a somewhat common class of police fatalities that are probably mostly unjustified.

Yes I agree. The standard for "deadly weapon" has deteriorated to the point at which anything that any conceivably imaginative movie plot might suggest could cause a death in very particular circumstances, is thought to qualify. Yes it's possible that a two-inch penknife might be able to sever the vein of an immobilized person, given several minutes of sawing. That doesn't mean that such a tool is considered a "deadl…

When you look at the Guardian data (manually, unfortunately, as that's the only way to do it), you're going to find that most of the "deadly weapon" cases involve firearms, not two-inch penknives.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#134

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:52 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #113

dccoolgai wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if you would feel that way if one of your loved ones was serving as an officer of the peace - would you want them dealing with dangerous situations on a daily basis people with no regard for "covering their own ass"? Would you feel that way if there were an armed intruder in your home and one of those officers had to respond to protect you? Would you want them to intervene to protect you or your family or si…

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cover+your+ass [EDIT: removed request] I do have police family. I do want him to be safe. I don't want him to file false reports in order not to face the consequences of unlawful action. [EDIT:] As a rural resident and citizen, if "an armed intruder" troubles my family home, the sheriffs will be called to collect a corpse. I'm not fool enough to imagine they'll get there in time for anything else…

Please remain civil. "The English language, please learn it" is uncivil on multiple levels.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#135

Post by unit91 » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:52 PM UTC

dudul wrote: post #68

I remember reading an article by a former military guy who was deployed in the middle east. Back home he had to deal with the police and basically said: "they reminded me of myself when I was deployed and operating in enemy controlled areas". The guy goes on to explain on, according to him, the problem is that there is a narrative that cops should be allowed to do anything to protect their life, as opposed to protect…

Taking this rationale to its logical conclusion, a police officer would be required to wait for violence to actually occur before responding. Imagine the scenario in which a civilian points a gun at a police officer's head. What course of action would you recommend? Wait for the civilian to fire? If the officer were to fire, would you say "I feared for my life" is reasonable?

Second, you've got a straw man argument here. Police can't shoot (de jure) when there's a suspicion that maybe there's a possibility. In Texas (I imagine others are similar), deadly force is authorized [1]:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

and,

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct.

There's a clear line here, and "reasonable" is decided by a jury of one's peers, not the responding officer.

Reference:

1. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.h...

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#136

Post by rmxt » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

13thLetter wrote: post #116

rmxt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people like these guys weren't pointing guns at other people or breaking the law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren... I'm certainly not suggesting that we encourage violent responses from law enforcement. (I'm relieved injury and harm were minimized in both of the above instances.) But, it's disingenuous to think that all…

"But, it's disingenuous to think that all demographics get an equally fair shake/generous response from law enforcement when they are holding (or believed to be holding) a gun." Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but that particular argument doesn't work at all. There's a huge difference between a protest (even with armed protesters) in broad daylight surrounded by cops and news media, and a split-second confrontati…

My main point is that it's not as simple as:

not("breaking law" or "pointing guns at other people") == not("get shot")

which is what you were snarkily making it out to be.

There are whole fields of study devoted to the issues at hand, neither you nor I will convince each other or make an airtight case in a single post regarding the full spectrum of input into all armed encounters with police that result in the output of either dying, or being arrested without incident, or anything in between.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#137

Post by enraged_camel » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:56 PM UTC

notdonspaulding wrote: post #109

enraged_camel wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot. How often does this happen? A much more common occurrence is when someone sees a suspicious-looking dude walking down the street, calls the cops and says "I think he is armed!" and the cops arrive and shoot him without first verifying if…

First: citation needed. Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Third: If it's as much of a "common occurrence" as you claim, please paste here one example from the list of shootings on the article's main page where an officer shoots a civilian without any provocation.

>>Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law.

Way to miss the point. Of course being armed isn't against the law. But most states don't allow open-carry, and if someone is reporting you to the cops and saying you're armed, that means you just broke the law by failing to conceal your weapon. Furthermore, if the person reporting you says you're acting suspiciously or in a threatening manner, that's enough justification for most cops to shoot you.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#138

Post by cbr » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:57 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #132

jdmichal wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would make the reverse argument. Someone driving 100 miles today is far less likely to die doing it than, say, 30 years ago. The odds look about 3:1, eyeballing the chart. That, to me, seems like driving is far less dangerous than it was. The fact that people drive more miles today than before is an entire separate concern. One could even argue that making driving safer has also made it more popular, though I would…

You seem to be missing the point. The graph was posted to show evidence for a 'war on car fatalities' not a 'war on the dangers of driving'. This is akin to announcing a 'war on cancer fatalities' but only caring about improving cancer treatments, not removing carcinogens on the environment.

It's as if we were successfully making cancer less deadly, but at the same time more people were living long enough to get cancer that there were more cancer deaths. We'd still be making the kind of progress we care about in working against cancer fatalities, even though there are more of them. And a suggestion that reduce longevity so that fewer people would die of cancer would be missing the point.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#139

Post by burkaman » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:58 PM UTC

dsugarman wrote: post #11

they did an incredible job here, very well done UI easy to filter and educate yourself. The saddest story I found: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/autistic-6-year-old-shot-killed-...

If anyone is wondering, the police were charged with second degree murder in this case: http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/grand-jury-i...

They have plead not guilty and will be tried soon: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/01/trials_set_for_d...

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#140

Post by krapp » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

dudul wrote: post #86

krapp wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Cops should not be allowed to kill someone on suspicion that maybe there is a possibility that they will start shooting at them. Civilians in the US often have this right, so why shouldn't the police?

For one, civilians don't have the role of "protecting and serving" :) Cops are trained, and are supposed to learn how to handle a situation without pulling out their gun [ ]. I don't necessarily disagree with you though. It would be good for people to be able to walk at night with a bag of candies without getting gunned down. I don't think that 2 problems should cancel each other. [ ] And I know I'm wrong when I say…

Police should certainly be held to a higher standard - and when they shoot someone, they should be treated the same as anyone else, if not put under greater scrutiny, because of the greater responsibility their position entails.

But the fact remains that, for better or worse, every American by default has the right to shoot people with guns under certain circumstances. I am not a lawyer but I don't see a legal justification for limiting the ability of the police to defend themselves, without treating police officers like felons.