Analysis of use of deadly force by police officers across the United States indicates that the killing of black suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem, and the killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare.
Content link | Reddit Link
r/scienceu/mvea (60396)

Comments (5520)

[removed]

Question: why use randomly distributed as the baseline? Wouldn't you expect higher rates of cops and suspects being the same race/ethnicity due to clustering of racial and ethnic groups in communities?

This is very hard to model correctly, and even if you did, might as well have it be part of the actual model. How do you account for white cops in black areas and black cops in white areas?

Simple comparisons, even if they don't explain things well, are good way to make comparisons to understand a phenomenon from a more broad level.

His point is that black cops are more likely to be policing black communities than white cops, so that would bias the results. Sure, the opposite sometimes happens, but you shouldn't expect it to balance out as if white and black cops are assigned totally at random, which the study seemed to be assuming there.

For sure it's biased. The question we should be asking for is "did the study account for the percentage of black cops vs the percentage of black residents in their model?" I didn't bother to read the paper closely enough to go fish out the answer to this question. However, the simple statement that badhed quoted is a simple explanation of the data. It means exactly what it means, and that's not much, due to complicated factors such as racial density of both population and cops

If the analysis was done by encounter rate (number of incidents vs number of stops), then this wouldn't matter. If the analysis was done on the basis of total incidents only, then you're right. I can't find the article at the moment to find out.

Not necessary, you could be a white cop from let’s say one part of Los Angeles which is primarily white. Train in the academy and be located in a minority region.

Yes, but this isn't about a single cop, it's about a large group of cops. Are you disputing that the racial distribution of a community's cops is influenced by the community's distribution?

That is what the guy the replied to is saying.

Could you please link the research. Im curious to read it

[deleted]

Wasn’t there a study done a few years ago in simulation that found black cops are just as quick to pull the trigger on black suspects as white cops? In that sense, we kind of knew this already.

I believe the study actually showed that black officers were more likely to shoot and that's not just minorities it was everyone.

Well dammit, at least they don't discriminate in their shooting

Yea, basically overall no officers do, the simple way to avoid issue is the just comply straight away and you've a very low chance of anything bad happening. Some unlucky and poor people do have bad things happen for literally no reason though and that's bad.

But most people who have bad stuff happen aren't complying 100%?

That's kind of what happens yea. My friend is the palest ginger guy ever, when he drives his car in areas near his house he gets pulled LOADS. Why? Because it's a type of car that gets stolen a lot in that area, he thanks the police every time.

Yeah it's also bad when people who aren't complying 100% are shot...

Did you mean who are complying 100%? Because it's a very rare occurrence and usually a case of mistaken identity, in some bad cases it's because a very bad decision was made...

No, I meant aren't, you already covered the "are". I'm saying if someone doesn't comply 100% with the police, it doesn't mean it's OK that they get shot.

There's a broad spectrum between full, immediate, and unquestioning compliance with authority and aggressive armed belligerence against the police, and 99% of that spectrum falls in the "not OK to shoot someone" category.

Basically don't shoot unless you or those around you are in danger of injury or death from the threat.

Yeah sure. It's just there's a lot of language floating around these comments that sort of implies that if people aren't completely compliant with everything the police do, then it's sort of their fault they got shot or somehow OK that it happened, and it's only the cases of completely compliant people getting shot that are wrong.

Wow, we NEVER heard that on tellevision. That would be....

Of course it wasn't, for some reason the media only want to make things worse and cause tension it's quite bad really.

Blaming the media doesn't help. The media simply provides what the public wants. Drama sells as long as we're buying it.

They are selling "public opinion" to the highest bidder. All the legacy media TV is owned by 6 (or less) corporations now. These people are well-trained professionals who say what they are told to say - or they get fired. Corporate media doesn't make money off ads anymore, now they sell coverage and opinion that is bought behind closed doors.

I'm certainly a layman, but wouldn't that imply culture vs. race? Once you're in the police, you adopt policies and culture of that group regardless of race? That would back up the conclusion of the study.

Having said that, why are we not leading the world in non-violent policing innovation. If cops had better, non-lethal methods of I incapacitating perpetrators, and bulletproof protection, wouldn't that drastically reduce police shootings?

Yes it would and that's why quite a lot of American police have gotten training from Scotland Yard in how to deal with people without their sidearms.

Studies must be repeatable and 1 study does not mean something is true. So no we didn't already know this. But we had a gppd idea. This study confirms a similar but still not yet reproduced version of that study. Once the exact same study is reproducable, them we will know for sure. Until then the public will call this fact because someone did a study.

The study showed that black officers were statistically more likely to use lethal force in a high risk non compliance situation against black suspects then White offers.

The study was simply a data analysis to lethal force use in the past. Therefore it is true, I don’t really get what you mean in regards to a study like this. If you wanna try and draw conclusions for those statistics that’s a different story. But it’s sorta like saying there were x amount of car accidents in a year and saying that’s not necessarily true because it’s only one study.

But the way I understand it, this analysis backs the findings of the original study. Why does the same exact study have to be reproduced to make it a fact? It's analyzing data.. not a lab test

As far as I understand, if for example you do a study and come up with a conclusion and then someone later repeats that study and comes up with the same conclusion, then you can be more certain that the conclusion might be correct. If someone were to come to a different conclusion based on what data they gathered then there are some questions raised. If you can consistently reproduce the results then those results are likely to be correct. Otherwise something isn't right.

I agree with your basis, but with something like this I feel that the only thing that could possibly need to be re done would be the actual data gathering.

Maybe you missed it, because I believe it was only linked in a different comment, but there is a chart with the numbers used to come to their conclusion.

Data is data, despite any written conclusion. Anyone can look at the numbers and conclude the same thing.

Yeah, I didn't really express myself well. You're right. You'd need to gather data on your own.

Until then the public will call this fact because someone did a study.

Is that not better than them calling the opposite fact, with zero studies to support it?

"Give me a study to support your argument." Ok here's a study. "Give me more studies to support your argument." ...

"this doesn't confirm my previously held beliefs, im gonna need more studies"

I mean, that's actually literally how it should work. Following a single study is preposterous.

Rejecting it because you want the same thing done over and over is just denial.

Okay, but seriously, a single study should NOT be taken as proof. A single study may open avenues of exploration from which others go and reaffirm or debunk.

You. Should. Not. Take. A. Single. Study. As. Fact.

It's not proof, it's evidence.

It's like he embodies reddit's academic knowledge, I didn't attend college but I read a comment from someone that did so I am qualified to scrutinise academic studies

That's how you end up with vaccines causing autism.

I understand this. I was just making a point that this isn’t the first study to produce this kind of result.

You said it like there was no point to this study.

Not at all. I said it like the result wasn’t as surprising as the headline made it seem.

Until then the public will call this fact because someone did a study.

This is so sad because it's the truth...

It works in the court system. study shows medication has very small chance of causing Kidney Damage? Lawyers start broadcasting "Have you ever taken the drug MakeYourLifeBetter? You may be eligible for financial restitution..."

So you’re saying it’s wrong? Would the omniscient god please bless us with the sacred knowledge proving this point.

If it has gotten through the peer review process, it has theoretically stood up to scrutiny from leaders in the field. Two groups don’t need to perform the same study before it can be accepted, in fact that’s not how academia works. There’s no incentive for a second group to repeat and then try to publish old results.

Yeah and the results of this paper indicate that;

the killing of black suspects is a police problem,

Its good to know that though because then we can start making efforts to change what ever factors lead to this from both a policing and community side.

I would figure that cops are taught to shoot at anyone holding a gun or what appears to be a gun regardless of race. Seems common sense, no?

If not more, yes. Latin/black/hispanic/whatever people are more likely to shoot each other, than white people. There have been multiple studies on the subject; this isn't about racism. The US police force might be flawed in some ways and sound in others, but regarding this issue, on this subject? Yeah, the facts couldn't be more clear.

You did read that the title of the post your are in says the following:

the killing of black suspects is a police problem,

Right?

Criminals shooting people is a sad fact of having freedom in a world where not everyone is a good actor.

Police shooting unarmed citizens should not need to be a sad fact. Police shooting non-suspect/criminal armed citizens shouldn't even be a sad fact since we've got the right to own and bear guns.

And in the same title, "[..] and the killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare."

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.

Yes. There is a great "Through the Wormhole" episode on it...

Yup. That’s where I saw it. God damnit, I miss that show. What’s up with the science channel anymore? It moved from relatively good television to all garbage.

Sheesh, I completely agree. It's such a shame ;/

Not specifically towards you but more or less rhetorically:

Then why is there such a hard time fixing the problem that the title here everyone is agreeing with?

the killing of black suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem

[removed]

[deleted]

I don't think it "flies in the face" of the assertion that institutional racism unconsciously divides America. It literally states that minorities are more likely to be killed, just not disproportionately by white police. It's still institutional racism regardless of the race of the police.

correct, that minorities participate in discrimination or are susceptible to implicit racial bias does not mean institutional racism does not exist. frankly, that minorities are just as susceptible to discrimination or are impacted by implicit racial bias to the effect that they are also more likely to shoot a black person further shows how ingrained institutional racism is.

Exactly, the background of the executioner is of little consequence to the condemned.

More crimes committed by African Americans -> more interactions with the police -> more likely to be shot by police

Prove me wrong

More likely means in any specific interaction, a minority is more likely. As in, any single given interaction.

It's still institutional racism regardless of the race of the police.

No, it literally can not be. Institutional racism would show itself solely on the basis of race and would therefore result in more black men being shot by white cops but not by black cops.

If it were institutional racism you would see a breakdown in similar individuals (i.e. cops) whose only difference was race. But yet, we don't see that here.

You don't understand what institutional racism is, then

the irony abounds

He's not insulting you, in plain English you do not understand what the term institutional racism is, or you do understand it and are purposefully misrepresenting it in order to push a bizarre or racist agenda.

It's one or the other, either you are confused and need to sit down or you are trolling and you need to remove yourself or be removed.

You obviously don't understand what the the proposed definition is. Of course, I'm sure since it was never really a well thought out theory in the first place you're welcome to make it what ever definition suits your particular argument.

Would you mind explaining to me how I'm mistaken about institutional racism? When an institution disproportionately affects a minority group negatively, that is institutional racism. The police, as a whole, are disproportionately using deadly force on minorities.

Institutional racism does not mean "all white people in power always being racist to all minorities at all times"

Have you ever been able to easily distinguish between trolls and legitimately confused people when it comes to misuse of terms like institutional racism?

It's difficult for me, at this point I am sick of giving people the benefit of the doubt only for them to reveal that they were not speaking in good faith.

Would you mind explaining to me how I'm mistaken about institutional racism?

Sure, since nobody else will.

When an institution disproportionately affects a minority group negatively, that is institutional racism.

No that's not. You're describing an outcome (or "effect"). It can have many different causes, none of which are attributable to racism.

Institutional racism is a proposed "cause" for the disproportionate outcomes that we sometime observe some life outcomes. When it comes to police shootings, this study's results clearly indicate that this particular outcome (the rate of office involved shootings and the victims) isn't caused by racism. You can control for the race of the individuals and still get the same outcome (even though there are still disparities between the individual races when you look at the "effects").

This study is saying that other factors are more important. As you point out, the training or the type of people drawn to the work--regardless of race--are a couple of them.

How isn't training, tactics, and culture leading to unnecessary citizen death a systemic issue?

Because they vary from state to state. Even within a state they vary from department to department and branch to branch. There's no "united states police force" outside of the FBI, which again would have it's own training that is vastly different from local agencies.

No one is saying 'United States' police force has an issue. They are saying police forces in the United States have an issue. You can have a widespread issue a result of environmental factors as opposed to authoritarian toxicity seeping downwards and out.

The paper goes on to suggest that bad laws are also to blame, and this is certainly local, but can be federally pushed as well - such as the failing war on drugs that has harmed and killed innocent citizens throughout its years.

I mean you might be on to the need for a word that indicates 'systemic' but diffuse and decentralized - but I'm not sure systemic needs to be narrowly defined into centralized power organizations.

They are saying police forces in the United States have an issue.

They are, but with no data to back it up. They've not suggested what an appropriate level is and how far we deviate from that level. That point is just a feel good talking point.

You can have a widespread issue a result of environmental factors

You can, but that would necessitate similar environments. That isn't the case with this study. They've studied every shooting which would be taking it from all kinds of departments from all areas of the country. They all differ quite drastically. Hell, the level of training in one state or jurisdiction can vary quite a bit just between local police, sheriffs, or the state police.

Do you have anything better to do than pretend to not understand plain English and the world around you?

Nice argument. When logic and reasoning fail, just ask stupid questions...

It's only 1 study and that timeline is 2013 to 2015 I think. That study needs to be studied when more information is available.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

Bad connection caused issues on my device. Meant that for another comment. Have deleted my comment.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

They're not calling the officer racist. They're calling the institution racist. Which, as you can see in the study above, is accurate.

Edit: I am certain you can find specific idiots saying all sorts of things, but please don't do that. We both know that can go on endlessly. People are insane. We are both speaking about societal forces here, and general overtones.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I agree and I think the researcher did exactly that with the armed vs unarmed statistic.

Maybe I'm wrong but I can't really come up with many other objective criteria. If you tried to use something like "suspect was uncooperative" that'll include everything from running away to arguing with the cop to assaulting the cop. If you use "officer felt threatened" well that's always going to be true because the cop will always use that as an excuse whether it's true or not.

Looking at situations like the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman people couldn't even agree on if he was attacked, fired in self defense, etc. The case outside of st louis some were claiming he was shot with his hands up while others claimed that wasn't true. I fear if you even try to incorporate this type of data it will muddy the good, quantifiable data with this less objective data and then people will use it to support their side.

The only additional things I could come up with to help would potentially be if the person was on drugs and then which drugs to differentiate the marijuana users from the bath salt users. I'm more likely to assume someone on drugs (except for pot probably) or drunk is more likely to act erratic and thereby cause the officer to think they're in danger.

I agree and I think the researcher did exactly that with the armed vs unarmed statistic.

Yes, exactly the example I was going to use if necessary!

Maybe I'm wrong but I can't really come up with many other objective criteria.

How about "victim was actively trying to attack officer with a deadly weapon"? It's not a good condition for unjustified killings, but it's a great one for justified ones. That lets you say things like "at least X% of killings were justified", and if that number winds up being something crazy high like 75% that tells you something useful.

How about "victim was actively trying to attack officer with a deadly weapon"?

I think the issue with that is Philando Castille was reaching for his wallet/ID (according to BLM and many others) while the officer and pro-police groups claim he was reaching for a gun. Does that count as actively attacking since he was allegedly reaching for a weapon or does it count as not attacking since he was allegedly not reaching for a weapon.

Depending how the researcher handles that will lead people to either discount the whole study as flawed or use it as proof for their side.

I feel like you missed what I was getting at. If you use a really strict definition of justified (so something that wouldn't label that particular case as justified), if your results still come back with a really high number of justified killings you've got a really strong finding, something valuable to share.

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

No, we're not. The point about lawyers and juries is just an example of a possible means of resolving the subjectiveness problem; it proves that subjectiveness is not an obstacle to arriving at a concrete determination. There are other methods to solve the problem as well.

It's also worth noting that part of the issue of depending on convictions to determine justification is that most of the time these killings never wind up in front of a jury.

I totally agree with what you are saying, but there's no way to get that data unless we all agree on a specific definition of "justified" and then review all police shootings against that definition ... which is what the law is supposed to do. It doesn't always work, but that's the framework. If we want to change the definition of what constitutes "justified" (which I agree that we should), we have to change the law.

e: To address your second point, most of the cases don't end up in front of a jury because the law is soooo broad (and usually subjective to the cop) for when police can use force.

but there's no way to get that data unless we all agree on a specific definition of "justified"

We don't all have to agree. A researcher can pick their own definition and use that in their study. Don't like the definition they picked? Then do your own study.

I guess that's fair. The researcher(s) would have to review the details of every case which would probably be impossible for one person or even a small team of people. Unless you are talking about some red line rule like the victim had a weapon on their person at the time of the shooting. But even that would leave huge holes like that guy who announced he had a gun to the cop and the cop still shot him sitting in his car.

Im not saying it's impossible, but obtaining and analyzing that data would be pretty difficult and cops are only making it harder by lobbying (successfully so far) to NOT have to report police shootings to a federal oversight group.

The researcher(s) would have to review the details of every case

No they wouldn't. Random sampling is a thing. Take a random sample that's feasible to review, report your confidence internal.

So we are going to use one person's definition of justified, one person's choice of samples that he has deemed to be representative of the whole, and one person's interpretation of that data. That is supposed to make the results less subjective?

one person's choice of samples

The samples are random. They're not anyone's choice.

That is supposed to make the results less subjective?

Who said we're trying to make the results less subjective? The goal here is to make the results concrete: clearly defined definitions, valid experimental design, quantitative results, a null hypotheses that we have either rejected or failed to reject. You are of course free to disagree with the definitions and come up with your own, and if you doubt the judgement of the analysis you can always do your own.

The most concrete results would be to compare the number of police shootings against the number of cops convicted of some kind of homicide. You are just rejecting the legal definition of "justified". That's perfectly fine, but my original idea would give the most "concrete" results.

The most concrete results would be to compare the number of police shootings against the number of cops convicted of some kind of homicide.

Given the number of cops who are never put on trial and therefore never have your vaunted "legal definition" applied to them, that's a terrible metric and you know it.

That would be true if I thought there was some massive conspiracy amongst DAs across the country to protect cops who shoot people. I don't think that. I think most of the time, DAs don't charge cops who shoot people because the use of force laws are so broad for cops, the DAs know they won't get a conviction.

Cops who are not charged are included in my definition of justified.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I think this is, in itself, a serious problem. Citizens should not fear being killed by police every time they interact with them.

Saying "He should have just kept his hands on the steering wheel and remained frozen" would have been better in that particular situation, but only because of the problem present in the first place. That problem being, "Don't move or police will shoot you".

Why wasn't he tazed instead? If it's a mistake, it hurts, but over 99% of the time it's non-lethal and results in no lasting injury (the other tiny fraction of the time is someone with a pacemaker having a heart attack or dangerous arrhythmia from the electric current messing it up). Isn't that the whole point of ranged tazers in the first place? A non-lethal option to be used when lethal force would otherwise be used?

I know police shootings are very rare, the media exposure they get amplifies our perception of their commonness, but we don't need a perfect solution or a ubiquitous problem to make improvements to any issue we may have.

Thoughts?

I don't keep my hands on the wheel out of fear, but of respect. No police officer wants to be in the position of choosing his life or mine. Watch the aftermath of the Castile shooting. The officer is devastated. By keeping my hands on the wheel, I'm telling the officer, "Hey, this is a peaceful situation. You have nothing to fear from me."

Also tasers aren't a great answer. You get one shot with them, they aren't very affective vs people on drugs, and if the suspect already has a gun in hand, the taser might cause them to pull the trigger.

I keep my hands on the wheel as well, in an effort to make the police officer feel safer. They have a stressful job and never know what they're walking into. It's understandable that they would be nervous or jumpy. If the police feel safer, I feel safer (I'm not sure whether or not that counts as fear or feeling unsafe). It's better for everyone that way and anything we can do to facilitate that mutual comfort is a positive in my book.

Also, yeah, I get your answer to tazers.

He started teaching for the information he was previously asked for. Being flustered around police is not a reason to be killed. Why would he have told him about the gun before pull it on him? It was not self defense, it was being scared. Understandable, but not acceptable.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

But if you shot me because you thought I was reaching for my gun that would be completely justified.

So if I see you on the street carrying a weapon and I feel like you're reaching to it, I can shoot you?

If you're a cop and you're trying to stop me for something absolutely. Also, if you're a citizen and you're trying to stop me for something in a stand your ground state you could do the same.

You're either completely missing the point or trolling.

The issue is how hard it is to define that someone is reaching for it with a limited point of view and almost no time to react. The police shooting videos we've seen recently shows that some police officers have a very low standard for that.

Well that's one novel way to control guns... just shoot anyone that has one... coz you thought they where reaching for it.

Oh, and here's a video of a cop executing a drunken driver and then lying about it seconds later: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/outrage-police-shooting-drunk-driver-paradise-california-officer-patrick-feaster/

And the department didn't do anything until the video was leaked.

Trying to stop you for something? For literally anything?

Try pulling a gun on a cop and see how well it ends up for you no matter what the circumstances are.

You must be responding to the wrong comment. I didn't say anything at all about guns.

I don't think it would be misleading. Armed has a perfectly simple meaning. In the above hypothetical the person is not "technically" armed - they are armed, period.

If somebody conflates being armed with being aggressive then their problem.

But most people make that conflation. "armed suspect" will equate to "a threat" in most peoples minds when reading studies like this or hearing about shootings on the news. In most places it is perfectly legal to be armed, and just because you are armed doesn't mean you were necessarily a threat if or when you were shot to death by police. Thus the statistic is incredibly misleading.

Now we will have to explain this time and time again every time someone cites this study and claims "cops only kill unarmed people less than 1% of the time, there's no big issue going on." The killing of an armed person who was legally armed and not a threat at the time of the shooting is just as heinous as killing an unarmed person.

So what should we call it? "In possession of a firearm"? Is there any term less prone to this misinterpretation? Surely you're not suggesting we don't study this stuff just because people are lazy thinkers.

The issue is making the distinction between armed or unarmed, when that gives absolutely no insight or context to whether the killing was actually justified or not. Saying "The killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare" has little to no meaning whatsoever in the context of police abuse and wrongful killings. Killing someone who was armed is not necessarily justified because they were armed. Also, killing someone unarmed is not necessarily wrongful either; an unarmed person could still become a significant threat under certain circumstances.

The issue is making the distinction between armed or unarmed, when that gives absolutely no insight or context to whether the killing was actually justified or not.

But it was not the purpose of the study to make this determination. That's people's overinterpretation. Again, should we exclude this factor from studies just because people may take it the wrong way?

Studies exist to convey information. If the information is conveyed poorly, that's a problem.

If people have difficulty properly interpreting the data, that's a problem. Studies need to be written in a way people can understand.

