Investigation: Police Shootings • Hacker News Board

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#141

Post by TallGuyShort » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

idbehold wrote: post #106

TallGuyShort wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once got pulled over while driving through a narrow alley. I had seen the police officer turning the corner behind me at an extremely dangerous speed (wheels spinning) so I assumed he was responding to an active shooting or something. I accelerated to cover the last 20 yards or so and then immediately pulled over once I was out of his way. He came up, gun drawn, thinking I had tried to escape. The reason for pulling…

Wait, are license plates required to be lit? I thought that was just a curtesy to other drivers, not a legal requirement.

By the letter of the law where I was, apparently it is the law. I was ticketed for it. I had it fixed and went to traffic court (hoping to at least have my complaint about the way the officer handled the situation heard, even though I would admit the light was in fact broken), but they thought the ticket was so ridiculous it was dismissed before I even saw the judge. So... technically illegal, but dumb enough to literally get laughed at by the court clerks?

edit: I am aware one can complain to the police department, but this was typical of their officers and I didn't expect sympathy from other officers. Not sure what I expected to achieve in court.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#142

Post by gozur88 » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

gherkin0 wrote: post #129

notatoad wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen police shoot and kill a man "armed with a toy" and it's very, very hard for me to fault them for it. It sounds bad when you say it, but armed with a toy and armed should be treated as the same thing. 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.

> 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. I disagree, especially in your outlined scenario, for a couple of reasons: 1) First and foremost: the police are professionals whose job should be to protect the public, even if that means they put themselves in harm's way. The person wit…

I don't think it's reasonable to expect cops to allow criminals to take the first shot in case the gun might be a toy. Even if you're "positioned defensively" you can still be killed by someone who's lucky or skilled.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#143

Post by raarts » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #126

notdonspaulding wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. So what? Cops don't know the law and aren't expected to know the law. The fact that a cop didn't know the law is a legal defense if you accuse him of messing up.

Cops aren't expected to know the law? Does that hold for civilians as well?

As a comparison, here in The Netherlands, all citizens are expected to know the law. Not knowing it is never an argument as far as I know.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#144

Post by jdmichal » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:12 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.

Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: I instantaneously and permanently disable every car and car manufactory, thereby reducing all traffic fatalities to zero. Did I make driving safer?

I'm not missing your point, and cbr's reply makes it obvious that he isn't either. The prevalence of driving is a separate variable from how dangerous it is. Driving is far less dangerous and far more prevalent.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#145

Post by Retric » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:13 PM UTC

cbr wrote: post #76

shkkmo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That graphic is rather misleading. Our success in reducing traffic fatalities is rather mixed and not nearly so dramatic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fr...

The first graph shows that we have made driving far less dangerous over time. The second graph shows that driving has become far more popular over time, popular enough to outweigh this effect until the early 70s. The recent improvement in car accident rates is pretty impressive.

If we force people to drive more by underfunding public transit then number of miles driven is going to go up due to public policy not personal choices.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#146

Post by rsync » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:15 PM UTC

kennelliott wrote: post #57

Hi everyone! I'm a developer who worked on this project, and I appreciate the comments and suggestions. If you enjoyed this piece, you might want to check out our related story about the six most important things we learned from a year of investigating and reporting this data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shoo...

Is there any data about the police themselves ? Male vs. female officer, with or without partner, length of service, age, etc. ?

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#147

Post by jeffmould » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #2

Some notes: * The Guardian has a very similar feature, "The Counted": http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/0... The Guardian's feature is better in some ways; for instance, it attempts to account for all police engagement fatalities, not just shootings. Some of the worst police abuses in the US haven't involved guns, and if you read the data carefully you learn some surprising things, like how d…

First off, I am not a doctor and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But as someone that was an EMT and who worked around law enforcement for numerous years in other capacities, I have seen this all too often.

"like how dangerous tasers are."

Taser stats can be a bit deceiving. In the vast majority of cases where a taser is deployed the individual is in a drug-induced state with increased heart activity. Combine that with the escalating situation and the individual's heart rate is often higher than if they were just in the drug-induced state. These individuals are often highly combative at the time the taser is deployed. Given normal circumstances a taser deployment on these individuals most likely would not result in any harm. However, combine that deployment with the increased heart activity and adrenaline going through the individuals system and it becomes a recipe for disaster.

