Investigation: Police Shootings • Hacker News Board

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#201

Post by shkkmo » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 2:26 AM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #184

shkkmo wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noted that a set of statistics was being misused as evidence for the specific claim being made and added a source that supported that claim, abeit less strongly. That was 'uncharitable'? You then 'charitably' missed my point twice, and argued against a strawman. You followed that up by 'charitably' accused me of only arguing semantics rather than responding to any of my actual points.

I'm pretty sure I understand your argument fine. Allow me to attempt a summary: The original graphic shows that driving is less dangerous now than ever before. However, it does not take into account the prevalence of driving, which is also higher. Therefore, the original graphic is "misleading", because "traffic fatalities" is the combination of the danger of driving and its prevalence. Given this current understandi…

Your suggestion that I should have reinterpreted what harryh said, does not makes sense given the context of the post he was responding to:

> Terrorism has never been a problem. The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks. Where is our war on cars?

My main point, and reason for making the distinction between metrics is explained here:

"However, if we had spent more effort in trying to reduce unnecessary and high-risk driving we would see a larger reduction in traffic deaths. This includes solutions like walkable cities, adequate public transit, and higher penalties for drivers engaged in risky behavior that cause fatalities. Focusing purely on deaths per mile excludes those types of interventions. Thus you can't use that measure to claim a 'war on car fatalities'."

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#202

Post by melted » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 2:46 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #192

melted wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's how things are done in this country. You can fuck with them afterwards, in the court of law. When they're enforcing the law, fucking with police is the stupidest thing you can do. They have families to come back home to as well. I don't see what's so "insensitive" about that.

> When they're enforcing the law, fucking with police is the stupidest thing you can do ...in the US. In other countries you can fuck with the police and not get killed. And, for the sake of clarity here, "fucking with the police" is for example asking if you're being detained or if you're free to go, or asking what grounds they have for a stop and search. It's baffling to me why asking police to obey the law is desc…

No, I'm not talking about stop and frisk or "am I free to go". I'm talking about pointing a toy weapon at an officer when he/she can't tell if the weapon is real or not. Or reaching into the police cruiser, punching the officer in the face and attempting to grab his gun. Stuff like that.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#203

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 3:01 AM UTC

melted wrote: post #202

DanBC wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When they're enforcing the law, fucking with police is the stupidest thing you can do ...in the US. In other countries you can fuck with the police and not get killed. And, for the sake of clarity here, "fucking with the police" is for example asking if you're being detained or if you're free to go, or asking what grounds they have for a stop and search. It's baffling to me why asking police to obey the law is desc…

No, I'm not talking about stop and frisk or "am I free to go". I'm talking about pointing a toy weapon at an officer when he/she can't tell if the weapon is real or not. Or reaching into the police cruiser, punching the officer in the face and attempting to grab his gun. Stuff like that.

Sure, but in this little sub-thread I'm talking about the thug officers who think that polite refusal to answer their questions is justification for police harassment.

It's far too common in the US.

And while it's stupid to point a gun (toy or not) at police (I agree that death is a likely result, because you should never point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them) that doesn't excuse all the people who had cell phones in their hands, or the people shot within six seconds of a police officer arriving on the scene, or the people with no weapon and their back turned.

Yet in many of these cases we see officers closing ranks and claiming the victim somehow deserved it, and was somehow responsible for their death because they were arguing with police.

The US is unique in first world nations in murdering its citizens. It's an abuse of human rights when it happens after lengthy court cases; I can't imagine why it's okay before an arrest is made.

(Unless someone's life is in real and immediate danger).

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#204

Post by x1798DE » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 3:15 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #195

spikels wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Among the many reasons you're being downvoted is the fact that you said black people are "only" 26% of police shooting fatalities in the US without acknowledging the fact that they make up only 13% of the population.

I read the "only" as referring to the ratio of crime percentage to shot by cop. 96% of those killed are men, and men commit the same order of magnitude of the violent crime (even though they are 50% of the population). Following that trend, you would expect blacks to be 50%ish of the shot-by-cop numbers, not 26%.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#205

Post by x1798DE » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 3:19 AM UTC

b_emery wrote: post #12

startupfounder wrote: post #5

I find this discrepancy very interesting, only ~4% of the people shot and killed by police were female. Police departments are male dominate and maybe this factors into the difference[0] Male - 952 Female - 41 Why such a discrepancy? I don't think males are 23x more dangerous than females. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_law_enforcement

Between 1980 and 2008 "Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders" [1]. Men are much more dangerous. A general rule for a lost child is to seek out a friendly looking woman, since she would be much more likely to help and not harm the child [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime [2] http://gavindebecker…

That's basically nonsense advice without mentioning the baseline rates. If 90% of all sex offenses are committed by men, but the baseline rate of sexual predators is 10 per 100,000, your chance of running into a male sexual predator by chance is 0.009%, and your chance of running into a female sexual predator is 0.001%. Both would be essentially negligible risks, even if one is 9 times higher than the other.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#206

Post by notdonspaulding » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 4:31 AM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #150

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.