The information is not conveyed poorly. The term "armed" has perfectly simple, unambiguous definition and is used according to it. It's clear to any careful reader.

Yes, a lazy reader might overinterpret it but scientific papers aren't written for people to read casually. That's what scientific journalism is for.

Anyway, for the last time: if the term is so misleading, what's a better one?

If people misunderstand, the information is conveyed poorly. Instead of a single word, a phrase describing the exact group referenced should be used.

Who misunderstands? I doubt anyone who made the effort and actually read the paper would have misunderstood it.

The article reporting on the study, on the other hand, could have expanded on the term. But it's got nothing to do with the paper itself, which is a scientific study not pop-sci piece.

Are you really arguing that scientific papers should be made unnecessarily verbose for the benefit of the general audience (and in this case not just general audience, but specifically lazy readers who aren't reading carefully)?

Accessibility causes no problems.

[removed]

[removed]

The existence of a firearm greatly decreases an officer’s risk tolerance, though, so of course one’s presence would increase police shootings.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

I assumed a traffic stop type scenario. Didn’t think you were thinking of a case where the cops were playing duck hunt!

It’s hard to assume the way this case would have been tallied now that I’ve read the case you had in mind. He was in possession of the vehicle upon shootings death, so if I had to guess, I’d go with yes. Would like to know this, I don’t like data without all the parameters involved.

I used to live there, and the police are well known for being trash.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

"No evidence" except the fact we've already caught one major PD doing it. Really you're trying to quantify and judge that its an exception with literally no evidence to support your position.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

That does not change the case that you were armed int hat situation. Resistance aside, the officer can also order you to put your weapon on the ground. It is no longer in your hand or on your person, but you are still regarded as being armed in their report, because you had that ready access to a weapon.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

But the journalists are people just like you and me. What makes them push narratives not grounded in reality? That's what really makes me wondering. Peer pressure? Or are they all being lobbied by interest groups?

[removed]

How does this hold up with the idea of carrying weapons for your safety?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

So are we talking decriminalization or full legalization? As those two things entail very different strategies.

I'd say legalize marijuana, decriminalize possession on the rest.

[removed]

How do you end the war on drugs? Make them legal?

No one is talking about making all drugs legal. We're talking about decriminalizing drugs.

Those two things are not necessarily the same thing.

The affects the drugs have on people would not change.

Just take a look at Portugal. Many of their drug addicts can still have full-time jobs and be productive members of society. They're just not allowed to drive or operate heavy machinery.

They get their methadone shots (or something else) administered at a special clinic at a regularly appointed time. It's all paid for by the government. They don't need to rob or steal anything to pay for their habit. For them, it's a healthcare issue.

And please don't get me wrong, that does not mean that Portugal is soft on crime either. In fact, if you commit a crime while under the influence of drugs in Portugal, you won't get to avoid prison in exchange for going to a drug rehabilitation program. No, not at all.

If you want to partake in a drug rehabilitation program, that's fine, and Portugual will facilitate that for you, but participating in a drug rehabilitation program won't reduce your prison sentence either.

This is to ensure that if you want to enter a drug rehabilitation program, it's because you want to do so willingly, and are not coerced into it by a judge.

And by all means, I don't mean to imply that Portugal is a utopia either. It's not. It doesn't have perfect statistics in dealing with drug addicts or alcoholics. Many still refuse to enter the programs that are made available to them. And many still can't be productive members of society. But if you look at their statistics, they're doing a hell of a lot better than they were when taking drugs was criminalized.

And this is in sharp contrast to the United States right now. With our current opioid crisis, we've suddenly cut off so many current addicts from getting their drug prescriptions, that many of those previously functioning members of society are now turning to street drugs and petty crimes in order to feed their drug habit.

EDIT: Sorry PsymonRed, I wanted to reply to your latest response below, but the comments are locked. Yes basically, I agree with you, decriminalization is no silver bullet, even if many people on my side believe so, but I do think it can improve some things (even if it can't improve everything).

but I love that band

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

When an officer lies, it's not the STATE lying. It's the individual

This is one thousand percent incorrect.

That's why the state pays out lawsuits against the police. Which just in the city of Chicago alone adds up to tens of millions of dollars in payouts for police misconduct per year. And yet still the actual police officers are virtually never held accountable in any significant way.

You can't blame the state for the CRIME of one person. Yes people sue the state because, they won't get much out of an officer.

Personal responsibility. When Dwaine Caraway Democrat in Dallas took 450,000 in bribes, HE did it. Not the State.

You can definitly sue whoever a person works for, but that doesn't mean the state did it.

If the officer kills someone, the criminal trial won't be The State vs The State.

You can't blame the state for the CRIME of one person.

Obviously we can, and we do, routinely.

Unless there was some serious problems with the person they hired that was obvious, it does no good to blame the state.

Do you think that by blaming the state, that perhaps the state learned from it's mistake, and is less likely to do it again?

No.

You'll get no better outcome. You need to hold individuals personally accountable.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Maybe we should think of why they are afraid of black men though?

I know the media often frames this issue differently--and there's a natural tendency to associate this problem with overt racism,

Which reinforces a feedback loop where some people (black AND white) cultivate a mindset of always on the lookout for signs of racism which pretty much guarantees it will be found whether actually exists or not.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Exactly what I was about to say. If we found that white collar crime like insider trading was just as morally and criminally offensive as, say, dealing drugs, and subsequently increase police presence in rich white neighborhoods, I would assume that the white person crime rate would go up exponentially.

It won't go up, because they can afford to defend themselves.

While that may be true, it still doesn’t change what’s being said nor the main argument.

Expert the part where poor people are drawn to crime. Everyone is drawn to crime, the poor just get blamed, because it's easy. They can't fight back

Everybody has criminal desires in some shape or form. But the vast majority don’t act upon them. Poor people must in many cases.

For example, think about drug crimes. all races, wealthy, and poor do drugs, but who gets disproportionately charged with those crimes?

The poor. I do know that, but this has strayed from the original point.

Which is?

You have the ability to look at the top of the thread you know.

Im saying my point doesn't stray away from the original point

I mean, I'm not drawn to crime because empathy was strongly emphasized when I was growing up. I try my hardest to follow the golden rule.

I feel like people generalize way too much in these discussions.

What's your point?

[removed]

[removed]

They are interpretations of a set of data, collected and interpreted with intent.

That's the great thing about data and facts; they aren't changed by your or anyone's feelings.

This is the favorite aphorism of political units that depend upon "facts" that are supported exclusively by their feelings, and not supported by data.

People who actually work with data for a living are well aware that "facts" are meaningless when they are supported by data collected poorly or in bad faith.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I'm not even commenting as to the truthfulness of the original statement; my point is if the reason for disbelieving something is "well this person said it was true, so it must be false", you are behaving illogically. My goal was to make this clear by applying the same logic to other more obviously absurd conclusions, and hope any readers attempting to approach the conversation from a rational standpoint think "huh, obviously what he said doesn't make sense, but it follows the same thought process as the previous poster - maybe the previous poster's conclusion isn't logically proven with the stated premise".

I believe any group attempting to mislead will make true statements, as they can point to them and say "Look, this piece of data that has been vetted by the scientific community supports our conclusion, therefore our conclusion must be correct". As such, it's not intellectually honest to reject their premise, just because you disagree with their conclusion.

You're the one using a red herring and you call me illogical? Ooof.

[deleted]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

[deleted]

Scientific racism (sometimes referred to as race biology, or race realism is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.

wiki

And Anti-vaxers do use logic.

I’m starting to think that you don’t know what the rest of us mean by logic.

I can combat antivaxxers just fine without thinking they make good points or use logic in the formation of their beliefs.

Can you? Really? How many people do you think your snide, smug brow-beating and ridicule has actually convinced?

Let's not kid ourselves, you're not concerned with making a difference, you just want the high of righteous moral superiority without any of the difficult nitty-gritty of actually getting your point across. As long as the people who already agree with you pat you on the back you're satisfied, and who cares about anything else? They're too far gone, amirite?

Are you under the impression that you can reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into?

I don’t debate antivaxxers to combat them. They don’t respond to facts or data in the first place, how would I use such tools to deconstruct a wall of willful ignorance?

All I need to combat them is to ensure that my representatives block them from inflicting harm via legislation.

They don’t respond to facts or data in the first place, how would I use such tools to deconstruct a wall of willful ignorance?

Then use other tools? I mean, I know that if all you have is a hammer every problem looks suspiciously like a nail, but just because you're holding a hammer doesn't mean it's impossible to drive a screw in...

All I need to combat them is to ensure that my representatives block them from inflicting harm via legislation.

And instead, what you got is Trump, and about 40% of the population willing to shoot their leg off just to see you wince. Way to go, champ. Maybe you just need to try the same thing more.

PS:

I don’t debate antivaxxers to combat them.

Your words, not mine:

I can combat antivaxxers just fine [...]

The global crackdown on parents who refuse vaccines for their kids has begun

Seems to be going just fine despite having a wrecking ball for a president.

[removed]

The truth is they take individual cases such as the Walter Scott shooting and then are happy to let everyone think that that is how all of the police shootings go down that involve black victims. When in reality the majority of black people shot by the cops involve crazy people like THIS. BLM doesn't really like to talk about this side of the issue. It always cracks me up when people suggest that we should have a prison system like Scandinavia. These types of people would abuse that system so hard it would be shut down in a week.

How much does geography play here? For example, where do the majority of police shootings occur? Urban areas? High crime areas? how many police shootings occur in Billings MT, vs Atlanta for example?

How much does geography play here? For example, where do the majority of police shootings occur? Urban areas? High crime areas? how many police shootings occur in Billings MT, vs Atlanta for example?

Most crime in the US is limited to a handful of cities, but to be more precise it is a handful of counties within those cities. In Georgia (my home state) nearly half of the states crime is linked to two counties, Fulton and Dekalb. These two counties make up 17% of the states population but are responsible for 34% of the states total crime. It isn't the entire county either, most crime comes from the bits and pieces of the county that are full of poverty that have a gang/drug problem. Its pretty much a constant in all the GBI reports, which you can see here. I don't know of other states that keep these kind of reports, but I am sure they would show similar results if you break them down by cities and the counties within those cities.

[removed]

I wonder if this study looked at deaths per number of interactions with police, or just looked at number of deaths by race.

If it's the first, then the fact that minorities are more likely to commit crimes wouldn't really matter, because they'd also be more likely to have a run in with the police.

If it's the second, then it would be a very important point.

Just like truedeceiver said, if they are more likely to commit crimes then that would explain why they are more likely to have run in's with the police.

Yes. Exactly my point as well....

If it's the first, then the fact that minorities are more likely to commit crimes wouldn't really matter, because they'd also be more likely to have a run in with the police.

because they'd also be more likely to have a run in with the police.

What?

If you're constantly getting into threatening situations with the police, you should probably reconsider your life choices. Police don't shoot random civilians for fun. There's always something that led to that.

Saying "Well, it's not our fault we keep getting caught by the police!" isn't a valid excuse.

This. People are afraid to bring this up because they don't want to sound racist. It's not racist, it's a fact of reality here, and the more we try to act like this isn't the truth, the more divided we're going to become on this topic and the less progress we're going to make.

This statistic, while true, is not relevant. The issue is that police are more likely to use force against minorities in any circumstance. That's what "disproportionately" means. It's out of proportion with the relative levels of crime.

Just like if I say that rich people pay the most taxes already, therefore they should get a tax cut. It sounds deceptively simple.

The same can be said about the use of the term "disproportionately."

The article makes a lot of conclusions without showing their work on some complex events.

Just like if I say that rich people pay the most taxes already, therefore they should get a tax cut. It sounds deceptively simple.

Because cops know the type of people that commit crimes regularly and they are usually correct on any assumption they might have. Certain people commit the most crimes relative to their population size when compared to other ethnic groups.

White cops know this, black cops know this, latino cops know this, islander cops know this, asian cops know this.

There's a reason why they profile, it works.

But how are you profiling? That's the important part. Is it purely based on skin color and ethnicity or are you taking clothing, car, mannerisms, language, and circumstances into account? I think some amount of profiling is unavoidable but the input you allow and the degree with which you impliment it can make all the difference between racism and just reacting accordingly to perceived danger.

...or are you taking clothing, car, mannerisms, language, and circumstances into account

Absolutely they take this into account. A black man driving a civic wearing a polo is much less likely to be pulled over as a black man in a barely running 84 Impala wearing a bandana and bumping gangster rap.

They commit crimes disproportionately, so they have a disproportionately large number of run in's with cops. And since the cops know what areas these types of people (I'm talking about criminals, not any race) are likely to be they encounter them more and are placed Into situations that require force. Was that deceptively simple? Seemed straight forward to me. Crimes happen, cops go to where crimes happen, cops encounter criminals, criminals then behave like criminals, forcing cops to use force. All seems to make sense.

Well, statistically speaking minorities are more likely to commit crimes

Completely incorrect.
It is a classical case of Simpson's paradox - there's a higher proportion of minorities in high crime rate areas, but inside such areas each race contributes fair share to the crime rate.

And why do you suppose that is?

Personally, and this is just speculation, I don't think it's a race thing at all. I think it's a culture thing. If you grow up in Chicago, detroit, Compton, or any area know for high crime you will be subjected to that lifestyle. When you're raised with or around crime as a normality you think it's normal. Its just that those areas have minorities. Now that the culture has already become about crime it's hard to introduces jobs and food houses and get people away from the culture they already know. I dont think the issue is racism or race at all, I think it's just the unfortunate culture of the areas.

There's nothing speculative about redlining, and it absolutely is racially motivated. It wasn't "unfortunate"; it was deliberate.

Black communities were both neglected and actively sabotaged by the government for decades; the effects of that don't just disappear. At bottom, it's largely a question of inherited wealth. If you can afford college, you stand a better chance of increasing your economic status; if you can afford legal representation, you're less likely to get a felony on your record at a young age. And obviously if you're born into a wealthy family, you have a safety net if you decide to take a risk on an ambitious business venture.

Money in America has a generational snowballing effect; the more money your family has right now, the easier it becomes to acquire more of it. I don't think I need to explain why white families were so much wealthier than black families throughout most of American history.

A lot of people born into positions of security don't notice it, because they take these security nets for granted. They grow up assuming that everyone goes to halfway decent school, has a decent job, and lives in a safe neighborhood. It often doesn't occur to people that you have to pay for all of these things. Our society is perfectly willing to let you starve if you can't make money.

Criminality is a result of desperation; it's emergent from poverty. If you're making enough money to live decently, you don't have a lot of incentive to risk prison time by robbing a convenience store or drug dealing. Most petty criminals behave the way they do because, oddly enough, breaking the law has become a logical choice. If someone can barely feed themselves by holding down a legal job, but they can live comfortably via criminality, there's a good chance they'll choose the latter. Favoring short term gain over long term sustainability is just human nature. Where there is poverty, there is crime.

It's nothing so amorphous as "culture"; people are products of their environment in a much more literal sense. And the environment Americans live in was under the sway of openly racist people for the majority of it's history.

TLDR: because minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, minorities are disproportionately killed by police officers

Actually, if you read the article, tldr "The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects", not the individual biases of white cops.

Yes, but why do they target minority communities? Because there is a higher rate of crime in them.

Except that's not what this says. The /rate/ at which black individuals are killed is higher than white individuals.

Why did they take only two years data for a longstanding problem??

Maybe after two years of data they had achieved data saturation? Maybe not? The number of years of data collection isn’t as important as how quickly they saturated their data. And also, for this to be taken seriously, I’d want a second study by an independent entity, anyway.

Menifield says the U.S. Department of Justice needs to enforce the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 that requires police organizations to report data on police killings. This data will allow researchers to thoroughly investigate each case and determine if other variables are driving police behavior.

Perhaps the availability of data is not as good as it could be. I personally wonder how reliable the data is. After all, police are reporting the data of their own killings. If the data is supposed to reveal something about how trustworthy the police are, then shouldn’t it be reported by someone other than the police?

Thanks for the gold!! Yay!!

Narrative crushed

What constitutes a suspect? Is a speeding stop a suspect?

minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police

Okay so why is that? if it's not a race issue is it a class issue? Minorities are more likely to be poor.

Well yeah as a black man I know it isn’t just white cops that are the problem. It’s all cops that view us as a threat even black cops. We need better trained officers it’s that simple.

. They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers.

Does it correct for number of police interactions? My understanding from previous stats is that minorities are actually less likely to be killed by police per interaction

it was always pretty clear from the stats , the reason blacks were being killed by cops more than whats is because they were more likely to be involved in violent calls or calls with a deadly weapon on a per capita basis.

[deleted]

[deleted]

This was my take as well. Looking at the numbers. Around 1000 people, I’m sure most of them criminals, were killed by cops last year. Obviously any innocent person being shot by a cop sucks, but, it’s such a small percentage, it’s practically zero, the media makes it seem like some huge epidemic when it’s not at all.

If this is your take, I think it is a garbage take. Are you saying you are okay living in a country where police are allowed to hand out death sentences without a jury trial, but its okay because they are probably criminals?

I think his point is that 1000 people is a relatively small number when it's made out to seem that police killings is an epidemic sweeping the nation.

You seem to think the police killings should be zero, which seems unrealistic to me. I thought it would have been much higher than 1000.

That is significantly higher than the number of people who have died from terrorist attacks in the US in the same period.

That is an asinine comparison. Are you trying to compare the police to terrorists?

The police are out there dealing with many, many, many thousands of incidents yearly. Some involving real bad people with weapons who assault the police officers or put other peoples lives in danger.

Same is true for the whole "immigrant invasion" pushed by the media. There is no immigrant problem. They actually bring prosperity.

Not quite. They push native workers out of jobs and depress wages in fields where they are hired. Having worked in the agricultural industry myself (farmhand for picking berries during the summer months) it sucks ass and leaves you quite bitter.

I guess the media isn't that biased afterall

Exact;y! They are circling the drain and this is the only way they can think of to continue to sell advertising... which is their only purpose. Anyone who gets their news from TV is not getting any pertinent info.

So, rather than pay attention to multiple sources and actually think, we should do what? Crawl in a hole and pull the rock on top of us? That is what got the current President selected.

[deleted]

You stated this perfectly. I’ve been trying to articulate this for a while

That's not a problem with mainstream media, it's the problem that caused the current state of mainstream media. Find a way to separate journalism from profits and they'll stop chasing the most clicks just for a buck.

Obviously there's still bias that can be introduced by the CEO or individual reporters, but good luck getting rid of that except on a case-by-case investigative basis. Even then, they'll likely just hide behind the first amendment like Fox did when they were caught lying.

Hm. It's almost as if the ills of the world are extremely exaggerated and exacerbated by the media in order to push agendas!

There is objectively LESS violence and racism today than ever before, but one could very easily be led to believe that the inverse is true... A belief which often only incites further violence and racism.

Full circle.

Does this study only follow uses of force that result in death? If so, this tiny window into uses of force may not allow a complete view of explicit, violent bias.

The last sentence of your comment, and perhaps the most important one, completely contradicts the message of the title

This conversation is a major distraction from the issue of the victims. It’s still racism. You can be racist against your own. Just ask a conservative about “white guilt” and they will claim they are racist against their own. It’s not about the color of your skin, it’s about how you treat others of any skin type or ethnicity. If you form opinions and preconceived notions based on another persons race, regardless of your own race, that’s racism.

I'm sorry but the part that says killing unarmed suspects could technically be very wrong. How would we know the actual numbers when cops have been known to plant weapons on people after they shoot them?

Can it be another case of Simpon's Paradox?
Does the finding still holds if they break it down into individual racially and crime rate uniform districts?

That study only proves what anti-fascists have been saying for years, when we say all cops are bastards we don't mean "white cops" are fasicts, we mean the police as an institution is fascist, sexist and racist.

But no one except racists who don't understand the problem with police has ever said, "well, white cops aren't the only ones that are bad, so therefore it's not racism."
Like no one has ever said that the problem is "white cops killing blacks," the problem has always been "cops getting away with killing people, most disproportionately, blacks" .

Has no one seen training day? race isn't what determines a good versus bad cop

You know Training Day is a movie right? As in, didn't actually happen?

Right, next you're going to tell me Sherlock wasn't really solving crimes in England!

what does a movie have to do with what determines a good versus bad cop?

have not seen it btw

Like no one has ever said that the problem is "white cops killing blacks,"

I see you've never spoken to anyone from BLM.

But that isn't true, blacks do not die disproportionately to cops....

The stats are skewed by distinguishing between unarmed and armed suspects. Armed but running away with gun stowed, shoot him in the back, he's not a threat to the officer.

the authors construct a data set of all confirmed uses of lethal force by police officers in the United States in 2014 and 2015.

I question where they got this informaiton from and how reliable the informaiton is because there is no federal or state database for police using lethal force. Where did he get this information from because I can't find anything that shows all of the lethal use by police officers? The FBI confirms there is no law or regulations in place that requires police departments to keep up with officers using deadly force.

From what institution is this from, who is funding this research?

I think it's worth looking at weather the race of the police chief or other policy setting entity is white or black. One would presume that it's not necessarily up to the line officers what the departmental policy is with regard to suspects based on race. If, as some groups allege, police departments have written or Unwritten policies that reinforce racial bias, a line officer, be they black or white, isn't really in a position to influence that.

Simply put, are the police chiefs white?

Exactly. OP, you should have used the real title line

Bad policing, bad law, not 'bad apples,' behind disproportionate killing of black men

The debate has never been about white officers.

It has always been about black victims.

Of course killing somebody is rare, it's just not rare enough, unfortunately.

Yes, when a white male dominant group of people kill minority group criminals who make up most of the crime in the country statistically speaking, of course this would be the case.

By saying extremely rare they are missing the "compared to..." part. Compared to what is it extremely rare?

For instance compared to Iceland, the killing done by American police is insanely overtly common.

With this data being problematic due to the conflict of interest inherent in many police shootings, how is the study to be fully trusted? Even with the recommendations given by Stanford, we can see other officers banding around one another, making the prospect of police investigations done by police at all problematic even when it's a seperate department. I'm not saying that everything should be thrown out, but that we should look at this study with the concept in mind that the data may not be very reliable.

So the actual answer is "yes", but also the same answer for non-white officers.