To generalize and say that tasers are dangerous does not take into account the entire picture of events or situation at hand. It's not the taser itself that is dangerous it is the situation the individual has placed themselves in that causes the danger.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#148

Post by afarrell » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #126

notdonspaulding wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. So what? Cops don't know the law and aren't expected to know the law. The fact that a cop didn't know the law is a legal defense if you accuse him of messing up.

Where are you are taking this from? There is a recent Supreme Court opinion (the name of which I forget) relating to the 4th amendment that I recall touches on this, but the exclusionary rule of evidence isn't what we are talking about here.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#149

Post by spikels » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:20 PM UTC

unit91 wrote: post #117

spikels wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See Table 7: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf . Blacks are offenders in 57% of gun homicides, 60% of homicides committed in conjunction with another felony, 67% of drug-related homicides, and 42% of gang-related homicides.

I don't understand your comment in relation to the male / female issue. Care to expound?

For the past year the black/white issue has dominated the discussion of police violence, not male/female.

That 97% of those killed by police are male but on 52% of the population is male seems too be in a large part justified by the fact that men commit 90% of the murders and a similar fraction of other violent crimes.

Given the dominant media narrative that cops are unfairly targeting blacks it was bit surprising to find that only 26% of those killed by cops are blacks when blacks commit 52% of murders and similar amount of other violent crimes. This is new information to me.

Unfortunately any rational discussion of the racial dimension of police violence or crine generally is difficult even on HN so I expect to be down voted or even called a racist for the 1st time in my life.

My personal view is that U.S. policing is in need of reform as it is ineffective, too costly and overly violent. This would be difficult but benefit everyone.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#150

Post by bobwaycott » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:25 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.

To your third:

How exactly do you define "provocation"? I'm curious because you seem to have a very lenient definition when talking about police using deadly force. This is remarkable to me when there have been a number of highly reported incidents involving police shooting a civilian without provocation that warrants deadly force (by my definition and video evidence). Here are a few to consider:

1. Tamir Rice

2. John Crawford III

3. Levar Jones

4. Laquan McDonald

Seriously, I could go on. It happens far too frequently that Americans are killed by police firearms when they are not posing an immediate and credible mortal threat. Sadly, there are too many high-profile cases in which cops fire before even bothering to assess the situation. Videos of these incidents abound.

Now, I assume we all agree that police are charged with serving and protecting their communities, right? I believe that also includes suspects and criminals. The bar for determining provocation that warrants deadly force should be very high.

If we are being rational and reasonable, I think there are behaviors that we can agree are not provocations of mortal danger. A few such behaviors:

1. Running away from police

2. Verbal altercations

3. Suspicious behaviors of any kind that are not posing credible mortal threat to other persons or officers

4. Reaching for waistbands (of what are too often excessively sagging pants that frequently need to be pulled up)

I think it is reasonable to have a civil, national conversation about better training for police, and a national charge and expectation to keep every potential suspect alive until a situation is properly assessed and resolved.

If ranchers in a standoff, or bikers in a gun battle, can make it out alive, I think many more can, too.

Funny story from my childhood in Southern California, around 1990:

I was playing in the yard with my toy gun. I hated the orange cap at the end of the barrel and had pulled it out with pliers. It was a metal rifle. A cop came down the neighborhood street, and I took cover behind a tree and pretended to shoot, as if he was my new imaginary enemy. He slowed down and stopped in front of the yard. I was within earshot, so he called out to me in a friendly way. Asked if I was shooting at bad guys. I nodded. He asked if I'd like to see his gun and might be interested in a trade. I thought that was cool, and ran over to his car with my metal toy rifle. He opened his car door to me and stepped out, asking if he could see my gun. I handed it right over, and he invited me to sit in the drivers seat of his squad car. Looking back, I'm sure he was checking if I had a real firearm. He then showed me the shotgun he had secured between the front seats. He talked to me about being careful with guns. Then he suggested there were some bad guys sneaking around my house, and I should go get them with my gun. And I ran off to chase them down.

I shudder to think what would happen to my 12-year-old in the same situation today.