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. Joh…

I'll agree that all 4 of your non-provocative behaviors should not escalate a situation to the level of deadly force being required. I specifically asked for examples from the list, because the list seems designed to support a very specific thesis, one that you expressed in this comment:

    > It happens far too frequently that Americans are killed 
    > by police firearms when they are not posing an immediate 
    > and credible mortal threat.

"far too frequently" is a fuzzy number, one that's hard to agree on. How many unjustifiable deaths per year is that? I believe the data in this article is intended to be used as a stand-in for that figure, and I posit that the actual number is dramatically lower than the fuzzy number everyone has in their heads.

If you want to really shut up the naysayers, try showing this data:

    Interactions between civilians and LEOs:  __________
    Of those, how many involved physical force? __________
    Of those, how many resulted in fatalities? __________
    Of those, how many were unjustifiable? __________
    Of those, how many went unpunished? __________

If that last number is more than a handful a year in the US, I'd be shocked, outraged, and offended. And certainly we should be shocked, outraged and offended for each individual incident of that last kind no matter how many others there are.

That being said, if you want to claim that we need "a civil, national conversation" about this, I think the onus should be on you to prove that the last number above has risen to a national crisis level. Maybe it has, but I don't think this article (or even your 4 examples) makes a very good case for it.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#207

Post by notdonspaulding » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 4:46 AM UTC

raarts wrote: post #143

thaumasiotes wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, cops in the US are expected to have an above-average working knowledge of the law. If you have a question about the legality of something, you're more likely to get the correct answer asking a random cop than a random civilian.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#208

Post by jeffmould » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 5:24 AM UTC

maus42 wrote: post #174

jeffmould wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 activi…

"Taser stats are a bit deceiving (the death toll is surprisingly large), it's lethal only to drug addicts"? If Taser is dangerous to people high on drugs, it is a dangerous weapon, and we should care about that. Do you mean it's individual's fault that police uses a weapon that is lethally dangerous to "individuals in a drug-induced state" to apprehend individuals in a drug-induced state?

That theory makes no sense. By that logic I should be innocent if I go out drinking, get behind the wheel and drive, and kill someone in the process.

I am not here to argue morals, ethics, or whether the use of force in situations is warranted or not. All I can say is that it is easy to arm chair quarterback a situation until you are placed in that situation and asked to make a split second decision that in end you know someone will always be second guessed.

My point was simply that taser statistics are deceiving to some extent. Sadly the statistics only show incidents where someone was killed by the use of a taser. If you compare that to the number of times tasers are actually deployed around the globe, you will find that tasers are in fact not as deadly as you think. In the vast majority of cases where a death does occur you will often find that there is an outside factor such as drugs that resulted in said death, not the taser.

The comment about police "serve and protect". Unfortunately to "serve and protect" does not simply refer to the individual the police are questioning and/or arresting. To serve and protect, first and foremost, refers to the officer's own safety. Second it refers to the safety of the community as a whole. Finally it refers to the individual at hand. At every call for service an officer must make determine exactly how to "serve and protect" to the best of his or her ability all three of these groups. This decision often has to be made in less than a second with the officer knowing the wrong decision can end up being grave to one of the three groups. The best decision is no harm to any of the groups. The second best option is that the officer and community are safe. Regrettably, to reach that second option usually results in the injury or death of a party. But if that injury or death served and protected the larger community than in most scenarios it is considered justified.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#209

Post by rodgerd » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 5:26 AM UTC

13thLetter wrote: post #89

rodgerd wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are regularly displays by men armed with AR-15s around cities in the US. Yet the police seem to be disinterested in shooting them. I wonder why?

Simple: because they aren't pointing the AR-15s at anyone or breaking any laws. Hope that answers your question -- anything else you need help with?

So when someone tries to enter a property where firearms are banned, persists until the police are called, and then gets in the officers' faces while weilding a firearm, that doesn't seem like a problem to you, but gunning down children with toys is essential?

Interesting.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#210

Post by 13thLetter » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 6:56 AM UTC

rodgerd wrote: post #209

13thLetter wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: because they aren't pointing the AR-15s at anyone or breaking any laws. Hope that answers your question -- anything else you need help with?

So when someone tries to enter a property where firearms are banned, persists until the police are called, and then gets in the officers' faces while weilding a firearm, that doesn't seem like a problem to you, but gunning down children with toys is essential? Interesting.

If I were inclined to be rude, I might make a smartass remark in kind about how you seem to believe that the police should indiscriminately open fire on demonstrators the second they fail to cooperate in any way...

...but I won't, because I know the situations are more complicated than that and if we were speaking in person instead of over the Internet you'd probably agree with me on that, even if we didn't agree on the fundamentals of the issue.