That's why it's "fuq the police" and not "the 'white' police" . Also, don't skip over the line "disproportionally kill minority suspects".

"Black cops showing up for the white cops" fuck the police

Thank you for saying copy and paste.

[removed]

"their own people."

People who shared the experience of racism.

Ah, so victims of racism? So, members of all races?

I think you need more education.

That ratio is surprisingly consistent by race/ethnicity. Blacks have high arrest and stop rates and per capita are much more likely than whites to die at the hands of police. However, when blacks are stopped or arrested, they are no more likely than whites to be injured or die during that incident.

Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites, and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates. A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation.

Screenshot from peer-reviewed source.

So this is essentially an issue with all police against all people, and it's extremely rare?

[removed]

[removed]

Hardly chaos in the streets.

Your street maybe.

I mean In Germany we don’t have such a Problem, not even a taser was used a single time yet,

Just sayin

[removed]

yeah the only thing worse would be if someone else has a split second to decide what to do and them choosing wrong would end your life, also there's no accountability for them if they choose wrong.

[removed]

[deleted]

I've been told, very loudly, over and over again, that the availability of guns has nothing to do with anything though?

I'd be interested to see how many of the armed people they have these scenarios with actually own their guns legally. That'd be an interesting study if one hasn't been done already.

I've read about one study that showed if you discount gang violence perpetuated by the drug war (which is virtually entirely done with illegally owned firearms and is violence between rival gang members), the level of gun violence in the US is about equivalent to Belgium. I don't have the study on hand, unfortunately, so you know... take my word for it at your own discretion.

I've read that study as well. Essentially its the war on drugs inflating our numbers.

I'm not sure if that's good or bad. I'm waffling a bit on this one.

What if I told you that not every gun was licensed?

i'd say that the availability of legal guns directly affects the availability of illegal guns.

In the past, sure, but now that guns have been legal forever, they're already everywhere. I'm all for the discussion of whether or not guns should have been legal a long time ago, but there's not a lot to be done about it today. They're already out there.

I would respect this argument if it weren't for the fact that gun production hadn't been increasing every year since 2001. If the problem is one of quantity and that quantity is preventing taking action on gun control, why should we allow for that quantity to increase?

Because US Citizens have the right to own and carry weapons.

"because it's the law" is a terrible reason. using the current set of laws and regulations as your moral compass is a dangerous path.

it's our duty as citizens to question laws, and fight against ones that we deem unethical, immoral, and dangerous to human life.

But that’s the point - it’s not “the law” but a fundamental right acknowledged and deferred to by the most foundational legal document our nation has. The rights we have are not given by the whim of laws. They exist inherently and immutably.

i don't believe that the founders considered the entirety of bill of rights to be necessary, fundamental rights, rather they were limits of congressional power to satisfy the anti-federalists and get the constitution ratified. (perhaps you are confusing it with the wording in the declaration of independence?)

the constitution, the bill of rights, and the rest of the amendments are explicitly mutable, not immutable. the founders understood that they could make mistakes, society may change, and that interpretations could vary. amendments can be repealed (the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st).

i firmly believe in the interpretation of the 2nd amendment (text below) as granting firearms only for the purposes of state militias, to support the federal government or enable the states to fight when the federal government becomes too authoritarian.

anyway, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd amendment does not prohibit the regulation of firearms. (edit: maybe the 2010 case reversed this.) the interpretation that it grants the right for people to have weapons (stated without equivocation) is fairly recent development.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

for reference, the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

So nothing should be done to control the spread of deadly weapons because 250 years ago everyone wanted musket? Cool man cool.

buyback programs work pretty well at getting guns off the streets. stopping the production and sale of guns will also help (since guns don't stick around forever).

Depends on the narrative. The NRA also likes to push the message that you need to arm yourself because, otherwise, armed criminals will kill you, hence the slogan "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns".

Make no mistake, the NRA and their supporters like to have it both ways.

This.

I respect the right of Americans to bear arms, even though I'm glad my country has gone the other way.

It takes guts to accept school shootings, police fatalities and so on as the cost to living a set of principles. But being willing to stand up for principles, no matter the cost, is admirable.

This studies indicates that its actually happening in very low rates. Most of the time people like you are comparing a country of hundreds of millions to countries with less than 50 million...

It would be interesting to see the statistics from state to state and also compare it to the EU.

Yeah now imagine being the victim in that scenario.

To me the issue

That's great, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, that's not the conversation at the national level. It could be, but we are stuck on what this study seemingly refutes: that there is an epidemic of police shootings based on race.

If we could get past that point, I think many people of all sides would like to see accountability and justice done--or at least have the conversation on what accountability and justice would look like.

[removed]

There are definitely times when it's justified to shoot an unarmed person. There are huge powerful dudes out there who can easily cause serious injury or death without needing a weapon to do it.

Isn't that what non-lethal weapons are for?

Less than Lethal weapons aren't always effective. Some people are less effected by OC (pepper spray) than others, and police and military are trained to be able to fight through agents like OC. Tasers are designed to provide enough power to disable most people, but because the company is going to err on the side of not accidentally killing people (civil liability and bad press), some people aren't going to be disabled by a taser hit. Also, Tasers require both probes to make contact, and thick / tightly woven clothing over the center of mass can prevent that from happening. Some people drop like a sack of potatoes when hit by a beanbag round, and some people barely seem to notice.

If you watch a lot of bodycam footage, you'll usually see that while one officer deploys a less than lethal, another officer will be standing to the side with his service weapon out in case the LTL fails. Also, some departments just don't have the money to equip all of their officers with LTL solutions. Another issue tends to pop up when the officer doesn't have time to transition to his taser or a beanbag round. Most officers I've seen will draw their service sidearm first when going into a possibly dangerous situation (don't bring a knife to a gunfight), and if a suspect charges them or someone else before the officer has time to assess the situation, stow his sidearm, and draw his LTL (whatever it is), he's going to use his service pistol. Basically, the weapon an officer has that has the highest likelihood of stopping any given threat the fastest is a firearm. A firearm can stop any threat that a taser or beanbag will, but the reverse isn't true.

There was actually a lot of resistance from officers towards the introduction of the taser. Not because officers want to shoot people, but because they foresaw the "but why didn't he tase him" response from civilians. The taser was never supposed to replace an officers service weapon, but was intended to provide the officer a less than lethal option that he can deploy, at his discretion, to resolve a situation.

Tldr: Less than lethal weapons don't always work.

No. Less-lethal ("non-lethal" is not the term used, and for good reason) weapons are used for gaining compliance. Once it becomes a matter of self-defense against serious injury, you shoot.

Except police in other urbanized parts of the world can somehow deal with this. Yet ours insist they need deadly force

[deleted]

If it cost millions of dollars every time they killed an unarmed suspect, the US police would hire a partner for all patrols. Because there is a lack of accountability, the system cannot calculate the true cost and adapt properly.

You're moving the goal posts. The guy I was commenting on, specified unarmed big guys,

So stabbings cant be included in your scenario. This was specifically a topic on unarmed suspects still being killed at too high a rate despite the fact it isnt as dramatic a problem in other parts of the world.

In terms of partnered patrol vs individual patrol, I cant imagine a more pro-police assertion then mandating partnered patrol. It would mean hiring more cops and giving them more hours.

If that's too expensive, we could save expenses by reducing the militarization of the police force and reducing the war on drugs. Better training and less killings will result in less municipal payouts, investigations, and paid time off for the officers involved, that could offset the cost of hiring more cops.

[deleted]

What is the issue with armored trucks and mobile command centers? Armored trucks are used as mobile cover against barricaded armed people and can be used to rescue injured people who are still in the line of fire. I agree every small town doesn't need an MRAP but there is definitely a responsible use and legitimate need for armored vehicles in police work. They have been in use in this country since the at least the 1930s.

And mobile command posts? That's not even military equipment. They are usually used for large events like sporting events and parades.

We as a country can't afford to stop the war on drugs, to many americans are dying due to heroin overdoses, and other complications that are related to drug use

You do realize the united states has a sizeable portion of the worlds guns. Most are legally owned, but thugs, gangs, and drug cartels dont follow rules. So when you think about police 'brutality', yes some cases are that but a majority of these events occur due to mistakes made on both sides that sends the wrong message to the other party. Nowhere else in the world that I know of has this big of a population with a high percentage of them being gun owners.

[deleted]

People immediately think "no threat" when they hear unarmed.

It's both, situations are different

The opposite is also true. Being armed doesn't justify being killed by police. Citation: Philando Castile.

Because unarmed people can still kill you.

Scenario: officer engages unarmed suspect in hand to hand. Officer does not know suspect is a black belt in JiuJitsu. Suspect places officer in a rear naked choke. Officer manages to shoot suspect before he is rendered unconscious or killed.

Scenario 2: suspect is able to knock an officer down with his bare hands. Officer calls for help before being knocked unconscious. Suspect has officer in full mount and it's delivering repeated blows to his/her face and head when additional units arrive. Responding units shoot and kill suspect.

I can come up with more, but the point is made.

You don't need to come up with anything.

One punch can kill you.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2013/05/05/us/utah-soccer-death/index.html?r=android-app%3A%2F%2Fcom.google.android.googlequicksearchbox&rm=1

Every physical attack against another human being is potentially lethal.

In the US if the police fight someone there is always a gun present.

Yep. They drill this in the academy. "Recruit Aardvark1292! How many guns are involved in this call?!?!" "None sir!" "Front leaning rest position!!!!"

I mean the fact that people are unarmed can easily be something the police simply couldn’t know at the time, maybe because someone was behaving in a certain way and when they tried to reach for what they assumed was a gun, they fired to protect themselves.

People generally don’t seem to know how to behave around the police at times or just enter fight or flight mode when they get pulled over.

It’s a much lower number, which is good, but it might just be the number that accounts for misunderstandings coming out of situations involving people that make all the wrong choices in a situation that didn’t have to escalate.

We had a dispatcher get fired, thank God, because every call she dispatched she would add "suspect has a gun on his person." When asked why prior to termination, she said she thought it would help us focus more on being safe if we thought everyone had a gun. We had no reason to not believe our dispatch - it's a good case of you don't know what you don't know

I’m actually speachless at how backwards that reasoning is.

mean the fact that people are unarmed can easily be something the police simply couldn’t know at the time

But that doesn't work for civilians. We are held liable for the actual facts of the situation. I'm not saying the police shouldn't get any leeway in this situation, but it should be much stricter than it currently is.

Yep. I did a lot of firearms training up at the Sig Sauer facility and had the opportunity to take some of their tactical classes with a few police officers (I don't honestly expect to use any of it, but the classes weren't that expensive, and it was a lot of fun). We were talking about officer involved shootings, and he mentioned that you really only have a second to decide if what you see is a gun or not, maybe two seconds if your weapon is already out and on target (which would be incredibly rare except for anyone but SWAT/SRT). So, you have one or two seconds to decide if what you're seeing is a gun, decide if the subject is drawing said gun, decide if he's trying to use it, and draw your own weapon, aim, and fire.

Personally? The best advice I was ever given (by a friend of mine who's a state trooper) about traffic stops was,

"1. Tell the officer if you are carrying, even if not required. I'm going to be a lot more chill if you tell me you have a weapon than if I happen to notice it. "2. Slow is good. If you're moving slowly, that gives me more time to consider what you're doing and react. "3. If you have a question about what I'm instructing you to do, just ask. "4. Basically, just remember that this is the scariest part of my job. I know nothing about you, the situation, or what you have in your car. There could be someone waiting in the trunk to pop the emergency release and shoot me for all I know. The more relaxed you are, the more relaxed I am, and the more you tell me things like whether you have a gun, the less I'm going to be worried that you're going to shoot me. You don't have to confess to the crime, but just let me know that I'm probably going to be eating dinner tonight with a fork, and not through a tube."

Not only that but just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean their not deadly. If the officer is about to pass out, close to going unconscious or being choked it all falls within reasonable force to use lethal force. After all if that happens the suspect has unlimited access to the police weaponry or can continue to beat the officer to death.

[deleted]

Does the article define what counts as armed, though? Could a person carrying a pocket knife be considered armed? A kid with a wiffle bat? A person legally carrying, but not brandishing, a gun?

Honest question, btw, I'm on mobile and my phone isnt loading the article.

Would also like to know this bit of nuance.

[removed]

legally carrying, but not brandishing

you might carry

At which point you should carry legally, thus the last line of concern in the above commenters post.

You can also legally carry a knife.

[deleted]

Correct, but let's not pretend people who are armed, yet not being an active threat, haven't also been killed by police.

It's very rare, though.

Justice for the victims is also rare.

Not nearly as rare.

Based on?

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5695968ce4b086bc1cd5d0da/amp

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/us/police-involved-shooting-cases/index.html

According to that last article, there are around one thousand police shootings every year. Most likely the majority of those are completely valid and justified. But between 2005 and 2017, there were roughly 12,000 police shootings, and only 80 officers charged and only 28 or so convicted. That would mean only 0.0023% of all police shootings in that twelve year span were considered unjustified by the courts. Call me crazy, but I doubt it's that rare.

That's some interesting mental gymnastics. Ultimately what you want to estimate is the portion of unjustified shootings where the officer is not disciplined, and compare that to other similar crimes (certainly not all murderers are convicted in general).

The problem is, nobody keeps track of those because they are automatically considered justified by officials if the cops are cleared of wrong doing, even when they shouldn't be. Find me an official list of unjustified killings with no repercussions and I could do a better calculation. As I CLEARLY stated in that previous post, I doubt the police are only 0.0023% inaccurate in the justification of their shootings. I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say compare it to other similar crimes. Crimes by who? Other cops? The public? What are you suggesting I compare? Unjustified killings by cops to murders by the public? What purpose would that serve?

The study only delineates between 'armed' and 'unarmed', and 'armed' includes weapons that aren't actually on the person of the deceased.

You can't say it's 'very rare' because there hasn't nearly been enough research done to quantify the rate of egregious killing by law enforcement.

This is true but not the issue. The problem is being shot when not being a "threat".

[deleted]

That's irrelevant to the point at hand. If the cop is threatened, yeah, do something. But it's not always the case.

And sometimes that misconduct leads to shootings.

And because of the enormous deference we treat police with, there is good reason to believe that their toxic training and work culture had resulted in more dubious killings than they admit to.

What they use as professional development courses are seminars led by a cretin who brainwashes them into thinking they are going to have their head splattered like a melon that fell off a skyscraper at any moment.

Their job isn't in the top ten most dangerous and I believe it is only barely in the top twenty five, and that's mostly because of all the aggressive driving.

How much is cost for legal carry permit and accesories

The class was 60, licence 40, and then like 40 for the holster. Varies state to state but roughly 150~ then.

To be honest I actually feel SAFER when someone in the room is carrying a NON-CONEALED weapon.

I assume that person is not trying to start a fight or intimidate people (even if that's not logical).

And all the jerks in the room are going to wait for that person to leave before they start a fight or try to take someone's shoes.

I would be a lot more pro-gun if we just got rid of the concealed part.

EDIT: Few responses mention you are safer if you conceal carry instead of open. To clarify I don't own a gun-- I am talking about other people carrying guns. My opinion is that LEGAL gun owners protect those OTHER PEOPLE better by open carry. This is because they are a PREVENTATIVE force so us non-carriers will not get attacked in the first place. If you shoot the bad guy after he shoots me -- great for you but not so much for me. I think your open carry will keep him from attacking anyone while you are around.

It really depends on the person. Relatively fit. Clean cut. Clothes that fit properly and are correct for the situation. Holstered pistol. Respectful body language. I feel comfortable.

Massively overweight or underweight. Lacking personal hygiene. Dirty clothes or pseudo military garb on someone obviously not military. Rifle strapped to torso or pistol in a belt holster that is held up by rope. Loud and abrasive socially. I feel extremely uncomfortable and would leave the location immediately. Even if I was carrying.

Edit: I missed a part of your comment. Do you really think keeping people from legally concealing will stop the people who were illegally concealing? The person hiding his gun for a nefarious purpose isn’t going to start open carrying because it is illegal to conceal.

Hell no,the bad guy is the one who picks and chooses the place and time to commit a crime, not you, as such you will always be at the disadvantage of reacting to the situation however you please. That disadvantage is even greater if you're blatantly showing off a gun on your side and the bad guy already sees that and instead goes for you first.

If I see a gun I will be on edge till either the guy with the gun or I leave the room. If you want to keep peace at the barrel of a gun then I guess it works. Personally I dont know where you live or what circles you run in but I dont fear a shootout happening in my neck of the woods, idiots and accidents are much more common.

Really?

I feel less safe in that situation.

It also changes my opinion of that individual dramatically. And that guy is the jerk in the room. No one else there was going to try to start a fight or try to steal anyones shoes.

The person carrying is over suspicious, over defensive and unnecessary fearful. They're irrational and armed.

I can see that. The guys around me are usually pretty safe looking dad-types. They are wearing jeans and a collared shirt, often have kids, probably off-duty cops.

If a guy that looks "iffy" is open carrying, yeah that would make me feel unsafe.

Unsafe is probably the wrong word for how it made me feel. Open carry is kind of saying "fuck you I don't trust you" to everyone around you. And I was living in a very safe part of the US.

Intimidation is the only reason to open carry.

That’s a good point; I’m not sure. If it really includes stuff like wiffle bats than the line is much more blurred than I had thought.

Based on a discussion earlier in the comments, it counts this as having a weapon within the premise, like having a gun in your car or something, not necessarily holding the gun. It said about 65% had a gun and the rest wasn’t defined quite as specifically. I don’t think that means it not true, but I think there’s reason to think it might be a little less open and shut than “Less than 1% were unarmed, there’s no issue here”

Right. For example, I own a rifle, and the bullets to said rifle are stored in a safe on a separate floor of my home from the rifle. There's no potential situation in my life where the rifle comes into play. Were I a statistic in this data set, I would be in the armed category.

Edit:The rifle is also locked away, not just the ammo.

That's not what it means they're referring to a weapon within arms reach.

The study classified anyone killed by police while any weapon was in the same general area as armed regardless of how long it would take the deceased to actually obtain and ready the weapon in question.

If you got shot on the sidewalk outside your house while wearing nothing but shirts and slippers by a cop and a different person living in your home had a handgun locked away in a safe that you never even knew about, you would be counted as armed in this study.

But in a situation where a police officer had to worry about you possibly firing at them they can't know that, so I'd say it's fair to categorise that under the same group as having a loaded and dangerous firearm nearby

If the rifle were locked away in a safe, the officer would have no way to know that he was "armed" and would likely be categorized after the fact, to make the numbers look better

In that case it would be wrong, but he didn't say the rifle was in a safe so I was assuming it was more easily accessible. I don't live in America so if the fact that the rifle was also in a safe went without saying that's my bad

My intention was to say that it would be categorized after-the-fact. The rifle is also locked up.

If that’s true then I’ll grant that. I’ll edit my comment with this information.

If someone was killed in their front driveway and the gun was in the house, it counts as them being armed

If someone is shot in their car and the gun is in the trunk, it counts as being armed

It's 100% misleading

In my city a police officer shot and killed a man who had a closed swiss army knife in his pocket. The man was shot from the side and a bit behind. He was labeled as armed and refusing to comply with police orders to make it seem justified. In reality the man was partially deaf and the police officer waited less than 5 seconds between first yelling at him and shooting him to death.

Armed vs unarmed statistics are not trustworthy.

Disappointing. Sounds like this study is going to get used and abused by the wrong people, then.

It already is, just look at the comments here.

Source?

Literally the article itself if you ever choose to read it

This is very important. You can't just say oh 99% were armed so it was ok. They had to actually have been a threat

I believe the article states firearms and it can either be on the person, or in their car at the time of death. It doesn't break down the % of "in car" vs "on person" weapons, but nevertheless, the suspect could still be in the car and pull a gun, or they could be on the street with it in their glovebox. It'd be interesting to see the breakdown though.

Yeah, seriously. Like how we kill all those enemy combatants in the Middle East who are literally any male 15-64 years old

Exactly Philando Castille was armed, however, he was in perfect compliance with the law at all times when he was shot.

It says that ~65% have a firearm (without discrepancy for having firearm on them or within vicinity). That leaves about 33% armed with some other weapon, most likely a knife.

This article should also make a discrepancy for the context in which the gun was discovered. Because planted guns.

Yes to all those.

Armed with a hoody and skittles

According to the police, Tamir Rice was armed. There should be independent, citizen run, investigations in to each death by police.

Except as far as the police are concerned, he was armed. What happened to him was unfortunate but I'm not going to fault the police for the shooting there. Did you watch the surveillance video of him walking up and down the street threatening to shoot people with his completely real-looking gun? Acting hard? He pointed that shit at the cops when they rolled up and they reacted as anyone should when someone points a gun at them.

His parents are more culpable for his death than the police, IMO.

Consider this:

A suspect has a real, loaded gun and fires it.
A suspect has a real, loaded gun, doesn't fire it, but aims it with visible intent to fire.
A suspect has a real gun, with ammo but nothing chambered, and aims it with visible intent to fire.
A suspect has a real gun, but with no ammo in it, but aims it with visible intent to fire.
A suspect has a real gun, but it is inoperable for some reason, but aims it with visible intent to fire.
A suspect has a fake gun, that looks 100% identical to a real gun, and aims it with visible intent to fire.

A cop has to assume that #1 will happen every time. When someone pulls a gun that looks exactly like a real gun, are they supposed to assume it's a fake? Or just not loaded or inoperable? What's the difference (besides later criminal penalties) between a fake replica gun and a gun that is completely disabled and inoperable, but is technically real? How is anyone supposed to know the difference in the moment?

Screw that noise. They rolled right up on an 'armed' suspect. They went against every bit of training for this type of situation.

Rules of engagement in war zones are more strict. There is ZERO reason that type of aggression by police should be acceptable.

Just because someone is armed doesn’t mean it is a justified shooting. It’s America...damn near everybody is armed...

To be fair though, the article doesn't seem to claim to evaluate whether the shooting is justified, although that seems to be what people are taking away from it.

but the comment he's replying to seems to interpret it that way

[deleted]

There are a handful of exceptions, but it pretty much does. Lethal force should be used on my when absolutely necessary and that's pretty much when faces with deadly force.

