21–30 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Europe most countries count the number of bullets fired by police, not just the number of bodies disposed.
Indeed, leading to headlines like this one "Finnish police fired guns only six times in 2013" Frustratingly I can't find anything more recent, because I'm sure I read that last year, or the year before, we were down to one round fired.
I recently learned that the homicide rate in Japan is lower than the rate at which police are killing people in the US.
Japanese crime statistics are probably not very reliable. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/world/fg-autopsy9
https://psmag.com/social-justice/how-many-people-are-killed-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Europe most countries count the number of bullets fired by police, not just the number of bodies disposed.
Indeed, leading to headlines like this one "Finnish police fired guns only six times in 2013" Frustratingly I can't find anything more recent, because I'm sure I read that last year, or the year before, we were down to one round fired.
It's actually more interesting to track number of times weapons are drawn, which is usually also reported as a use of force. It's less precise, but numbers are slightly higher.
> It is not just Baltimore cops. It is cops. They will shoot you in the face in front of your infant daughter. They will choke you to sleep for selling cigarettes. This is the tone and conclusion of this article. If you want the actual story, read the original report here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-gun...
The article is about people literally trying to get away with murder. The last two sentences are references to well-documented cases of police officers killing non-dangerous citizens. There's no reason to be polite about this.
Edit (instead of replying to all of the individual replies):
I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are systemic problems in police forces worldwide, just like there are systemic problems in any large organization, especially one endowed which so much executive power.
However, any argument that paints a picture of "uniform equals bad" is, in my opinion, not only delusional, but is also a severe injustice to the good apples in public service, that is: in service to the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I changed it now. But wow, that was quite the reaction. Your interpretation is correct and at least in my cultural circle, quotes around nouns serve as a way to express the lacking quality of the thing. Ie. this is a rant pretending to be a news piece. But that's just my opinion. Equally IMO, the actual source is more important than an opinion on the source.
The use of quotes to question the authenticity or true nature of something is accepted in English. You could have said "journalism" and I wouldn't have jumped on you. On "article" though it's inappropriate. The other comment notwithstanding, an article is an article, no matter if it's written by a journalist, an amateur, or a monkey banging its head on a keyboard. There is zero credibility implied by the word. Exampl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most of the problems cropping up these past two years can be traced to the fact that people put the same credibility in a piece by some random person on the internet as they do in one by a career journalist. Citation needed.
For which part? Have you missed the whole “fake news” fiasco? People will upvote and share any article that reinforces their existing beliefs and world view. Rather than approaching articles with a healthy skepticism and critical thinking, many people are consuming content based on what “team” the author seems to be advocating for. Instead of asking questions like, “what is the author’s agenda?” or “does this author…
People do that with accredited news already. For example, in communist circles there is some groups that believe that no matter what, everything that Stalin did was justified. They will bring up no amount of obscure scholars, and disregard large amounts of citations from modern scholars and new evidence to protect this world view. The same goes for any world view. Look at all the people hoping against all evidence that bitcoin is a fad.
Ultimately, people will do this no matter what quality of the evidence presented is (aside from one or two people who decide that they like X news source, there is a chance they will reverse with a citation from that news source, but no other, even if the quality of the evidence is the same). 'Fake news' existed long before it came to that name.
I recently learned that the homicide rate in Japan is lower than the rate at which police are killing people in the US.
Japanese crime statistics are probably not very reliable. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/world/fg-autopsy9
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is about people literally trying to get away with murder. The last two sentences are references to well-documented cases of police officers killing non-dangerous citizens. There's no reason to be polite about this.
The article is about a sub-group of these people, but the tone to me as well was one of sweeping generalizations. Edit (instead of replying to all of the individual replies): I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are systemic problems in police forces worldwide, just like there are systemic problems in any large organization, especially one endowed which so much executive power. However, any argument that paint…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most of the problems cropping up these past two years can be traced to the fact that people put the same credibility in a piece by some random person on the internet as they do in one by a career journalist. Citation needed.
For which part? Have you missed the whole “fake news” fiasco? People will upvote and share any article that reinforces their existing beliefs and world view. Rather than approaching articles with a healthy skepticism and critical thinking, many people are consuming content based on what “team” the author seems to be advocating for. Instead of asking questions like, “what is the author’s agenda?” or “does this author…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, leading to headlines like this one "Finnish police fired guns only six times in 2013" Frustratingly I can't find anything more recent, because I'm sure I read that last year, or the year before, we were down to one round fired.
And that's in a country where lots of people have guns.
And then there is some regulation, and well trained police.