More people are killed in the US by hands and feet than all shotguns and rifles (including AR-15s) combined, according to the CDC.

And what if you include handguns? Not doing so seems pretty contrived.

Handguns make up the vast majority of murders. But the point is not that firearms are worse. Thats a givin. Its that unarmed doesnt mean not a threat, as evidenced by what i stated.

There are a handful of exceptions, but it pretty much does

There are so many scenarios when unarmed people are enough of a threat to justify deadly force it seems inappropriate to call them "exceptions". I agree that lethal force should be a last resort. I even agree police are way too quick to resort to guns, but legit fights can turn deadly in unexpected and rapid ways.

The only way to determine if force was lethal is by the outcome.

You can't calculate if force is lethal until it's over, and it's pretty obvious because you'll either be alive or dead.

5 years ago a soccer referee in Utah was killed by a player after a single punch. The player had no intentions of commiting murder.

All force is lethal force. Punching, tazering, bean bags, kicking, tackling, etc can kill and has killed.

The only way to kill someone is with a weapon, guys. You heard it here.

The only way to stop someone is killing them right? Not rubber bullets/bean bag rounds or a taser or stun gun?

Rubber bullets and bean bag rounds can only be fired out of a shotgun. A shotgun that not every officer has. A shotgun that is almost always locked in a rack or in the trunk. Its not a quick deploy tool that stays on a belt.

Tasers have a weirdly high number of failures. Probes hit too close together? Failure. One probe misses, failure. Probes hit a limb? Failure. Dude is wearing thicker clothes? Failure. Ive seen videos of people get shot because the taser failed and they ran out of options.

Many police cars are equipped with the gunrack in side of the car between the passenger and driver seat. That is also where they carry their rifle. These have quick release features to allow for easy officer access. Literally a press of the button on the dash and the shotgun is ready to go.

As far as the taser, if non lethal options fail and you have to use deadly force as a last resort that is fine. That is how the procedure goes.

Source for cars: work IT for a police department and work in the cars nearly every day.

Cool then you should know most police departments are horribly underfunded and that "many" police cars arent equipped with anything other than bare necessities, which is why many officers still have to lock their long guns in the trunk if they are lucky enough to be issued a long gun at all. Furthermore, bean bag shotguns have bright orange or yellow furniture and are an entirely separate from a standard shotgun. Meaning an officer has to be issued a whole shotgun specifically for beanbag rounds, which is another cost that can cause problems.

Many cops are still using old crown vics that never got upgraded outside of the day they were assembled. Some police vehicles dont even have cages. Its certainly not uncommon for them to have to not have racks at all. And if they do have a rack, its usually a key lock as the button on is relatively new technology. And as IT you would know how slow new tech gets around to PDs that arent rolling in cash, which is what you department appears to be if they have the money to afford a wuick release system, if they get around at all.

An entire police force in Indiana just quit because of shady shit and lack of funding. There were 7 officers and i believe 1 working cruiser.

In short, your department is the exception not the rule.

Get a dude hopped up on drugs and he will power right through those things.

Those stories of dudes hopped up on huge amounts of PCP rampaging the streets are probably even more “extremely rare” than cops killing unarmed suspects.

[deleted]

There's a difference between "armed while in contact with law enforcement" and "owns a gun of some sort that's somewhere, maybe under my bed at home".

Edit: clarifying that it would be even lower than 30%, way lower.

That's the percentage of people who own guns, not knives, clubs, pepper spray, or tasers.

[deleted]

[deleted]

That’s actually quite likely. Basically all sites use a government sponsored survey from a few years ago, and the gun owning type is not likely to let their government know they own guns.

But just because you own a gun doesn't mean it's always with you.

Yeah I own a shotgun, it is never on me. It is locked near my bed.

I live in Canada, and own 3 guns and a bow. They are all locked, the ammo separately locked elsewhere in the house. The separate, locked locations is required here. Maybe overkill but I think it's a good law.

I can kind of understand it. But if I have a house invader, I know the odds are slim to none, I would not want to run around my house. That being said, for extra safety I can understand it.

I really can't see a gun helping me against a home invader. I guess a shotgun might though haha

Yeah, it was based on my brothers advise, he is a police officer. I have mine loaded up rotating buck shot and slugs.

And where did I mention anything about carrying?

You didn't, more in context to the original discussion. It wouldn't matter if an unarmed suspect was a gun owner if their gun was at home.

[deleted]

I don't know about data for that, but people who run in communities where gun ownership is high are familiar with the attitude of "I'm not telling the government I own guns".

But there are a lot of ways to get data on ownership without that. Sales are one way...

They did not say the police have a 99 percent accuracy for justified shootings, just for killing armed suspects.

OP doubled down below.

A criminal is more likely to get shot if they are armed, the data shows that.

But whether or not it is a justified shooting is a separate question, for sure. I have seen armed and unarmed shooting videos where the cops were justified.

I will say however that the assumption that a armed individual is more dangerous and you are more likely to be justified in shooting an armed person is not unfounded either, but I can agree that the fact that a person is armed alone cannot be the only determining factor.

You would have to investigate further. Was the gun pulled? Or was the gun discovered after the fact? Etc... Simply being armed is not THE determining factor, but it is a factor.

Not everyone is a criminal, not even after a cop decides to shoot them.

Also a possibility they used "they were armed" as a scape goat for unjustified shootings. When in reality it may have been someone holding a sandal or a phone.

Depends on if they're brandishing the weapon. What I was taught is that if you have a gun in your car and you get pulled over, you should tell the police where the weapon is holstered before you show them your CC permit.

Yes, we have more guns than people in America. That doesn't mean everyone or even a majority of people own guns. Much less carry them. Unless you live in Texas. Then you can go ahead and assume everyone is carrying a gun and feel safer for it.

[deleted]

The US has, in it's constitution, the right for all citizens to be armed. It's most definetly not a decent proxy.

It's an approximation to a certain order, but it isn't enough information to know really well.

So, if we don't know the extent of the approximation, can it be ethically used as a proxy? I don't think so.

Depends on the application of your approximation. All statistics are used as approximations. The underlying assumption is that shooting of unarmed people is less likely to be justified than the shooting of an armed person. I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption, so the proxy into the issue of whether large numbers of shootings sorted by unarmed or armed is justified appears to be somewhat reasonable to me for the purposes of a Reddit discussion.

It’s a terrible proxy. If a person is pulled over for speeding, are they a “criminal?”

Well that sure convinced me

Edit: I was responding to the above comment which a couple minutes ago had been “It’s a terrible proxy” with no explanation. Looks like it’s been edited.

[removed]

Not anyone that interacts, anyone that gets shot. It’s not 100% obviously but the people being shot are far more likely to be criminals.

And you're assuming everyone that interacts with a police officer is shot.

No, that's not the assumption.

Not saying it is justified, but you hit one more spot in the deadly force triangle (opportunity, capability, intent).

Armed means nothing. Being armed doesn't automatically make you a threat. I want to know what percentage of those armed people actually reached for it or threatened to use them. It's very possible the cop never knew they were armed until afterwards.

[removed]

It's a CRAZY coincidence!

Of course any unjustified shooting is a tragedy but that seems like a pretty damn good ratio.

"victim was armed" and "shooting them was justified" are not mutually inclusive. a dude reaching for his cellphone and getting shot would count as "armed" if he had a pistol secure in his holster when doing so.

[deleted]

Yeah they're too busy figuring out "good ratios" for immigrant rapes per capita

Crawl back in your hole.

Ah yes, because european countries are not experiencing issues with rampant immigrant rape. But ok, I'll crawl back in my hole - the same sandy one you have your head in

Enjoy the Qanon hole. Maybe you'll crawl out one day.

Does my reddit history change the fact that Europe has an issue with widespread immigrant rape? Nice ad hominem though

It explains why you believe false things. You're gullible that's okay nothing wrong with that. Also nobody gives a fuck about ad hominem unless we're in an actual debate competition.

Can we compare it to other nations / Europe as a whole. I feel like 1% is way too high even in a vacuum. I have a suspicion if compared to other G6 countries, suddenly this looks awful.

A larger issue is with the accountability. You can video tape a cop planting a gun, and he gets a slap on the wrist.

Being armed is not usually illegal. Being armed is not justification for being murdered.

i don't understand how as a country we can consider any police shooting an armed person as 'Justified' and also have a bunch of laws that allow people to carry weapons pretty much wherever. That's just a constant cycle of violence.

That dad who got shot in his car with his kids was armed technically. There was a gun in the car and the article mentioned that this counts. Just because the suspect was armed doesnt make it justified.

which gives the police an accuracy of over 99% in only killing armed suspects

Is that considered good? How many suspects do they deal with a year?

Should someone be killed just because they are armed? The article states had a weapon on them or nearby, not that they were clearly attempting to use it.

Worth noting that killing someone who is armed is not necessarily a justified killing. Possessing a weapon is not grounds for execution.

RIP Philando.

i mean, dead people is still an issue.

yeah that ratio seems to good.

and do incidents like this https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kQKxk_1533868100

count as an armed suspect?

I'd like to see a study of cops trained in deescalation vs not.

Single incidents are irrelevant when aggregating over thousands of cases. If this particular shooting was ill done the cop should be charged.

That's about 2.5 times the casualty rate for combat troops in Iraq. One percent casualty rate is damn high.

But according to the above-cited peer review article: "Still, 1 in 11 people who died due to law enforcement action in 2015 were unarmed. As case studies indicate,56 steps such as community-oriented policing, body cameras and incident investigation using surveillance methods drawn from public health may de-escalate the violence."

Then I agree, if there's any chance of reducing unjustified deaths we should implement those measures.

You here from browsing Top of All Time?

Nah, I actually followed a link from the above poster in a different thread. He was posting the exact same misleading quote from the article in a thread on immigration and linked back to this.

how many armed instances are plants though? at least a few rotten cops are dropping off knives after a shooting

How would anyone have the answer to this question?

no idea was hoping someone else had that answer.

Oh c'mon this isn't a television show. Sure it may happen but maybe 1 in every 10,000 times

what do we have to base that number on?

what about your accusation? Claiming that many of these armed instances are plants puts the burden of proof on you not me

I literally claimed A FEW. thats not many. Cops have been caught planting things before so its not an absurd question. stop being so easily offended

Well it is kind of absurd because you brought it up in direct response to large statistical trends... Implying that people planting weapons would affect the number

well it could. point is we dont really know and it COULD be a significant number.

Eh. 1% is a much larger number than people think, especially when applied to large populations. We will never reach perfection, but I’m not sure that I would settle so soon for that rate of failure.

But the number of people being shot by police each year is NOT a large population... Furthermore, if you're interacting with police while unarmed, there are numerous situations in which it is justified for them to shoot you. E.g. if you're grappling with a police officer who has a gun on his hip. It's only logical for that officer to assume that anyone stupid enough to grapple with an armed police officer is likely trying to wrestle the officer's gun away to shoot the officer. And it would only take a fraction of a second to go from grappling to the police officer being dead.

Exactly. I really do think it's worth recalling that activist who completely changed his tune after working with local law enforcement to set up a test and actually experience what an officer goes through first-hand. It's not to say that monsters don't exist within law enforcement, as with any position of power, but by and large you just aren't going to see perfect results in situations with that many variables at play. Mistakes are going to happen and, while perhaps better training could assist in some isolated cases, by and large the only way that accuracy is going up is by sending countless more officers to their deaths by forcing them to hesitate in the face of warning signs.

The data pool is still small. It spans between 2014-2015 and is only using confirmed uses of deadly force. What are the parameters for deadly force? How many cases were only close to confirmed use of deadly force?

Yeah given how many Americans have guns at home, it seems like an outright excuse.

However, a 99% accuracy rate is not good enough in certain field. If your airline company told you that they only crash 1% of their planes every month, would you still feel confident and with them? Would be okay with your surgeon telling you the same thing?

There are certain field where 99% is still not good enough especially when comparing the sample size. They need to do better.

So don't carry a gun and you're fine. Shocking

So it is not a white vs black issue that race mongers have been shoving down our throats for years?

I know that your comment is meant to be a bit snarky, but the article merely analyses whether officer racism was the key cause of killings. They found that it wasn't, however it could still be a racism issue at the institutional level.

As per the article:

The disproportionate killing of African Americans by police officers does not appear to be driven by micro-level racism. Rather, it is likely driven by a combination of macro-level public policies that target minority populations and meso-level policies and practices of police forces.

TIL the term meso-level.

meso-level.

I prefer Mezzanine-level .

however it could still be a racism issue at the institutional level.

This is sociopolitical mumbo jumbo. Point at a policy, procedure, act, commentary, known racists, or training devoted to racist practices. Don't just chalk it up to the boogeyman of institutional racism.

His comment isn't meant to be snarky. It was earnest in its conveying that racism is a myth perpetrated by blacks.

[deleted]

I didn't make any leap to any conclusions actually. I merely posted the findings from the article itself.

From the conclusion of the article:

The research presented here strongly suggests that the answer to this question is no: we find that white police officers actually kill black and other minority suspects at lower rates than we would expect if killings were randomly distributed among officers of all races. The fact that a majority of police officer killings are committed by white officers is a function of the predominance of white officers in police departments nationally. In other words, white officers do not kill black suspects at a higher rate compared with nonwhite officers. Simply stated: in our study of actual police killings, as well as in prior laboratory experiments involving officer shoot/don’t shoot trials, there is no compelling evidence that micro-level racism drives the killing of black suspects. This finding is strongly indicative that the bad apple theory of police conduct has limited explanatory value when it comes to police killings of African Americans. In sum, our findings indicate that an institutional and organizational perspective offers greater leverage for explanation of disproportionate killings of citizens of different racial groups.

To be very clear, we are not arguing that the disproportionate killing of black suspects is racially innocuous. Indeed, law enforcement officers of all races disproportionately kill black suspects. The killing of black suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem. We believe that the disproportionate killing of black suspects is a downstream effect of institutionalized racism in macro-level criminal policy and meso-level organizational factors within many police departments. Put differently, our research contributes to the perspective that persistent racial disparities in police killings are driven primarily by prior disparities in racial policing generally: disproportionate killing is a function of disproportionate police contact among members of the African American community. In this light, the finding that minority police officers are actually more likely to kill minority suspects is not surprising, given that many police departments make efforts to assign minority police to minority neighborhoods.

If you disagree with the testing methodology and findings of the authors of the article, feel free to email them or publish your own article.

Don't leap to the conclusion that I'm leaping to conclusions.

But the article headlines always say "White cop kills black man". I have never seen a news article complaining about the meso-level policies.

Might want to read the article:

"There might be some bad apples in the police department, but white officers are no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers," says Charles Menifield, lead author of the study and SPAA's dean. "Still, the killings are no less racist but will require a very different set of remedies if we are to change the culture and stop this from happening."

Might want to google what rhetorical question means.

Might want to realize the answer to your rhetorical question is that those so-called "race mongers" were correct.

but white officers are no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers,

Nope

Why ignore the second sentence from that same paragraph? The lead researcher disagrees with you.

Why ignore the second sentence from that same paragraph?

See, /u/WhosUrBuddiee, this is how you do a rhetorical question.

I think what we've seen is a bastardization of reality. Minority areas are more heavily patrolled by police, and have more interactions per capita with police by design of the police. Then we can look into what defines a weapon, because a car can be used as a weapon, and so can your keys, so defining weapon is important as to this reality.

A lot of what BLM and other minority activist organizations have/are doing is saying that police brutality is disproportionately affecting minorities and this study agrees with that. Killing unarmed peoples is a rare thing, yes, but if the brutality is still there against minorities there's still large things we need to change.

TLDR: Killing unarmed = same against everyone, brutality = disproportionately affecting minorities.

Let’s all remember the top driver of policing and incarceration in minority communities is the drug war and one of the architects admitted the whole reason the drug war exists is to target these communities: https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

Hadn't heard of this before. Thanks for the perspective.

Wasn't this the quote that was never published until after he was dead and had no way to refute it, along with no proof of it?

Yes - but let’s not take personal responsibility out of the equation. Entering into organized crime is, for most people, an active choice.

Well I think we can debate the sociological impact of environment and just how much "choice" one can have sometimes, but you are right that when it comes to a conversation of policing, their focus is on crime and therefore if you want to avoid police interactions its a good idea not to commit crimes.

[deleted]

From my time assisting metro populations you have your facts off.

These areas are targeted by the police because there's a higher rate of crime there, there's a higher rate of crime there because there's a higher rate of police there, there's a higher rate of police there because there's a higher rate of crime there . . .

Civilian requests can be taken into account, however it's a low percentage thing. This has been an ongoing thing since the drug war, it isn't new.

and so can your keys

Is this actually common? If so, the data is useless.

[removed]

If what the study is yielding is only based on what the officer "felt" could be a weapon then it's not actually demonstrating anything useful. Most reasonable people have a conception of what constitutes a weapon and it needs to be something that sets a person apart from something like 95% of what everyone else is carrying on the street.

Agreed. I'm sure this is going off of police reports with documented weapons, which firearms are in a separate category. As with everything, we need more context and data. I like this for what it is though.

Is that in the article or are you wildly speculating based off your own preconceived notions? The latter is fine for a politics sub, but doesn't really belong in this sub

Neither.

I'm using police protocal. If you discharge your weapon under situations where you do not feel threatened you are terminated. due to the lack of terminations, I feel threatened is a canned response.

You're speaking in declarative statements though. If you don't have any thing to point to the possibility of something like keys or docile behavior being classified as a weapon or threat as a rule (implied by the used of 'generally,' then it's speculation and you shouldn't portray it as if you're presenting something that has been verified

[removed]

Selection bias... how is this conversation even happening on /r/science. This is the most unscientific possible opinion you could be spouting on here. And to be clear, that's what you're sharing. Strictly an opinion without even minimal effort to present any hard support for anything you're falsely trying to construe as an educated observation. If you'd like to offer any further studies of how often non weapons on docile people are reported as weapons and constituting a threat, and that that is the rule and not the exception, I'm all ears.

Then we can look into what defines a weapon, because a car can be used as a weapon, and so can your keys, so defining weapon is important as to this reality.

Really big point to make. How many of these armed people had guns?

Of course you can use anything as a weapon. They might have a knife. But in 2013, 62 officers were injured with firearms and 16 were injured by knives (source). So if you tell me that only 20% of the armed people killed by police had guns, well I think it's pretty unlikely that the other 80% had knives. The article says that 65% had guns, but clarifies that includes in their car. So the guy might have had a gun locked in the trunk and he falls under "armed with a firearm" category. It doesn't mean they had it in their hand, or they went for it, just they owned one.

And even if they did, that doesn't mean they're enough of a threat that you need to shoot them. Just look at England, they love knife crime over there but the police aren't shooting hundreds of people each year because they have a knife on them.

I remember the story growing up about this metal ill guy who had escaped and was prancing around in some field. No one around. The police are called and when they get there he's holding a knife. He's not threatening anyone, he's just acting crazy because he is. Maybe he thinks it's a magic wand or something. The police come up to him, in this field with no one around, and tell him to drop the knife. They tell him several more times and he doesn't (because he's a crazy person). So they shoot him. He wasn't a threat to anyone. They didn't need to kill him. But they did, and when you look at the statistics he'll be considered just another "armed" individual. Just because someone is armed, doesn't mean killing them is justified. And we're talking about knives. You kick someone with boots on and that's assault with a deadly weapon. How many of these armed people were armed with something that would be ridiculous to call a weapon?

Would you be open to the possibility of minority areas being heavily patrolled because they are potentially areas where more crime than usual is present?

Would you be open to the idea that minorities and whites commit crimes at the same rate however police aren't patrolling the white area to arrest them?

[deleted]

There's a huge conversation to be had about how Milwaukee, the most segregated city in america, handles policing. White on white crime is still a factor, just one that's under reported.

as far as I know this is true for drug crimes... not so much for violent crimes....

Although, really I'd first call in the question how anyone could accurately measure the amount of crimes that weren't investigated/policed... Seems like it would have to rely on an estimate.

as far as I know this is true for drug crimes... not so much for violent crimes....

I've seen studies for the former, but not for the latter. If police are racial profiling, I see no reason to believe that the latter isn't also true.

Poor areas which are prone to higher rates of crime are patrolled more heavily by police. Not minority areas.

Where is the data that confirms that? Does it normalize for the higher tendency for antisocial behavior and higher crime rates?

Data the confirms that minorities are disproportionately brutalized?

normalizing for antisocial behavior in a population as large and diverse as ~40 million wouldn't assist drastically.

Again, higher crime rates are designed. Minorities and whites commit crimes at the same rates, it just matters about who gets arrested, which is what i'm referencing.

There's a large gap in violent crime rates that can't be explained by differences in arrest rate. Behavioral differences across races is extremely relevant because the police make decisions on how to act based on the behavior of suspects.

What you're implying is that the color of skin can determine likelihood to be a criminal, which is racist at the least. Behavior of suspects vs races is an extremely different topic, and racial profiling is illegal.

Its more of a media problem, than a cop problem.

Not really. When you can murder people on camera and get a paid vacation, the problem isn't the reporting.

So this is essentially an issue with all police against all people

No. Please read the article.

Except for this line:

Blacks have high arrest and stop rates and per capita are much more likely than whites to die at the hands of police.

It is an issue with all police, but police are disproportionately stopping and arresting one race at a greater ratio per capita.

I wouldnt make assumptions. Remember, correlation, does not necessarily equal causation. Im not saying your wrong, but lets say in your scenario, whats actually happening, is one race is just commiting more crimes and therefore putting themselves in a position to be stopped more often. Again, Im not saying thats the case, just an example of how theres different possibilities to the data, and we have to remember to be objective, if what were seeking is the truth, rather than feeding a self-serving bias.

whats actually happening, is one race is just commiting more crimes and therefore putting themselves in a position to be stopped more often.

For the record, your hypothetical doesn't hold up.

Well, any hypothetical may have a hard time holding up. I this probably stems from the probability that this issue may be a lot more complex and less black and white then most would believe.

You have that backwards. "Correlation doesn't equal causation" is accurate, "causation doesn't equal correlation" isn't. If one event causes another event, you can bet they're correlated.

Let me put it this way Correlation =! Causation. Now let me put it this way Causation =! Correlation. But on a side note, i should have added 'necessarily', because it can sometimes.

Edit: Corrected.

Good point. If race doesn’t play a large role once they’ve been stopped, there could possibly be a reason other than race why they are stopped more often to begin with.

Is it really an assumption if it's right there in the study's abstract?

He is ASSUMING the reason the police are stopping blacks more often is a police issue, rather than any other alternative. So yes, he is.

I don't think he was being reductionist. "It's not just white cops targeting blacks more, it's all cops" is what it seems to me the commenter is stating by proxy.

Right. His first statement is "It's a police issue." A statement of which we don't truly know is a fact or not.

So then wait. Are you saying police are not responsible for their actions

Not saying that either. Im stating we dont know whom the party or parties who are responsible for this truly, 100%, without a doubt, are.

True, I am not addressing the why of disproportionate arrest... I am pointing out the flaw in the statement that it is an equally distributed issue.

..of the police. Your first statement is literally "Its a police issue." Which we dont necessarily know.

Except that wasnt part of the scope of the study so it cant draw any conclusions on that.

It doesn't say the arrests and stopping are unjustified either

and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates.

Don't forget this little tidbit... it may be a mantra from the racist alt-right to blame the black community for committing more crimes, but just because they're bigots doesn't mean they are 100% wrong. For whatever reasons (systemic racism, widespread poverty, etc...), the black community in the US has fostered a culture of contempt for laws and law enforcement. Unfortunately, activists completely shutdown if you dare suggest that the black community should also share some of the responsibility for change.

I wonder though if this might be a "Chicken and the Egg" problem.

Is there more criminality in black communities because they are more lawless. Or is there an equal level of lawlessness across all communities, but because black communities are policed more actively their criminality is "over sampled"... therefore creating a perception of lawlessness.

And killing them

That's because they commit more crimes per capita, of course due to factors like poverty.

I know right, don't mind the cognitive dissonance, so long as you avoid voicing the obvious you'll be safe from the mob.

It's less than 1%. Sucks when it happens for sure. But It's sensationalized to no end.

That's what a lot of people have been saying, but some people on a certain internet site wouldn't stop trying to make it race related.

That's gonna mess up a lot of peoples taking points.

I've been going on about this for ages, ever since black lives matter started. Basically they conflated two issues: police profiling and police shootings. There's no guarantee that being white or Latino or Asian will save you from getting shot unjustifiably, and the black lives matter movement would have been better served by getting everyone involved in the "let's not get shot by police when doing nothing wrong" movement.

So it isn't an issue at all?!?

It's an issue but not necessary racial. No one likes being shot. Black or white.

The point of the analysis is that its not an issue with people that are unarmed. If you are trying to kill people/cops then you most likely will get shot. I see a way out of this.

  • Germany has a population of 82.7 million.

  • US has a population of 325.7 million.

The US population is 3.9 times larger than the German population.

  • German police killed 14 people in 2017.

  • US police killed 987 people in 2017.

The US police killed 70 times more people than German police.

Conclusion: It's still an issue and definitely not extremely rare.

If the study is to be believed the issues isn't that police are more violent towards blacks but rather each encounter with the police has a percentage chance of ending in violence and blacks have encounters with police at a disproportionately high rate. Now there is the issue of why are police targeting blacks at a disproportionate rate and why as many encounters end up in violence as they do but those are separate issues.

It's almost like all lives have mattered this entire time...

I mean, if you're going to ignore the fact that blacks are still disproportionately targeted by police (which is even in the title of this post), sure.

It says they have higher arrest and stop rates, not that they are necessarily disproportionately targeted

The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects.

It's right there in the article.

It also states:

and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates.

It may be a mantra from the racist alt-right to blame the black community for committing more crimes, but just because they're bigots doesn't mean they are 100% wrong. For whatever reasons (systemic racism, widespread poverty, etc...), the black community in the US has fostered a culture of contempt for laws and law enforcement. Unfortunately, activists completely shutdown if you dare suggest that the black community should also share some of the responsibility for change.

Wouldn't the first paragraph already refute your point? It's a non issue if you're unarmed, but if you are pray that your skin color isn't black.

The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects

Also, what does "extremely" rare mean?

Essentially... People do bad things, some of them are cops, it happens very rarely and race has nothing to do it? Can Reddit ever accept this?!?!

yes, but that does not fit the media narrative of guns killing people on their own and that police are evil.

Rare when looking at all stops of every police officer? Probably could get away with saying that but one case is too much anyway

Not so much a police issue as a minority crime issue. This has been obvious to most critically analyzing the situation instead of reacting to emotional trends in the public. Calling this a police issue is largely in contradiction to the evidence in the study itself... likely to push a PC framework.

rare compared to what? Because if you compare it to basically any other country it's extremely not rare

The right has been saying this for years and were deemed racist for it

Not rare enough

Did the study look at the difference between the sexes? Is male death do to police proportional to violation when compared to female deaths?

Its rare statistically. But in the pool of people who die or are injured its unlikely they'll find justice. Isn't that a really really low bar?

Can you tell us what the replies were below you? I always find it suspect when I see so many comments removed or deleted...

The finding seems to be that:

  1. There is a non-zero risk that you will be killed while unarmed if you are stopped by the police.
  2. Whites and blacks experience that risk equally.
  3. Blacks are much more likely to be stopped by the police.

Now, if there is a risk that you will be stopped by the police and potentially killed by police if you are innocent, then the above three points taken in tandem would indicate that an innocent black person is more likely to be killed by the police than an innocent white person.

In regards to the violence, yes, but this does not address why black peoples are so much more likely to be arrested in the first place, and at least one aspect to this problem is the overwhelming and targeted police presence in typically black neighborhoods. White kids get away with a lot more out in the open (read: drugs) simply because they don’t worry about the 5-0 rolling up at a moments notice.

But you don’t get the clicks unless you say WHITE/BLACK

Can hardly call it an issue when it's extremely rare

It’s only part of an issue. The other part is the disproportionate numbers of stops and level of prosecution for crimes faced by minorities.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/new_research_finds_that_prosecutors_give_white_defendants_better_deals_than.html

Extremely rare relative to what ?

I'm pretty that US has many more police killings compared to most other western countries....

Are the Martian police mowing down their citizens these days ?

Exactly. It hardly ever happens, but when it gets wall to wall news coverage it gives people the false impression it happens all the time.

Cops target criminals. End of story.

This is monumental for our age. There has been a very clear narrative pushed about police brutality and racism but this study completely shatters it. This will have huge political implications, or maybe not. As those yelling loudest have an agenda and dont really care about facts. I'm surprised this study isnt making headlines everywhere

and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates.

And don't forget this little tidbit... it may be a mantra from the racist alt-right to blame the black community for committing more crimes, but just because they're bigots doesn't mean they are 100% wrong. For whatever reasons (systemic racism, widespread poverty, etc...), the black community in the US has fostered a culture of contempt for laws and law enforcement. Unfortunately, activists completely shutdown if you dare suggest that the black community should also share some of the responsibility for change.

I'd say that's more of a socioeconomic thing though rather than a race thing. It's just that minorities tend to make up the lower socioeconomic class so it correlates.

No doubt, and I'm sure there would be a correlation. But it would be disingenuous to not admit that there is an obvious anti-law enforcement skew in the black community, which coined the phrase "fuck da pohlice."

So I tried to look up that tidbit. I found one study that said found 2.7% of black motorists were speeding in a 65 mph zone and 1.4% of white drivers were speeding in the same zone.
It also found that the speeding rates were equal in the 55mph zone (about 13.5%).
They did this by setting up cameras and recording 25,000 people passing through - cataloging their race and speed.

If that's the data backing up the claim, you probably agree that more studies should be done before any conclusions are drawn. So... you probably don't want to make this the hill you die on.

Well not quite, because blacks are stopped at a much higher rate than whites (so they're exposed to the possibility of a deadly altercation more often).

“The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects.”

From the article. How is that affecting all people?

Of course the problem is all police. Who was saying it wasn’t? That’s why we have sayings like “all cops are bad” and studies like this show the truth of that idea.

According to the lead author, no it isn't an issue with all people:

"There might be some bad apples in the police department, but white officers are no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers," says Charles Menifield, lead author of the study and SPAA's dean. "Still, the killings are no less racist but will require a very different set of remedies if we are to change the culture and stop this from happening."

On average, an estimated 1 in 291 stops/arrests resulted in hospital-treated injury or death of a suspect or bystander.

That's not common, but it doesn't make me feel great.

Then again, I wouldn't really expect a commentor in r/blackpeoplegifs and r/worldnews to come here without an agenda.

No, this is just a simulation, not a study of actual occurrences.

That's true if you ignore the two whole years of data used to produce this study of actual occurrences.

Yup, exactly. It’ll be interesting to see how BLM spins it.

What's the acceptable rate of police murdering people?

Plane crashes are extremely rare too, but we spent a whole lot of time and energy investigating them and identifying causes to prevent them from happening again.

[removed]

I haven't seen anything to support the second half of your claim - that police activity in high-crime areas is actually keeping those areas high-crime. That would be a shocking finding with broad implications on effective law enforcement (basically saying that it doesn't help).

In Baltimore crime went out of control when the police stopped actively patrolling the area after they came under fire for that suspect dying in the "rough ride".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/07/12/baltimore-police-not-noticing-crime-after-freddie-gray-wave-killings-followed/744741002/

If I'm not mistaken the same thing has happened in Chicago.

You mean after they came under fire for murdering someone?

I think I’m missing something.

The guy he was referring to was talking about, essentially, how police targeting was causing crime to rise in areas. He was confused because that seems counterintuitive.

What you replied was that police in areas stopped responding to calls. I don’t think the two are related. This seems to tell me that there was no targeting, that the officers in the article were concerned with being targeted and just stopped looking for crime which caused crime to rise in that area.

Wow, the cops would rather let people die than put seatbelts on suspects.

It would go against many of the most basic theories of criminology and most common practices of police, such as hotspot policing. It would absolutely shake up the world of law enforcement.

It's quite well documented that whites and blacks use drugs at roughly the same rate, but blacks are more likely to be charged and convicted with possession. The reasons are easy to understand - a cop touring middle-class neighbourhoods looking for teen parties to raid and arrest everyone for underage drinking, drugs and whatever else could be netted from the noise complaint technicality would net a dozen angry phone calls to his/her supervisor and/or the DA. This is, however, common practice in low-income neighbourhoods as part of 'hot spot policing.' The selected hot spots are not filled with people who play golf with the DA. Similarly, a thorough audit of upper management in most companies would net more than a few convictions for fraud, insider trading, corruption and theft, but they can afford good lawyers and the clear rate would be slow compared to cuffing a bunch of shoplifters, so white collar crime and corruption is invisible and people only think about street-level crime as 'real' crime.

Ok, even taking your premise, the hotspots are filled with shootings and robberies and murders, so they still might make sense.

They might yes. My point is that there are other hotspots filled with large-scale crime that may be less gory but just as deadly. Also, corruption is more obvious in some countries where even the street-level cops will take cash, but I find it interesting that Americans seem very innocent about higher levels of corruption and the extent of its impact.

They could choose not to arrest people for smoking pot while still preventing or intervening in shootings.

Two things: the opioid epidemic is less gory but just as deadly, and law enforcement seems to be taking it very seriously. Although I agree more could be done with the drug company/distributors enforcement. Second, law enforcement would make their careers with political corruption cases. Don’t you think they are prosecuted whenever they come to light? Now, there may be an issue with rooting it out, but I don’t think that’s law enforcement’s fault.

who does it fall upon to root out criminal behavior if not the enforcers of the law?

I just mean it may be hard to find. Sometimes criminals are better than law enforcement.

If every criminal became smarter than every cop, would you say it wasn't the cops fault or find new cops/train them better/expect better results?

I don't see how jailing addicts is "talking it seriously".

Political corruption includes cops who deal drugs and frame innocents for crimes and who rape prostitutes. That's not law enforcements fault?

[deleted]

wedgies overt report their usage

what

Where did I say all, none... and is it not clear I'm not only talking about the deployment of street cops?

If you've ever had a job you can't be that innocent to the concept of 'carreer risk assessment' - it affects everyone, including cops. It's harder, less successful and professionally risky to go after powerful people. It's got to be obvious this must influence how policing works.

Your point about drug use is interesting, I'll check into it or you can send me links if you have them.

Who do you think the middle class is? What class do you think the DA and their peers belong to?

The middle class are often more concerned about interacting with the justice system than the upper class because they have something to lose and not enough resources (time or money) to fight legal battles.

Don't mince irrelevant words.

They aren't my words.
I asked for the person that used those words to show their work. They thought that they were words that distinguished groups, they gave them relevance to the discussion.

There's been some evidence that more cops do lead to more crime. Here's a Washington Post article about one "study"

If more policing reduces crime, then we would expect less policing should lead to more crime.

But in fact we find the opposite. Civilian complaints of major crimes — murder, rape, felony assault, burglary and grand larceny — actually declined during the slowdown.

We focus on major criminal complaints for two reasons. First, because these acts so severely impact the victims’ lives, we have no reason to suspect that the reductions in foot patrols would prevent citizens from registering complaints with NYPD by, for instance, calling 911 or their local precinct. Second, the premise behind “broken windows” theory is to prevent precisely these types of major crimes by arresting people for relatively minor offenses. Yet when summonses and arrest rates plummet, we see no increase in major criminal complaints.

But that's about criminal complaints by civilians. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is less crime, only that the crime is less reported.

In very poor neighborhoods with high crime, victims will rarely report to the police because doing so paints a huge target on their back.

What they're saying is: you're more likely to find crime in places where you're looking for it. I.e. rates of crime will be higher in neighborhoods with a high police presence because there are more people to witness crimes. It just makes logical sense.

When you are more likely to be caught for a misdemeanor, more likely to be sentenced harshly and more likely to commit one in the first place because of low wages and poor education, you are unable to get out of the cycle of crime. The areas are still high crime because of many systemic issues, the overpolicing of these areas is part of a larger picture of systemic racism.

there are more people to witness crimes

But anyone can witness and report a crime. It doesn't have to be a police officer. Densely populated areas have more people to witness crimes, not places with more police.

Well, you're actually partly right? I think violent crimes are more likely to occur in areas with higher vacancy rates. But also, you must be smart enough to know that most people don't call the cops on your average neighborhood nuisance (and/or it's not possible or reasonable to, like with someone speeding or bumping music in their car). However, if an officer is in the area, they're likely to write a ticket.

That's why community policing is so important--focusing on relationships and safety rather than enforcement--it can help support people and give them the opportunity to modify their behavior instead of burying them in tickets that they are unable to pay and landing them in jail.

because there are more people to witness crimes. It just makes logical sense.

No it doesn't. If you go in the suburbs, victims will always report and witnesses will always cooperate; if you go in the hood, victims rarely report and witnesses never talk.

What does that have to do with police presence increasing the people in a neighborhood that are prosecuted for misdemeanors? Cooperation with police is a part of the broader conversation about police relationships with the community but it doesn't change the fact that increased police presence means inflated crime statistics.

the fact that increased police presence means inflated crime statistics.

but it's not a fact. The rate at which misdemeanors are reported in "good" neighborhoods definitely surpasses the rates at which police officers witness misdemeanors in the hood. In the "good" you get the police called on you for everything, in the "hood" no one ever reports shit.

Also, there are serious crimes that always take place in the hood and rarely in other neighborhoods - and even when they do, most often the perpetrator is from the hood. Have a look at crimereports.com and tell me how does "increase police presence" explains that.

It doesn't explain it. Like I said in my original comment, police presence is a part of a broader discussion to be had about institutional racism. This isn't a gotcha situation: it's a tragedy that bad parts of big cities--especially historically red lined districts--aren't safe and have high rates of crime. It's an issue that isn't easily fixed by changing one variable, it's a complex social issue that we need to navigate in order to make sure that these people are able to increase their class mobility and safety.

He means that if you look harder and more often, you'll find more crime, in all places.

Think about it on a larger, broader scale. The chances of going back to jail after being released are absurdly high. So going to jail is not a solution that lowers crime. It raises crime rates. Why? Well try getting a job or an apartment in a good part of town with a felony record. Possession of marijuana is an automatic felony on the first offense in some states btw. It's not necessarily an enforcement problem. It's not law enforcement's fault. It's more of a criminal justice problem. We NEED people who enforce the laws. I think we also need law enforcement to speak up when the laws they're being forced to enforce are not based on morality or logic. We also need a system that doesnt encourage first time criminals to be life long crininals. But I'd wager that most police officers will scoff at you if you suggest that people shouldn't be arrested for possession. They'd be the first to vote NO for decriminalization.

Other folk have addressed the inconclusive data we have about the outcome of lower rates of policing, and the confound that arises when the visibility of crime relies at least partially on who is there to see and record it, but I'd like to add one more complicating factor into the mix. We need to not only consider the immediate impact of police presence, but also the downstream effects of incarceration. Poverty and crime are deeply intertwined. We know that poverty correlates with higher rates of incarceration, and that incarceration has negative effects on surrounding family members. Poverty, crime, and incarceration form a sort of downward spiral that's hard to disrupt. Escalating any part of it contributes to escalation overall. The linked article connects to some interesting research regarding deescalation methods.

It's more like this: If you spend all your time in these areas, you're more likely to find crime. Since it's a high crime area, the police are more likely to notice even the smallest infractions. On top of that, if someone from this area is arrested, they lose almost all upward mobility and will most likely turn to crime again.

The likelyhood of police using deadly force in an unnecessary scenario is too high

Serious question: what amount wouldn't be too high? How much higher is it than it should be? If it were cut in half would that no longer be "too high" or cut in one tenth?

If we don't have answers to these questions I don't think we can reasonably say its "too high" and yet I haven't heard good answers.

Obviously zero would be nice, but I don't think it is conceivable that there would never be mistakes, officers are human beings, who both don't know everything that is happening and even when they do make mistakes because no one is perfect. Putting people in dangerous situations doesn't mean they are suddenly capable of perfection and demanding that it happen would be naive.

I guess my point is, people are going to think its too high regardless of what the rate is so long as the news is talking about it, but unless we have a goal rate that would be "ok", there can never be a situation where it isn't called "too high".

From my understanding of BLM and other movements around police reform, the issue is dismantling the racist system of how enforcement is dealt out within communities. So 1% error is absolutely fine in a system that isn't discriminatory. Any % error including 0%(yes you're reading this correctly) in a racist system is not wanted.

But that's not the point I was talking about. The guy I was responding to had very clearly divided it into two issues: number 1 was the rate of deadly force being too high, and number 2 being the racism.

I was questioning whether number 1 was actually true, not whether number 2 was.

Any % error including 0%(yes you're reading this correctly) in a racist system is not wanted.

Obviously any error is unwanted with or without racism. But there is a difference between unwanted and "too high". When I hear "too high" I think that means we need to do something about it until it is not too high. I think "too high" means people should be outraged about it and take action to change it.

Whereas "unwanted" will still be true even if it is the minimum possible amount. But if it were the minimum possible amount, I don't think it would be a good idea for people to be outraged about it or to fruitlessly try to take action.

As an example, the number of people who are struck by lightning is unwanted of course, because it is not zero, but I don't know if I would say its "too high", as in so high we ought to take action. That doesn't mean it is not bad when someone is struck by lighting, just that taking action (perhaps investing money in R&D on lighting-proof hats, or encouraging everyone to stay indoors at all times) is probably not the right choice and I don't think we should be outraged over the number of people that are struck by lighting.

Again, I don't know if the current rate is "too high", but I definitely don't think that "any amount is too high," not because I don't think those lives are important, but because I don't think 0 is possible (until either psychics exist or some sort of utopia in which crime never happens comes about, which I think is so far away that it is reasonable to call such things impossible for the purposes of discussion) so there has to be some amount at which we decide we will not be outraged or else we're just generally being angry that the world is not perfect.

The issue is that most people are outraged due to the systematic actions of police officers, police captains/sheriffs, police unions, and the DAs of america. We could have 0 deaths and there is still an issue to protest about. Thats the key to understanding police enforcement reform.

Yes practically there has to be an amount of people killed that is 'acceptable'. Unfortunately I don't know if we can agree on that number.

Did you miss the first part of my last comment?

I was exclusively talking about whether the amount of police killings was too high on its own separate from racism, not about whether police are racist or even whether police are bad in other ways.

I wasn't disagreeing with people's anger at racism, but pointing out that a specific comment above, which separated out the issue into two distinct things claimed that the killing rate itself was too high (separate from any race issues) and that that was unquestionable. I questioned it.

Serious question: what amount wouldn't be too high?

Zero.

That's the only answer in any humane and civilised society.

I'm from the UK and we have our own examples but we're much better than the US.

Crikey:

https://i.imgur.com/teQfxv7.png

The us also has a higher population than most of those places by at least an order of magnitude

India and China are on there...

To be fair to u/Centurion4 they did say "most".

I can't speak for the India number, but I reeeeeeeally doubt china has a police homicide rate 5 times lower than Canada.

I agree. I don't think we can use this Wikipedia category page as a legitimate homicide rate comparison between countries

To start with I appreciate that "pages on Wikipedia" is a bad way to generate statistics it was just a page I found when I was looking at the number of people shot by British police (I was going to list them, and remove the ones that can be "justified", but the number of pages in the category of people shot by LEOs in the UK is so low that I didn't feel it warranted it).

Secondly, the population of the US is comparable to Brazil, and dwarfed by China. 

Population of the US is 325.7 million, 240 pages

Population of the UK is 65.64 million, 13 pages
Population of France is 66.9 million, 14 pages
Population of Italy is 60.6 million, 3 pages
Population of Germany is 82.67 million, 7 pages
Population of Canada is 36.29 million, 15 pages
Population of Australia is 24.13 million, 12 pages
----
Total population 336.23 million, 64 pages

So, this very crude methodology, shows a massive discrepancy. And if we look at [better numbers(https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-shootings-statistics) it shows the US is even worse than this crude mthod would indicate.

The UK has a population greater than 1/6 the US and in 2017 we had a 12 year high of police shootings. There were 6. That's six. In a population between 1/5 and 1/6 of the US, so scaling up would be about 35 if the UK were as populous as the US.

In the US, so far this year, there have been over 600 shootings by police.

UK is also a much safer place than the US, which lends some support to the thought that the police shootings are due to increased violence against police.

In 2017, the UK had one police officer killed in the line of duty. He was stabbed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

In 2017, there were 46 officers killed in the line of duty from gunfire in the US: https://www.odmp.org/search?cause=Gunfire&from=2017&to=2017

and one stabbed: https://www.odmp.org/search?cause=Stabbed&from=2017&to=2017

If you look at the line of duty deaths here, the numbers here don't include canines (and I didn't include them either above) as there are 3 on the stabbed page and 1 here: https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2017

I guess it might be worth including assaults here, but those are corrections officers and I'm not sure if the UK list included those: https://www.odmp.org/search?cause=Assault&from=2017&to=2017

which lends some support to the thought that the police shootings are due to increased violence against police.

Chicken and the egg.

If you live in a community and armed invaders are executing people for no good reason are you going to just let it happen?

Again, compare the US police to the US military running patrols in Afghanistan, for example. Why are the standards for engaging in gunfire so much more lax on the US streets than in a war zone?

Stop trying to justify excessive violence by a gang of armed thugs on people trying to live their lives. If it were any other group doing the killings there'd be investigations, and it's not simply that the police killings are all justified because they plainly shouldn't be.

What a waste of time

Didn't take that long.

OK but English language wikipedia articles on police killings as even a ballpark estimate of police killings per year is literally pointless. Your method puts Brazil at a 100 times lower than US which is ridiculous, it's actually many times higher. It's orders of magnitude out.

You mean exactly like I say at the start?

Well no, you say it's a bad way to generate statistics but then sort of imply that it's at least somehow valid as a crude estimate, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to divide through by population or even to bring it up in the first place.

There's a difference between "this is crude and inexact but gives us a rough idea" and "this is literally completely irrelevant to the point I'm making." and your method is the second not the first.

Using google search result numbers to estimate how popular a turn of phrase is is the first. Listing the nationalities of singers in the Billboard hot 100 to asses which country has more singers per capita is the second.

That's fair criticism.

The only reason I brought it up, and made the comparison, was to rebut the "but the US population is so much higher!" response.

It's clear the numbers are skewed for lots of other reasons, but it was originally presented more as a "well, this is surprising" thing than "here are real, true, objective facts".

I responded to Phyphor about this, but he immediately ignored the points raised and started calling the police 'armed invaders' who were 'executing people'... but you might not have an agenda and actually be interested in comparing countries so you might find this data useful.

UK is also a much safer place than the US, which lends some support to the thought that the police shootings are due to increased violence against police.

In 2017, the UK had one police officer killed in the line of duty. He was stabbed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

In 2017, there were 46 officers killed in the line of duty from gunfire in the US: https://www.odmp.org/search?cause=Gunfire&from=2017&to=2017

and one stabbed: https://www.odmp.org/search?cause=Stabbed&from=2017&to=2017

If you look at the line of duty deaths here, the numbers here don't include canines (and I didn't include them either above) as there are 3 on the stabbed page and 1 here: https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2017

I guess it might be worth including assaults here, but those are corrections officers and I'm not sure if the UK list included those: https://www.odmp.org/search?cause=Assault&from=2017&to=2017

The US is about 5x more populated than the US so you’d expect about 5x more killings. There are also way mire armed people in the US and being armed makes the probability of dying way higher. Overall I doubt the difference is that significant

The US is about 5x more populated than the US so you’d expect about 5x more killings.

I assume you mean UK.

here are also way mire armed people in the US and being armed makes the probability of dying way higher.

We can compare to other countries with gun ownership if you'd prefer? Or maybe gun control is actually the answer, after all?

Overall I doubt the difference is that significant

The facts say otherwise.

Oh no doubt gun control would greatly lower the stats.

The facts say otherwise.

Which facts? I’d like to see a study controlling for gun ownership that shows significantly higher probability of being killed by the police in the US

Canada looks to have a reasonably similar amount of gun ownership, and culture, and far fewer cops shooting people.

Of course if you want to make comparisons as strict as possible you end up not being able to compare because no two things are exactly alike, but for each variable there's probably some way of comparing it and, every time, the US police shoot far more than any other system and gets away with it by claiming to be "scared".

Thank you. People think that hundreds of people just have to die at the hands of police, as though the US isnt a singular exception to the norm

I linked this already as a reply elsewhere but I was stunned when I saw:

https://i.imgur.com/teQfxv7.png

You have a suggestion?

I have no idea what amount would be appropriate, which is why I pointed out that no one else probably does either. My point was that he said its too high and that's not up for debate, but I don't know if that's true. It might be too high, but how can we know whether it is too high unless we have some idea of where the reasonable limit would be?

Like people aren't really responding to the rates because the rates are too high if they have no idea what rate is too high and what rate isn't, they are saying the rates are too high because the handful of stories they hear about make them feel bad. Like, they are tragedies, but the fact that tragedies exist doesn't mean the rates are too high if some number of tragedies are inevitable. That said, maybe the rates are too high, but damned if I know.

This is a good point then

I don't know either what the "optimal" level of police shootings would be. But for now, maybe you can aim at just killing as many people as other developed countries? Because as it stands, US cops shoot way more people than the cops in other developed countries.

What are the rates in those countries and how much higher is the US rate? (obviously controlling for population size)

Those numbers have been posted by multiple other people. And with the rather lengthy posts you've written, you could easily have looked it up yourself. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

No they haven't. All I've seen are those screenshots of how many wikipedia pages each country has about shoootings.

Which serve as a perfectly decent proxy for the shooting frequencies, at least in developed countries (though it might underreport American numbers).

But if you really want to know the real numbers, I'm sure you can find them with a little effort! I believe in you!

Which serve as a perfectly decent proxy for the shooting frequencies

That is among the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. A wikipedia page about a shooting only gets made if its a media story, its not like there is one for every hundred shootings or something. Obviously they will be wildly skewed by how the media in that country treats shootings and the media in the US is currently really big on reporting them.

Also the countries that use the english version of wikipedia will have more links on that page because most people won't write up a story about what happens in another country. The US has WAY more users of English wikipedia than other countries so it will obviously have more people making wikipedia pages.

Those numbers are going to be WILDLY skewed and therefore would make a terrible proxy.

But if you really want to know the real numbers, I'm sure you can find them with a little effort! I believe in you!

I'm not the one claiming the rate is too high or higher than in other countries. I asked the people who claimed it was to provide proof and they had none. I don't need to provide proof for something I made no claim of.

How much time have you spent today asking whether the police shooting rate is too high, and asking people for proof? If you actually cared about the answer, wouldn't it have been easier to find it yourself?

How much time have you spent today asking whether the police shooting rate is too high

I asked that question exactly one time, to you, here.

The only other time I asked something even a little similar was "what amount wouldn't be too high? How much higher is it than it should be?" , but that was to determine what the person saying the rate was too high thought about what it should be, not to figure out the rate itself. Which obviously isn't something that can be looked up.

If you actually cared about the answer

I don't care about the answer, I was curious when you said in bold that they are "way higher" than other countries, but when you answered with no actual rate and only a condescending comment about how they had already been posted, I pointed out that they hadn't as far as I know, at least not in any accurate way (as mentioned the number of wikipedia pages mentioning it would be very inaccurate as a rate measure).

More importantly, even when I asked that single time out of curiosity, it was mainly because I wanted to know why you think it is too high or so much higher, which is not something that can be looked up. Sounds like you don't have any good reasons for thinking it is too high because you actually have no idea what it is or what it should be.

It's a negative outcome positive feedback loop. People don't trust cops to treat them fairly, this leads to interactions where cops can't reliably predict an outcome and feel the need to escalate force to take control of the situation which then leads to more populace distrust, and so on. There's several interactions going on leading to these systemic issues and it'll take change on all fronts.

Why do they have a mistrust of police?

There's history to look at here.

Police prejudice. Racial policing of the past. Stop and frisk. Overpolicing. These attitudes didn't start in a vacuum. They started with race and class.

"People don't trust the cops to treat them fairly"

I literally said that. The OP I replied to had specifically mentioned what you just mentioned as well.

Ah my bad then. Cheers :)

[removed]

Gee, oppressed people wanting to resist an in just system that is not even trying to be corrected and is actively protecting the bad apples? Yea, it's a total mystery why they would want that.

So you'd rather just die?

We all know that

They just yell "Shoot me, shoot me" while resisting, attacking the cop, etc.

is just anecdotal and not at all how 99.99% of officer/suspect interactions go right?

How do you think this country was formed? People die for their liberty.

A lot of cops are bullies and dicks though. I don't trust them to be fair or even decent to me and I'm a middle class white guy.

case in point

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kQKxk_1533868100

cops need more training in desceation as well. If someone is mentally ill and claerly feels threatened dont get louder and more threatening

One part has a lot more power than the other. That party should have more responsibility, not less. Stop victim blaming.

I never said who was right or wrong or blamed. Don't put words into my mouth.

How do you justify that step in your logic where police patrolling minority urban areas creates the crime that is happening there? As if the cops left magically there would be no gang violence or crime ?

I think there's a missing point to your 2nd point, which is police "target" minority neighborhoods because there is more crime, there is more crime because they are poor. If police increased the presence in white middle class neighborhoods there may be a very very small increase I'm catching traffic violations.

In black neighborhoods, even if there were no racism, there's more poverty. So you send the cops because of the disproportionate crime.

The cops you sent notice more crimes (like kids smoking weed on the front porch, etc) which adds to the overall crime statistics of the neighborhood.

You send more cops. They frisk people and find some weed and some cocaine. This further adds to the crime statistic.

In the white neighborhood, you can smoke weed on the front porch and 99.99999 percent of the time, nothing's gonna happen. But you can only get away with it 90 percent of the time in the area that is highly patrolled.

People don't realize this, but actual drug USE is basically identical between white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods. Your white suburban kid is popping pills not prescribed to him, some ecstasy, weed, shrooms, LSD, you name it. Across town, the same AMOUNT of drug use is leading to arrests for weed, crack, heroin, and methamphetamine.

And this leads to more cops coming to that "problem" area.

And because they can't sell those drugs with the same techniques used in the white neighborhood, you get gangs.

This is not true, I've never seen drug use on anyone's front porch and literally no one I know even smokes weed. Please show me the data

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-drug-use_n_3941346.html

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0309web_1.pdf

Your anecdote is beyond moronic, I provide data primarily for those who will also read this subthread and expect information.

Because you won't read it, let's just be honest with ourselves.

We already established that poor whites do drugs, what are you arguing about?

Why should I do so just to counter such a moronic anecdote?

You don't think they'd have a much higher hit rate in low level drug offences?

In middle or upper class neighborhoods, you don't have people dealing on corners and you don't have much of the related crime that goes with drugs in poor areas. Most of the time the low level drug offenses will be things like possession charges stemming from things where police are already involved like vehicle stops, domestic violence calls, etc.

There is less property crime and much less violent crime in areas that are affluent enough for users to afford their habit and dealers to not use violence to secure turf.

Basically low level drug charges stem from police contact with a suspect. Less primary reasons to contact mean less secondary offenses like drug possession will happen.

No I don't think so. This is based off of the small sample size of me and my 5 good friends in highschool, none of which were that affluent, and none of which did drugs. Also based off of multiple studies, not related to convictions, that show poverty and drug use, even minor drug use, go hand in hand.

[removed]

Yeah white people can be poor and use drugs, nobody is debating that. What we are saying is that drug use correlates positively with lower socioeconomic status. Which it does. If you don’t accept that then your views do not reflect reality.

Also that they receive more lenient sentences for the exact same offenses.

Maybe the Blacks are more likely to be repeat offenders.

Do you have any evidence for your guess?

The US is still 72% white. Blacks make up 12% https://www.statista.com/statistics/200476/us-poverty-rate-by-ethnic-group/ Doing some quick math, there are about 2.5 times more whites in poverty than blacks.

and there are 6 times as many white people, which means, all things even, there should be 6 times as many whites in poverty

I think you're trying to make a political point, but the way you wrote it just makes it a fact instead. If you said:

and there are 6 times as many white people, which means, all things fair, there should be 6 times as many whites in poverty

then there would be a real world aspect to discuss.

Fair and even are interchangeable to my point. You're being very semantic here.

Google it, even means flat or equal. Not fair. So mathematically, yes, if everything was even 6 times the population should equal 6 times the population in poverty. But that's true by definition, it doesn't mean anything.

Doubling down on the semantics I see.

400 years of slavery and genocide ofcourse don’t matter. Or even the fact that the civil rights movement was less than 60 years ago. I mean none of that matters statistically I’m sure. Fuck off

Everything in my comment was a fact. I dunno, maybe my statistics are wrong, but there's still nothing opinion-based in there. And I really don't understand how your comment is a response to mine in the first place.

I don’t think there is evidence that being poor translates to more crime. I know it is a common concept but It seems like a correlation issue. Some think it is the reverse in that high crime leads to being poor.

Are you kidding?

How does crime cause you do retroactively be born poor?

That’s fundamentally not what I mean. Systemic poverty is often a result of a culture of criminality. So people who are brought in in a way that crime is thing, have behavior patterns which are likely to keep them poor

That’s bs though. The high crime rates don’t have high crime because they’re targeted, it’s because they have high street crime. Detroit and Beverly Hills don’t have the same street crime. Poor uneducated people looking to make liveable wages commit more street crime. It didn’t start with racism, but the income divide did. The question should be how can we help these areas make a sustainable income and get educated.

minority centric areas because they have the highest crime... but they have the highest crime because they target them the most and on and on.

How’s that working out for Baltimore since police backed off from being proactive? I seem to recall a recent article about the murder rate spiking.

I don't know about that. Violent crime in impoverished areas is higher than suburbs because of the nature of living in poverty. Police are in these areas because that is where the vast majority of the calls are coming from. The amount of police presence in an area is not arbitrary.

The likelyhood of police using deadly force in an unnecessary scenario is too high

I'd argue that this is exactly what is up for debate. The reality is that there is a significant vocal group with no experience whatsoever that think they should be able to determine use of force policies. As hard as it is to admit, cops know best about these scenarios.

but they have the highest crime because they target them the most and on and on

That's asinine. Blaming primarily minority areas that have third-world murder rates as the fault of the police is deflection.

There are serious problems with family structure, culture, upbringing, education, and ideals of achievement that are driving the behaviors there. But frankly, nobody wants to ever mention that because modern society seems to have determined that if you say anything vaguely critical about a group of people comprised of a minority race, then the only explanation is that you're a racist.

Even if we're just talking about more police = stronger enforcement of minor laws that results in more arrests (public drinking, fighting, minor drug charges) that doesn't really explain away the murder rates.

Do they have the highest crime because they target them the most though? Is that why the Bronx has more crime than Manhattan, for example?

How does police presence increase crime? The numbers of arrests match the numbers of reports to police. It's minorities calling it in.and those they report are getting arrested for breaking the law. It is disproportionate to the general population which has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Anti-police mentality and criminal culture breed that bad environment. These areas need a much much higher police presence and a culture shift to respect for the law. Spreading misinformation and fear of the only people that can help is so destructive. There's no systemic racism in the police force, just individuals.

You are claiming that police activity causes crimes? What?

"the police target minority centric areas because they have the highest crime... but they have the highest crime because they target them the most and on and on"

You truly believe that these areas are high in crime simply because police target them? Do you think total crimes committed would be the same between a suburbia as it is in the inner city? If so, I think that is a very flawed idea.

but they have the highest crime because they target them the most

Doesn't make sense to me. Care to elaborate?

You're forgetting something about the cycle. There needs to be an egg. The population was high crime before the police targeted them. Some populations naturally show higher tendency for antisocial and violent behaviors.

I would argue that it is that cause that perpetuates the cycle. Higher police presence doesn't move the reported crime rate needle by that much. The population need to have violent and antisocial tendencies in the first place.

To your point, I agree. But its hard. Often times the minority areas that have more crime will WANT . more cops, but a consequence of having more cops is that more people will get arrested. You can't really have one without the other, and I think some people do.

Do you have any evidence of this vicious cycle? The arrest rates per ethnicity are consistent with the percentage of criminals identified as being of that ethnicity by victims, which seems like it would be an independant and bias-free statistic. I have a hard time finding the source again but I’m working on it

I think that your analysis of your second "systemic issue" is wrong. You're right, in that if there are more cops patrolling a given area, it isn't farfetched to know that there will naturally be more convicted crimes. However, you're not taking into consideration a few things like types of crimes (traffic violations vs theft, or assault/murder) and cultural influences.

  1. The likelyhood of police using deadly force in an unnecessary scenario is too high

This study literally says the opposite of this. It says that less than 1% of all police killings are unarmed suspects, and they conclude that these events are extremely rare. Are you arguing that 99% accuracy on the part of police is not good enough?

I worded it very specifically so that it does not disagree with the study. So you'll have to excuse me playing the semantics game... but 0% is the acceptable amount of times to use deadly force in an unnecessary manner because, by definition, it is unnecessary.

Like many things, this is an issue of how people feel about the police. And right now the people that are getting policed the most do not feel safe.

That semantics game doesn't even make sense though. unnecessary things can still happen and can be tolerated. The question is how much are we willing to tolerate. We all want there to be 0% of unnecessary police shootings, but perfection is not possible in a country with hundreds of millions of people. Rare events happen everyday in populations that large. If something has a one in a million chance of occurring it probably happens 300 times everyday in the United States. Also, your original point about there being higher crime in areas that the police target more is not true. A larger police presence usually leads to lower crime.

I think number 1 is not up for debate.. maybe could be resolved by more training.

Or accountability.

my fear is that people will use this

This is why sensationalizing is bad. Activists here picked the most extreme issue possible. It's sad when more accountability and ratcheting down the drug war have bipartisan support.

Is the problem really police training exclusively? Or is maybe a bigger problem that people are a suspect, armed, and hostile? Police training appears to work pretty well when those three conditions aren't simultaneously satisfied.

I would also like to know the ratio of how many times people legitimately resist arrest white vs minorities. I've seen enough movies and tv shows to know that 'resisting arrest' is used as an excuse to lump somebody up for whatever reason but none of these activists whining about this cause ever look at the other side. The cops are always 100% at fault and that's just not the case.

These are the points that most people in this thread are missing.

Most people want an excuse to not care about minorities.

Most people want to scream racism when there is none, as many studies have shown.

They target those problem areas not because that’s where they make the most arrests, but because that’s where the crime is being reported. Those areas need more constant police presence instead of police just responding to crime after the fact.

There's a great little report on how a busted taillight can turn into an arrest warrant through tumbling debt and fines that quickly pile up.. all while you're barely making ends meet with a job that requires you to drive to it's location.

  1. When lethal force is unjustified the police officers rarely face meaningful consequences for their actions.

I typed 3 but it shows as one

There are like zero police shooting deaths in neighborhoods with a median income of 250k$ per year.

Unless we have empirical evidence that less crime across all spectrums actually occurs in those neighborhoods, this is textbook class oppression.

[deleted]

It appears like that's happening again, murder rates have gone up a lot in minority communities these past few years.

Its a little strange because the suburbs probably have just as much crime if not more than urban areas. The difference is probably the physicality of the crime. Arresting kids for underage drinking and pill popping at a party isn't a good idea because you might arrest the wrong person's kid like your boss' kid or their boss' etc. Pulling over a woman driving an expensive SUV who clearly just had mimosas at brunch might not be a good idea because shes going to be able to lawyer up and probably has connections. Definitely don't want to stop and frisk kids at a prep school to check for pills and coke because their parents have money. Much easier to just bust poor kids on the corner selling a little weed. Nobody knows the actual crime statistics for an area unless the police go there and document it. Minority areas are more heavily policed, they don't actually have more crime they just have less consequences for the arresting officers.

As a white man, I also double down on my crime activity after I'm punished for it. Punishment exists to encourage more transgression, right? Besides, who dares to punish me for robbery, rape, and murder?

Blacks have high arrest and stop rates and per capita

Couldn't this also mean that a black person gets stopped more often even if there is no reason for a stop, while a white person is more likely to only get stopped when there is a good reason. If that's the case then the ratio of being injured/killed would still be bad if it's equal.

[deleted]

It's both, and the study doesn't account for the quality of the encounters, the level of injury, etc.

If blacks are more often violating the law, is it really racism if cops suspect them more?

[deleted]

Obviously, but in the current social climate the police is taking all the blame, and they can’t do much about those underlying issues

[deleted]

[deleted]

But there are more poor whites than there are poor blacks. Blacks represent 13% of the population but commit more than 50% of violent crimes.

But it could also be due to legitimate reasons (actual higher rates due to socioeconomic reasons)

Issue with this one is that poor whites don't get stopped nearly the amount as poor black/indian/latino. So it isn't 'really' socioeconomic. Poor whites live in cities too, they just live in specific neighborhoods.

Institutional and systematic socioeconomic conditions....unless one is of the ilk that believed these are fake.

You can look at it that way, or you can also look at it as "They simply commit more crime per capita, thus they will have a higher run in with police" - just like how males are much more likely to be arrested than females.

[deleted]

[removed]

There are more poor whites than poor blacks in America.

As if being poor excuses violent crime and yet you find a way to blame white privelage still. Yes, poor areas have higher crime rates. That's not an excuse for it, it's just how it is unfortunately.

Even when crimes per capita are similar, the disparity for arrests/punishment persists.

(Forgive the source, but it has the graphs without having to review the whole study. The study PDF is linked in the article.)

The paper also states:

and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates.

It may be a mantra from the racist alt-right to blame the black community for committing more crimes, but just because they're bigots doesn't mean they are 100% wrong. For whatever reasons (systemic racism, widespread poverty, etc...), the black community in the US has fostered a culture of contempt for laws and law enforcement. Unfortunately, activists completely shutdown if you dare suggest that the black community should also share some of the responsibility for change.

How many speeding violations cancel out a $10B securities fraud, a water supply pollution, a SWATing, a lynching, institutionalized slavery , redlining, importing crack , flooding the country with opiods, police officers framing kids for burglary and murder? The white community fostered a culture of contempt for basic human life and rights.

Alex Jones much?

Let's put an average person in a patrol car on an average street following the average car. Now let's see the accuracy of "race" identification from that position.

“and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates.”

According to that same excerpt, a black person is stopped more often because there is more often a reason to stop them.

The answer to their question only one sentence away

So this debunks entire movements, lets move on.

.. for speeding citations though..?

even if there is no reason for a stop

Define "no reason". Imagine, hypothetically, that people wearing striped shirts as a group commit 5x more crimes than the people wearing plain shirts. In other words (more statistically): the chance a random plain shirt commits a crime is 15%, the chance a random striped shirt commits a crime is 75%. Would it be unreasonable then for the police to pay more attention to people wearing striped shirts?

There are two potentially confounding issues with this.

One is that you might end up with more false positives than catching the intended violation, and unreal engine if other violations. Especially since the likelihood of the crime being committed is almost certainly not 75% across a large section of the population (and if that's the case, reform of the law is almost certainly necessary). More likely we're talking about 1% for striped shirts and 0.2% for plain shirts. So we stop and frisk striped shirts and catch all 1%, but also another 2% for more minor infractions. Minor infractions which plain shirts have a similar 2% offense rate, but because they're not being frisked they get caught at a much lower rate. Also, in an attempt to catch all 1% of the original offenders, an extra 2% of Innocents get arrested for investigation and released. If we assume only half of the plain shirts get caught, then suddenly what started as a 5x higher offense rate for the major crime and 36% higher overall, has turned into a 25x higher arrest rate, with a 1,000x higher rate of police interactions.

The other side is that we don't have a national history where people in striped shirts were prohibited from voting, considered property, and legally discriminated against. The history of race in America can't be the only factory we consider, but it should be accounted for to ensure institutions don't end up perpetuating those past inequalities.

That's fair. I understand there are a number of problems with it, but the point I was trying to make (in a extremely simplified and exaggerated way) was that when one group is known to have commited more crimes, it's natural to pay more attention when dealing with a person of that group than others. Ofcourse, details and actual statistics matter: like you said, if the percentages is as low as 1% or lower, theoretically it's not as significant as in my example.

This does not mean I approve of stop and frisk and similar actions, but I can understand one of the reasons behind it.

I think the flipside is asking why crime rates are higher, and whether the method of policing perpetuates crime. Is the crime a result of poverty? If so, does increased policing for minor crimes, which results in fines and difficulty holding a job, exacerbate the issue? If the poverty is caused by historical racism then doesn't the responsibility for the solution fall on those in the government who helped cause it, in addition to the individuals currently living with the consequences?

That logic is circular. After they stop striped shirts more, they're going to arrest them more. Oh shit, more striped shirts are getting convicted, let's stop them more.

I never said anything about arresting.

That's not circular logic. Thats a positive feedback loop.

Also, the comment you are responding to does not refer to convictions to measure crime. There is no reason to bring this in.

You'd assume they would quit acting out if they're getting arrested, but they're continuously year in year out committing disproportionate amounts of crime. This same disproportionate rate is the same tired story of blacks in France or the UK. Of course, OF COURSE, institutionalized racism is the culprit ......

I don't think they mean specifically convicted criminals.

You can be a criminal pos before being officially convicted.

“Paying attention” and “violating rights” are two completely different things. There’s a reason we have such a thing as probable cause.

you can stop wearing a white striped shirt if you want to.

Not the point I was trying to make, but good job noticing something that isn't at all relevant, I guess?

Police stop a lot more men than women. Do you think they have some bias toward men, or that men get into more trouble?

Also ignored here: police have been caught now in several high-profile cases planting weapons on killed suspects. In Baltimore, for example, they would carry extra guns specifically for this purpose.

It could mean that, and this argument is made frequently. When there's been arrest quotas or departments issue tickets driven by profits, you often also see a racial or socio-economic divide on who are and aren't targeted by law enforcement.

You would need data on the number of "unjustified" stops in order to support that claim.

well they commit way more crime so its not surprising

The ratio does not change, it remains equal. I would be shocked to see total stops of blacks outnumber total stops of whites seeing how blacks make up 13% of the population and whites make up 60%+. In that case, with the ratio being even, it would suggest more whites in total are injured/killed.

I'm not talking about the ratio changing though, but about the unneeded stop being counted towards the total number. It's obvious that it's more likely to end up in a confrontation if someone did something and was stopped by an officer compared to someone who's not done anything.

That's exactly the reason

[removed]

Though location where speed traps are set up could also cause this. If the majority of travelers on a road are black, more black speeders will be caught even if the offense rate is identical. Socioeconomic factors may play a role as well. Do officers target older, more beat up vehicles, and are the poorest individuals in a city more likely to be of a particular race?

So that's really back to the point of the study. That overt racism of the officers is not a significant contributor, but institutional decisions may result in unequal enforcement of particular races.

Analysis of NYC's stop and frisk program found that black folk were stopped far more often than white folk, even though white folk were far more likely to have a weapon. Being stopped is not a reliable indicator of someone causing a problem.

Having a weapon is not a reason to be stopped.

Correct, and sentenced much harshly for the same crime.

Couldn't this also mean that a black person gets stopped more often even if there is no reason for a stop,

We already know that non-white people get stopped more often. Police can always come up with a reason, even if it's just "they looked suspicious".

What this means is that relative to populations, more unarmed blacks are killed by police. It takes about 5 seconds to recognize the reality. The sheer nature of excess minority stops leads to disproportionate minority killings, and that is absolutely something to fight back against.

I find that interesting because black males 18-34 are 4x more likely to kill a police officer than any other demographic, which you think would lead to more encounters with police on edge.

[deleted]

Numbers for 2005-2014 are here:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2014/tables/table_47_leos_fk_race_and_sex_of_known_offender_2005-2014.xls

[deleted]

the effects of SES?

SES

Socioeconomic Status.

How low would your after tax income have to be before you would consider murdering a police officer?

No idea. I was merely saying what the acronym was.

I say anything below 50k take home

Keep pushing that agenda

I actually had to calculate it myself by tracking down cop killer demographics on the national scale and then applying that per capita, but that was last year . Give me a few hours and I'll re run the numbers with cited sources.

[deleted]

that white men are the most likely to kill police officers.

I doubt that was done per capita.

https://www.newsweek.com/who-kills-police-officers-315701

A study made available this week through the journal Violence and Gender explores the 74 police officers killed in 2013 and 2014 and identifies trends among the 70 killers.

In 2013, 44 percent of cop killers were white, 37 percent were black and 11 percent were Hispanic.

Wouldn’t that be only double since the only cop killers are men across all races. Since we’re going from the race of cop killers not the percentage of the population that kills a cop in their lifetime. Sorry if that’s explained poorly, I’m a stupid person

This factors out women as a percentage of the population. Black men are 5-6 percent.

[deleted]

Here's a decade of data, averages to 40 percent of cops killers are black.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2014/tables/table_47_leos_fk_race_and_sex_of_known_offender_2005-2014.xls

https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2014/tables/table_47_leos_fk_race_and_sex_of_known_offender_2005-2014.xls

Okay so how can you be more likely to die at the hands of police but are not more likely to get injured or die during arrest?

simulation studies find

Why couldn't they use real-world information? What's the point of simulating when you can just look at the actual numbers, simulation seems like a weird and unnecessary step.

Given the results of this paper, I am even further confused that people choose to frame this as a racism problem. While racism is undoubtedly part of the equation (especially in the increased likelihood of interacting with the police), framing it that way instead of framing it as a 'police are too prone to use violence against everyone' problem alienates a large proportion of the population and makes the issue a much more partisan problem, turning it into a political hot potato. If, from a practical perspective, all you cared about was reducing police violence, even if you cared particularly about violence against minorities, the LAST thing you should do is frame it as a racism problem. Regardless of how true it may or may not be, it will make it much harder to fix the problem.

Just two points I want to emphasize:

  1. Police shootings are not the same as police killings. I would like to see a similar study showing how often police shoot an unarmed person and the person survives. The Post says seven percent of police shooting victims are unarmed, and Vice says twenty percent of people shot by police are unarmed.

  2. By this study's rationale, if the police stop me, and I have a gun in my car's locked trunk or glove compartment, I'm "armed." With news outlets reporting a higher percentage, I assume that different people are using different definitions of "armed," with this study's definition being the most favorable to the police.

This conclusion was reached a few years ago by another researcher. However a lot of the more left leaning sites simply published the 'black suspects more likely to be killed' and they ignored that they weren't any more likely to be shot once arrested.

The blame lies with the media overreporting innocent black men while ignoring innocent white men who were killed. Outrage has always sold. Trying to create a problem where there isn't one is a great way to make profit.

The only difference is when a white person dies by a cops hand it can't be made into a racial issue and exploited for views on the news.

Wow. Good job /r/science.

Unarmed being the key.

Please explain the first paragraph quoted because two sentences contradict each other.

Besides all the other problems that have been pointed out with the definitions in this, it’s not necessarily illegal to be armed.

[deleted]

No they’re not contradicting anything. Be better.

[deleted]

Admitting you’re wrong is a good first step.

Fire on? I'm skeptical. Kill? Very skeptical that it comes out equally proportionate, otherwise we'd have more stories, or even just uh like two, involving white guys getting killed by police while unarmed.

This seems to be directly rebutting the case presented in the post’s study.

so than why is the percentage of white people killed by police so much higher than it is for blacks?

Shhhh you're going to ruin the narrative!

Is it saying they found 10 studies that agreed with their point?

The article sources the guardian which is a tabloid/newspaper for the statistics.. Isn't there a better source for them than the guardian? Where is the guardian even getting these statistics from?

The Guardian has/had a very dedicated police shooting tracker. If they’re using the stars from a very liberal source and coming up with this data, I’m more inclined to believe it then if it came from Cato

Understandable, was not aware of the tracker. In Australia all news outlets except the ABC are usually untrustworthy.

Essentially, facts don’t care about your feelings.

[removed]

You can't just generalize about race without some hard hard facts.

[deleted]

Resisting arrest while being armed, which the article points out to be true 99% of the time, is the exact kind of situation which makes sense for an officer to fear for his/her own life.

[deleted]

Like the in case of an armed suspect being noncompliant.

Well if you are being stopped disproportionately frequently because of your race you might be irritated and make the irrational/ emotional decision to be rude or not immediately comply. This is poor judgement but clearly understandable, the random citizen on the street isn't trained but the officer is. Further, the punishment shouldn't be death for making that decision. Police in many other developed countries hardly even fire a shot, and certainly virtually never kill a suspect who's unarmed. There is evidently some cultural problem thats not being addressed here

The gun could be in their car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed,"

The criteria for what constitutes as armed seems very loose. It sounds like someone walking near their home could be counted as armed if there was a knife in their home.

Does it say what you’re claiming about or did you make that up to justify a bias. It takes two seconds reach into a car, grab a gun, and start shooting.

It's also my question, since they don't definitely define what it means to be armed. Maybe it's having a weapon within 10 feet, maybe it's several blocks away. You can read the quote in the original article.

Honest question, but how can you jump from the study's wording that practically means "they have a gun on their person or in the car with them" to your wording that practically means "there is a knife in their home that they're near"? I think most people would agree that a knife 30ft+ away, inside the house, having nothing to do with the altercation, would not justify considering someone "armed".

Note: I don't think I've ever used their, there, and they're in the same sentence...

It's exactly because it is meant for the reader to assume that it is sensible.

An example would be studies or tech breakthroughs that people assume to mean one thing, like "eat this and it prevents cancer" but because they didn't fully read the study, they didn't see it was done under a very specific circumstance, or the methodology is suspect.

It's seems very consistent at 30%. only not for native americans. So, they are the only one getting real prejudice against?

Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites, and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates. A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation.

Kinda contracting this:

They found that African Americans are killed by police more than twice as often as the general population. While only about 12 percent of the American population is black, 28 percent of people killed by police during this two-year period were black, according to the research, which also found that Latinos were killed slightly more than would be expected and white citizens less often.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

Or tryina pull up your pants. Don't pull up your pants.

My suggested method for interacting with police when they start yelling confusing orders to you is remarkably similar to when you're on fire.

Stop. Drop.

[deleted]

that you might end up like that guy in the hotel corridor

IIRC, there was another person in the room, which is why they tried to get im away from the door. Police received a call about a male with another person (cant remember if male or female) pointing a rifle at people.

They had the female come forward first. The shooting occurred after they had her detained. The two people said they were the only ones in the room. They were telling the truth, but the officer didn't know that a the time.

But when you factor in suicide by cop or other factors that ultimately force the use of deadly force that percentage gets even lower.

Suicide by cop usually involves brandishing a weapon, does it not?

Or doing your best to make the officer believe you’re about to pull a gun.

Or just convincing them you have a weapon when they can't see your hands

Well not that I have anything quantifiable to base it on but a significant number of shoots involve cases like Mike Brown where they are unarmed but are actively trying to take control of a cop's weapon.

Also it says 'brandished a gun'. A lot of shoots I've seen involve knives.

[removed]

Do your fists count as a weapon cause it’s pretty easy to kill without a weapon. Which would require lethal force.

But if a guy takes a swing at a cop, the cop should not resort to their firearm is the point the above poster is trying to make I think. Now obviously there are situations where this isn't going to be the case, but police have non-lethal methods to subdue someone that is not immediately threatening their lives.

Here is the issue however. If someone is swinging at you as a cop, say they are bigger, maybe faster, or maybe neither. Are you supposed to let them knock you out and gain access to your weapon? Or are you supposed to determine who the better boxer is in an unsolicited fight? If you get that close to a cop and are aggressive, use of a firearm is justified if anything to prevent access to the firearm by an unstable individual.

Theres also a thing called excited delerium where suspects may become non-sensical and have incredible strength even if they arent larger than the cops. Ive seen pleanty of videos where suspects take multiple cops to subdue and even take mace sprays and multiple tasers and are still barreling and pummeling multiple cops at the same time. Its really not safe for even just two officers to try and subdue a person in some scenarios, especially when they may have hidden weapons as well. And in some of these cases all people hear is "unarmed man shot by police" when he was beating an officer or maybe taking multiple taser hits and still not surrendering.

Other countries have belligerent citizens and their police seem to do fine without fatally shooting them all.

The US police don't shoot them all either.

"Them all"

Please read the original post again

Actually they don't. They have less then lethal means. Tasers, baton, fisty cups can all result in death and pepper spray can result in long term to permiment bodily harm such as blindness, damage throat, and lungs.

And on top of that, all of those things are far less reliable than a gunshot.

And far less likely to kill whoevers on the receiving end.

So, is there an epidemic of cop-killing in countries where cops don't carry firearms?

Different country, different issues. The US is generally unique.

Except tasers will not always work and mace and physical force arent effective against someone with a lot of adrenaline and/or on drugs. Ive seen many bodycam footage with people taking multiple bean bag shots or other non-lethal force, only for them to flinch and show no signs of stopping their aggression. You dont want to get in a physical fight with someone on drugs and therefore have to use lethal force after attempting all methods of de-escalation.

if the swinger is terry crews and the cop is urkel

Terry is a sergeant in the 99! Don't equate him to street scum!

So if a cop responds to the scene of a burglary and orders the suspect to put their hands on their head, and the suspect quickly reaches into their pocket instead, you do not think that would create justification for the use of deadly force by the cop? Just curious...

That's ideal. But cops aren't omniscient. There are various scenerio were not acting first results in fatalities of yourself and others. It's impossible for cops to know.

It only takes a couple seconds for a person to be at your throat with a knife man.

So what is the purpose of all the less-lethal weapons that cops carry like pepper spray, tasers, batons, and kinetic impact rounds (bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, etc.)?

And I would just like to quote this article:

In a typical year, the number of cops killed with knives in the United States matches the number killed in England and Wales: zero. Criminals kill more police with their hands and feet than with knives.

But people armed with nothing but knives get killed by cops all the time in the United States — as many as 165 times per year, or more than three per week. In England and Wales — where sharp cutting instruments are no less available to criminals than they are here — there were only three fatal shootings of any kind by police between 2011 and 2015.

Police in those places don't kill people bearing knives — and they don't get killed by people bearing knives. They rely on tactics that minimize their use of deadly force without putting their lives in peril. And that is where American law enforcement agencies have room for humane changes.

Less lethal should never be used against someone coming at you with a knife. There's too many studies and videos showing how that doesn't work a major majority of the time.

Your knife will be met with a gun pointed at you.

Tasers are for non-compliance and team based aggression. (Taser with a cover officer having the subject at gunpoint.)

There's too many studies and videos showing how that doesn't work a major majority of the time.

When was the last time a police officer was killed by a knife welding suspect? Also, why are all other countries, who have the same ease of access to knives, have such vastly lower rates of police involved shootings of knife welding suspects?

As if being unarmed somehow means the shooting is unjustified

[deleted]

Amirite? It's not like unarmed people can actually pose a threat or disarm someone XD stupid americans

Fists and feet are weapons. The problem is there is a gun present at every police encounter, because a cop is wearing one. If you are being beat and are at risk for your ability to retain your weapon through the use of your hands or being conscious, then lethal force is justified.

“Unarmed” alone never tells the full story. A non assaultive, unarmed person being shot by the police is next to non existent.

It’s just the few times that happens then it gets huge attention, so then the outrage comes about and a few groups get loud and drown out the logical discussion about it...

These stats are amazing, it’s nice to break away from the emotional aspect of a conversation like this and truly look at what’s happening... I’d say it’s working effectively. There will always be individual cases of bad stuff going down, but it seems to be happening much less than everyone was acting like it was.

Yeah, and I have a feeling I know where a good bit of those come from.

Many police jurisdictions (easy example: Chicago) do not consider a car to be a deadly weapon, so if a criminal tries to rub down a cop and the cop fires his gun, his own city considers that shooting an unarmed person.

Being struck by cars is one of the top killers of police officers worldwide.

Way to be deceptive. The top killer is traffic accidents. They're in high speed chases or struck while doing a traffic stop on the side of the road. Getting run over by a fleeing felon happens extremely rarely.

"one of the top" and "the number one" aren't the same thing.

None of that has any bearing on what I was talking about though. Don't be so quick to discredit everything someone says simply because you disagree with how they phrased one sentence.

We were discussing the shooting of unarmed subjects. I said that a large portion of those were likely people "armed" with cars in jurisdictions who have told cops that those do not qualify as weapons even though they kill more cops than guns.

74 percent of all fatal police shootings, the individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon.

Taking it word for word, the analysis is wrong.

Of that 26%, it is still possible the suspect brandished a weapon without harming anyone yet.

The Nashville one making current headlines the suspect fled from a car with a gun... but was running away. What’s the law when someone is fleeing? Even if they are armed?

74 percent of all fatal police shootings, the individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon

  • according to the people who killed them

And this is why getting car cams and now body cams was and is so important.

That was my thought as well. They are well-known for falsifying reports and evidence. I'm not saying there is a better way to do the study. I'm just saying what you're saying.

a cop willing to murder a random person would easily also be willing to cover it up to save their own ass, obviously

Per police reports. Which will always say that!

Do you expect less than 74%? I thought it was a low number

I just don't think it's a good statistic

[deleted]

The whole unarmed bit is a large caveat though, and a hazy one too

I feel like there are several caveats here. For instance the study admits that blacks are more likely to be pulled over for traffic violations, even though, once they are, they aren't more likely to get shot. This still raises their risk of being shot, and if they are being pulled over because of racial profiling then blacks are still more likely to be shot by police because of their race. I guess the follow up question is "do white police stop black pedestrians and drivers more often than whites?" Also, the study doesn't break down the results by region, so if there were areas where unarmed black men get shot by police more often than the national average, it isn't addressed by this study

This still raises their risk of being shot, and if they are being pulled over because of racial profiling then blacks are still more likely to be shot by police because of their race.

Who says they are being pulled over due to racial profiling? According to the article

Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites, and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates.

The other thing you need to take into account is that low income high crime areas have a larger police presence. The unfortunate truth is that these also tend to be areas inhabited by a larger percentage of blacks and Hispanics than the general population.

Is this only once they’ve committed a traffic violation that they’re more likely to be pulled over? Or are they committing more traffic violations? Just curious

Yeah. And if you carry a pocket knife you're considered "armed". So it's no surprise that only 1% were carrying nothing, not even mace or a pocket knife at the time of their deaths.

This comment got me thinking. Couldn't find any reliable data about percentage of knife carry but in my experience I've met only a handful who carry knives everywhere they go. However I know several who carry a knife during work for utility.

Would be a interesting study.

Come to the midwest. Everyone has a pocket knife.

I'm in Texas and I carry a pocket knife and a multi-tool on me damn near everywhere I go.

I could see the Midwest having high carry percentage, especially outside the big cities. I live along the southern east coast.

But say in a city like New York, would you expect a carry percentage over 25% among the men? That's another thing, it could be relatively high carry among men but when it comes to women I know 0 who carry daily inside the city limits (urban areas).

Edit: majority of crime is committed by men so I know that it's not that relevant when it comes women carry percentage. Just a curious thought

I have a folding knife with a bottle opener and screwdriver on my keychain. You never know when you'll need to open a package or whatever.

This is true, I carry a cold steel code 4 tanto during the work week, great looking blade with some quality steel. However that's almost all utility and not the weapon I'm going to grab for in case of self defense most times.

Although, 65% of them were carrying firearms, so the people with knives are the minority.

We don't know that the other 35% were knives, it be a screwdriver or a car or a glass bottle.

A guy running away with a gun can still turn around and shoot you. But anyone running away with a melee weapon is not a threat to your life. Unless they have a knife out and they're running at another person, there's no justification for shooting a guy with a knife while he's running away.

Yeah, that's why I specifically mentioned, 'minority'.

It could be that 25% of all people shot by police are unarmed, but they tweak the definition of armed to spoof the stats. We just don't know.

Yes. That is why I mentioned the word, 'minority'. The unarmed/melee weapon/knife people are the minority, which is why I made sure to say that.

I don't know why you keep repeating that when I never disagreed with you or said anything contrary to that. I guess you just don't have anything of value to say so you repeat yourself as though you have a point.

You're repeating something simple that I already specified in my comment

Don't forget about when cops plant weapons. I imagine that's a big part of skewing the numbers

I wouldn't believe it to be a common enough situation to skew the data. That level of corruption and shittyness is an outlier.

We don't really know what the numbers are but you're probably right.

[deleted]

That's not nitpicking. Killing someone who is actively brandishing a weapon should be treated as categorically different from someone who merely has access to a weapon in the vicinity. One is an imminent threat, the other is merely a potential threat.

Also you're asking people hyped up on adrenaline, who are quite aware people want to kill them, to make a snap judgment when a suspected person makes a movement that could be grabbing a weapon. That's why you keep your hands where they can see them.

I saw a commercial for a movie about violence on the black population by cops, and the kid in question reached for a brush in his car at night and got shot. I'm white and I would have gotten shot for that.

Alternatively, train cops not to pull out guns at every possible opportunity. They are a last line of defense.

Their lives are also on the line whenever they put on the uniform, more so than anyone else.

Our culture glorifies hating on cops these days - going so far as to call for police killings.

Tell me how you would do.

Policing doesn't even make it into the top 10 most dangerous American professions. Logging has a fatality rate 11 times higher, at 127.8 per 100,000. Fishing: 117 per 100,000. Pilot/flight engineer: 53.4 per 100,000. It's twice as dangerous to be a truck driver as a cop—at 22.1 per 100,000.

Those are also fatalities related to accidents and environment - not that other humans want to kill you and the psychological damage that comes with that. I would say it's more appropriate to compare police officers to veterans who have seen combat than logging.

I mean, this data looks at fatality rate. The myth that Policing is one of the most dangerous jobs is exactly that, a myth.

Their fatality rate is as low as it is because of the fact they have the means to protect themselves. Tell me how a crab fisherman on a boat in the middle of the ocean protects himself from being flung off the boat in the middle of a storm...

There are good comparisons to make, and then therr arent.

[deleted]

Wait you mean it takes longer for emergency services to get to the middle of the pacific?!

[removed]

Man, the way you detailed how and why i was incorrect has me convinced. Well done.

Traffic cops probably lower that number quite a bit. I'd be interested in finding out what's the ratio of cop injuries/deaths per interaction with a suspect.

It's a hell of a lot more dangerous than the vast majority of all the other jobs out there.

But, can't you say the exact same thing about...any other job?

No?.. I'm in IT, how the hell could I say that about my job? Or any job where you sit behind a computer, for that matter?

It may or may not be more dangerous than say a fireman or coast guard's job, but it's still among the hardest and most dangerous jobs there are.

Funny you mention that. I'm in IT as well and I do in home and business calls and I also have clientele in the ghettos. I have been exposed to drugs, guns, roaches, needles and more. I have never been injured on the job or felt the need to defend myself. Some cops are in more dangerous situations than other cops. Same with many other careers.

And you think that's comparable to cops who go through the exact same situations, but have to actually confront the scum of our society? I'm not impressed that you haven't been hurt, you're in IT. It is not your job to confront, arrest, or take down violent criminals, which is insanely more dangerous than just walking through a bad neighborhood.

[deleted]

Do you have facts to back up that argument? Because according to the Data from 2017 only 41% of the only 192 who died nationwide were shot, stabbed, or beaten (53).

That's 53 LEOs out of between 750,000-850,000 total nationally. That's 0.000066% of the total officers (if we average to 800,000) nationwide.

Now I haven't searched to find out where those 53 officers were from, but if you want to do some digging to attempt to prove your point - it shouldn't be too hard since that number is so low.

[deleted]

Chicago for example?

Only one officer from Chicago died from violence in 2017. Prior to that, the most recent violent officer death was in 2011.

That's out of ~14,000 officers. 0.0000714% annually

That's the interesting thing about the data. It appears as though rural cops are in more danger, but even still that danger is very low statistically.

There are a lot of jobs out there. Very few have to deal with arresting drug addicts.

What's your point? You left a pretty open, ignorant statement.

My point is, that unlike workplace injuries like slips, falls, or machine malfuctions, police officers will way more encounter danger in the form of someone trying to hurt them.

I believe that the real ignorant statement comes from the individual that claims police don't have one of the most dangerous jobs.

[deleted]

? Fatality rates are fatality rates. The study I linked didn't even reduce it to firearm fatalities. In actuality, firearm related deaths of LEOs is even lower than the general fatality numbers. IIRC most LEOs that die on duty die from roadside accidents.

Edit: just looked at the 2017 data, police deaths from firearms only account for ~36% of the LEO deaths. Additionally, LEO deaths are incredibly low. In 2017 - 41% of the only 192 who died nationwide were shot, stabbed, or beaten (53). That's 53 LEOs out of between 750,000-850,000 total nationally. That's 0.000066% of the total officers (if we average to 800,000) nationwide.

No. Police are not soldiers. They are not an occupying force. Most of the time when police are injured it's traffic related anyway.

Comparing them to soldiers is less apt than comparing them to any other civilian profession.

And soldiers have more strict rules of using guns then cops do.

That should be the clearest indication of a police-side issue. The police are not there to kill--unlike the military. They should not have looser rules of engagement.

Exactly, all of this is a training issue.

Yup. And it’s really all kinds of training too. My uncle is a diabetic and had an attack on the road once. Cop pulled him over and thought he was drugged out (an old man) and threw him into the shoulder of the road and held his face down with force until the attack subsided. Police need to understand better how to manage a situation. This is true when it involves someone having a medical episode and when guns are involved.

[deleted]

The police do require more training though. No matter how you slice it. That’s the best way to address this problem.

Okay, but the police have looser rules of engagement than the military does. The police volunteer to become a cop. No one forces them to become one. They sign up for it. They know what they're doing. Other jobs are more dangerous. Cops should absolutely not be given freer reign to kill just because they get scared doing their job. The police are there to do a job. That job is to protect and serve and to enforce the law. If a cop is that easily spooked or that trigger happy, maybe they shouldn't be a cop.

Was there a draft? Pretty sure soldiers volunteer as well

The main point is that a) no one forces you to be a cop and b) the military has tougher rules of engagement than cops

My vote is to switch to non lethal bullets. Incapacitate the person instead of killing them. They’re no longer a threat AND they’re not dead! It’s a win-win.

[deleted]

Why is everyone's reaction to a "potential threat" to load it full of bullets? We're the only developed country in the world with such a militarized police force, yet cops in Canada, China, and Australia aren't getting killed left and right by criminals.

The problem is working under the assumption that everyone is actively dangerous and trying to kill you. If you take a dangerous job like a police officer, you should be willing to accept the risk that situations might go south, but it doesn't mean you should have license to freely fill anything you suspect could do you harm with bullets.

To use your example, anyone within 10 feet of anything that could possibly be used as a weapon would be a potential threat and should be dispatched on the off chance they may intend to do you harm. That's beyond insane, and violates every ideal behind due process, and gives these officers the ability to play judge, jury, and executioner.

Those places don’t have anywhere near the level of gang and gun crime that the US has. There is a subculture in the US that is strongly anti-police and it often overlaps the gang subculture, which quite often involves the use of illegally obtained guns.

You never know what kind of stop you’re getting into, there was a story around here of a guy getting pulled over because he ran a red light, and he was acting suspicious so they searched the vehicle and found 5+ pounds of meth and multiple illegal firearms. If any of those countries shared a large land border with a country like Mexico you would likely see the same thing. Although as it stands, the Chinese police aren’t exactly something you want to model yourself after. They may not be as militarized as the US, but I guarantee you the corruption runs much deeper.

Except they treat "fear of the unknown" as "potential threat".

You can extrapolate your entire thing to "cops can shoot anyone anytime" with 0 leaps of logic.

Someone could be bare naked holding nothing, but ten feet away from a gun and have every internal desire to get to that weapon and kill someone. That person is incredibly, imminently, dangerous.

The difference is intent. The problem with intent is in the moment nobody knows your intent but you. Because of this, police need to treat all potential threats as real threats.

Given: a cop can't know my intent.

Given: I could possibly have a gun within a few feet of my person hidden

Therefore: I could be a potential threat even without knowledge of any weapon, therefore my life is forfeit.

The police need to treat all actual threats as actual threats and use deadly force when appropriate. They need to treat potential threats as potential threats and stop treating them as actual threats. They're different.

That's why the threshold is usually 'would a reasonable person act in the same manner'.

Your strawman is already addressed by the law.

As the study states, this sort of data is not collected and so we have no way to split out the categories presently. I completely agree with you though that those should be distinct categories.

[deleted]

[deleted]

That's why we are told to follow an officer's instructions and to keep our hands where they can see them, so the cop doesn't have to play that guessing game.

Put your hands up and show me some id!

Just keep your hands where they are, and don't reach into your pocket for anything unless instructed. Easy.

But you were instructed I literally just said raise you hands AND show me id.

What's your point? Are you implying that is some norm that people face during police confrontations? People tried to claim that's what happened to Philando Castille and that was debunked immediately once the cam footage was released.

You should watch some police shooting videos on YouTube. You have zero respect for how quickly things can turn from someone being polite to a police officer to them pulling out a firearm and opening up.

Shocker - when you pick a dangerous job, sometimes it's dangerous. They accept that risk when they sign up for the job. Having a dangerous job doesn't give you license to violate due process and commit extra-judicial executions because you "feared for you safety".

The laws for police to justify they felt "imminent danger" should be the same as for a private citizen - their job title is irrelevant because it's something I chose. If I get into an conflict with someone, they reach for their waistband, and I immediately shoot them down, I'll go to jail as I should. A cop should be in the same boat.

Armed in this case includes people like philando castille who had a conceiled carry permit, or someone who has a pocketknife on them. Or even someone who has their hunting rifle in the trunk of their car at the time of the shooting.

[deleted]

Regarding Castile and conceilled carry:

"On November 16, 2016, John Choi, the Ramsey County Attorney, announced that Yanez was being charged with three felonies: one count of second-degree manslaughterand two counts of dangerous discharge of a firearm. Choi said, "I would submit that no reasonable officer knowing, seeing, and hearing what Officer Yanez did at the time would have used deadly force under these circumstances."[11] Yanez was acquitted of all charges on June 16, 2017.[12][13] The same day, the City of Saint Anthony fired Yanez.[14]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile

In castilles case he was just driving. He was randomly pulled over and he kept his hands visible while informing the officer that he had a gun, where it was and that he had a permit. That wasn't enough. He got shot where he sat without doing anything to antagonize the officer.

Yeah I'm gonna need some more info on that. The way you portray it can't possibly be reality.

Watch the video.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/06/21/philando-castile-shooting-dashcam-llr-orig.cnn

for the lazy...

For real? There is video of it and it has been out for ages now.

Google "castile philando"

It's pretty much exactly what happened. The NRA was not-surprisingly silent on the matter

The way you portray it can't possibly be reality.

Shows how ignorant you are of the shooting. Google is just a click away. Go look at the video

Watched the video.

The officer said Castile kept moving even though he told him not to, reaching down and putting his hand on something.

The cop asked him to get his wallet then told him not to move

If you think that was a justified shooting you're an imbecile. You're pretty much just looking for absolutely anything Castille did wrong to justify your own opinion.

You had a guy blatantly tell the officer by the book he had a gun. The officer panicked and shot him after Castille told him he wasn't reaching for a gun and thus already in compliance with the officers verbal command.

[deleted]

Yes a guy with a girlfriend and child in the car, who is doing everything he is supposed to do, given the overall context is extremely unlikely to use force against an officer.

I can't see in that video what the guy was doing, I've got the statement of the officer and that's about it. Did he probably shoot a guy that wasn't a threat? Yeah, I'd say so. Is that enough to send the cop to jail? Probably not.

If he had been wearing a body cam, I'd bet he would have gone to prison. But I'm not going to invent actions in my mind to fill an agenda and condemn a guy. That's not justice.

But I'm not going to invent actions in my mind to fill an agenda and condemn a guy

Please show me what I invented.

The reality is that he definitely shot a guy that wasn't a threat. We know that in hindsight. Castille stated loud and clear he wasn't reaching for the gun and the cop didn't listen or continue verbal commands.

You're inventing the fact that the officer didn't perceive him as a threat. You don't know that, and you can't prove a reasonable person in his shoes wouldn't have had that perception.

No, he didn't "invent the fact that the officer didn't perceive him as a threat". He said the guy wasn't a threat. You used the legal weasel-words perceived a threat. The idea that a perceived, non-real threat is worth the end of someone's life is ok... is morally reprehensible and mindnumbingly wrong.

You can nit pick if you want, but an armed person is an immediate threat

That completely depends on the definition of "armed" that the police use. Don't tell me what the dictionary says. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the police definition counts situations that most normal people wouldn't.

Being armed is an American right. People aren't threats for exercising their rights.

That's why if you're pulled over you let the officer know you have a weapon in your vacinity as a legal carrier.

If you hide it the question becomes why did you hide it.

Yep, letting the officer know you have a weapon solves all the issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile

And that officer was charged with manslaughter and 2 other felonies. It's one of the few times the system held a cop accountable.

Of course the jury left him off, but people are idiots, so that's not surprising.

Of course the jury left him off

Then he wasn't really held accountable, was he?

I mean, another way to look at it is that he has nothing to be held accountable for because he wasn't guilty of anything as decided by a jury of his peers.

I don't really buy that because I think the legal system is ridiculous. But in that case, the "system" did the right thing and held him accountable and charged him with crimes and brought him to trial. It was the citizens who messed up.

I also wonder about the mental state of that officer. How is the mental health resources for these cops? That discourse sounds like he was paranoid and terrified, which are human emotions.

Nonexistant as is the training there are very few places that have good deescalation training. Cops just aren't getting the training they need and the unions aren't helping

[deleted]

The fourth and fifth protects us to do illegal shit.

No, they protect you from unreasonable searches and having to testify against yourself. Nothing allows you to do illegal shit and get away with it.

Yeah, because one is up to illegal shit.

No, because the presumption has to be that you aren't.

If they actively see you committing a crime, that presumption is out.

The presumption is they just fought a war which required doing illegal shit.

[deleted]

That's the big takeaway I got from seeing these body cam videos. When the police tell you to do something, do it. Don't quickly stick your hands in your pocket or go for the glovebox. Or if you have your hands in your pockets all ready and they tell you to put them up, then do it. So many videos where the police yell at someone 5 times to put their hands up and they don't do it.

My problem is that I dont think that there is an exact definition by police standards, so while it is a big distinction, it doesn't have a set definition so far as I can tell, and it's not a particularly helpful one, because I don't know what it means.

It does have an exact definition in the paper though.

Yes and according to the paper, what was the definition?

You can nit pick if you want, but an armed person is an immediate threat

This is not true at all

[deleted]

I can carry a weapon and have zero intentions of using it in any fashion that could even be misconstrued as aggressive.

Also, exercising a constitutional right should not grant a permit for my murder. Standing on a corner and exercising your right to free speech by shouting about police brutality should not permit your death, and neither should a legally permitted firearm being unloaded but within the confines of my vehicle.

You're missing the underlying message here - carrying a weapon is fine while you are acting lawfully.

Start breaking the law and carrying a weapon becomes a reason to get shot.

Philando Castile was shot when an officer pulled him over while looking for a bank robbery suspect.

Jason Washington, veteran and CCW permit holder, was shot when his gun fell from his holster while trying to break up a fight he witnessed starting.

Gary Black, Vietnam veteran, was shot by police after finding a violent intruder assaulting his 11 year old grandson and shooting him in self defense. Police shot the man in his own home.

Breaking the law isn’t an automatic reason to be shot. Neither is simply being armed. You have to actually be a threat to justify being shot

Man looks like we need to go to Texas and start shooting all jaywalkers

There is a difference between things you get a citation for and criminal acts.

Jaywalking is a non-criminal act, you just get a ticket for it. Just like speeding (unless it's wreckless), or parking violations.

Is there? Cuz I thought crossing the border illegally was also a non-criminal act yet we still separated children from their parents

If you get in a fight while wearing steel toed boots, you can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon.

Just because someone is wearing boots, doesn't mean they're a threat which requires a deadly response.

You might say boots aren't weapons and I would agree, but the courts don't. So when they say 99% of these people were armed, my question is: "armed with what?"

That's why the post above said that being armed is a hazy distinction.

Boots aren't a weapon, boots have a legitimate purpose.

A hammer also has a legitimate purpose, but context is important. If you're a construction worker a hammer likely wouldn't be construed as a weapon immediately. If you're a guy in a gas station it would.

This is why the standard is "would a reasonable person" do whatever it is the cop did.

This comment chain is about how declaring someone as "armed" can be hazy. They wrote:

The whole unarmed bit is a large caveat though, and a hazy one too

It seems you agree that context matters. When the stats say the police shot an armed man, it could mean he had a gun, it could mean he had a hammer, or it could mean he had a multitool in his pocket that they found later. Having a hammer doesn't necessarily mean you are armed, but it could. Hence declaring someone as armed or unarmed is hazy.

You wrote:

an armed person is an immediate threat to the life of others

Just because a guy has a multitool, doesn't mean he is an immediate threat to the life of others. Context matters. If a guy takes out a hammer and he runs at the police, then the police shot an armed man who was an immediate threat. If a guy has a multitool on his keyring, that they police don't even know about, and he runs away from the police, then he is (a) not armed, and (b) not an immediate threat because you can't stab someone while running away. And yet in these stats, it would be classified as shooting an armed man.

If you have an object that is designed for violence (gun, knife, mace) then you are armed. If you have an object that is designed for some other purpose (baseball bat, multitool, hammer), then unless you are brandishing it and have clear intent to use it as a weapon, then you are not armed.

That said, the article does mention that 65% of the people shot by police had guns. So they were definitely armed. The other 35%, some of them definitely had knives they intended to use as weapons and some definitely had normal household objects that were declared weapons after the fact as a justification. Without going deeply into the specifics what weapons they were armed with and the circumstances of what made that object a weapon, we have no idea if police shootings are of unarmed people are 1% or 5%.

Yeah but my wallet is neither a weapon or a threat. The difference between Devonte and Johnny getting shot for being armed is what’s hazy.

So if I have a knife concealed in my boot and am running away from the cops, they can shoot me. Then they claim I was running towards them and had a knife. Boom, an armed aggressive suspect was justly taken down.

Then they claim I was running towards them

They don't even have to do that. If you have a knife in your boot and they shoot you while you're running away, you're counted in the stats as the police shooting an armed man. It could even be a multitool in your pocket with a 1 inch blade, you're still "armed."

That's why these stats need to specify how many people were armed with guns. Even if they're armed with a knife, unless they're coming at you or another person, you don't need to shoot them. England has shit loads of knife crime and the police there don't shoot people.

Fuck, that means a shit load of people aren't counted. My dad is 70 but carries a Swiss army knife. Oh and I have a pocket knife in the center console of my car.

Not if they're legally armed. A person who is legally armed isn't a threat merely by being armed. There is no legal justification to use force against someone simply because they are armed.

Correct. However, once they do something illegal the fact that they were carrying legally becomes moot. A legal weapon at a crime scene will illicit the same reaction as an illegal weapon.

Do you see what I am saying?

Yeah. If they commit a crime. But, that's not always the case. Like the recent shooting in Aurora. The man who was shot did nothing wrong and he was still gunned down in his own home by a trigger happy officer who should have never been given a gun.

That definitely does happen, but I'd say it's a lot rarer than people try to make it out to be.

How would you separate the justifiable from the unjustifiable?

Right like how mike brown was unarmed?

How is it hazy?

The suspect is either armed or unarmed.

It's hazy because a multitool, a screwdriver, a glass bottle, even steel toed boots have been ruled deadly weapons by courts.

If you read the article it would not be hazy. The percentage used in the stats was firearms as in guns. The remaining percentage was 'other' such as knives, clubs, etc.

65.3 percent of those killed possessed a firearm

That means 35% of people killed by police did not have guns. They might have had a baseball bat in the back seat and that would make them "armed." As if it was even possible for you to get a bat out the backseat, get out of the car, and hit the cop before he noticed something was up.

If you run at a cop with a bat, then you're armed. If you happen to have a bat somewhere in the vicinity, that doesn't make you armed. Anything can be labeled a weapon and that's why it's hazy.

What is your definition of armed?

There are lies, dammed lies, and stats.

But that is one CNN story every 3 weeks, so seems like it happens constantly.

How many white unarmed men are shot by police a year? Would be a good comparison and provide transparency to see what the relationship between the two are like. Actually just throw in other races too and see how it looks across all backgrounds.

Sticking with 2016 stats, those interactions resulted in 64 intentional killings of law enforcement officers by gunfire. LEO deaths for the year were 161, but I've only considered intentional gunfire for this point : in 2016, were you almost 4 (3.7) times as likely to be killed by deliberate gunfire as a cop than an unarmed black male?

Am I working through this incorrectly?

Source: https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2016

Saving this for future use in arguments

Lightning doesn't have agency, and isn't charged with protecting the civilian populace.

[deleted]

You wouldnt get the chance to say that when you're the victim.

This was only about the killing of black men, not shooting.

And to be even more fair, it's easy to be shot if not armed. If you are beating the shit out of a cop, and if those cops don't have tasers, you will get shot. So I'd say that of those 17 maybe less that 7 were actually real mistakes compared to killing someone that to anybody in that situation would believe is a deadly threat

Another huge issue is their definition of armed. How often do they claim they were armed because they were holding keys, or another random object? They claim to have feared for their life, even when that is absolutely outrageous.

There is also the instances like the man who disclosed to the officer that he had a firearm in the car. The officer asked for his license, and when he reached for his wallet the officer shot and killed him. That man would be considered armed, despite that not being a valid reason to have killed him at all.

These statistics are heavily skewed. Maybe these shootings are rare, but these findings in particular prove absolutely nothing, because the data they are using are from the police officer reports, that are the ones shooting and killing people. It's unreliable data.

[deleted]

No, it fails to account for the multiple things I stated. It is using biased, non-objective data to come to their conclusion. If there was an outside body making these reports, and not the officers that are actually doing the shooting, and they accounted for instances that someone was armed but not actively holding the weapon, I would have zero issues with this conclusion.

Using the reports written by officers doing the shooting, makes about as much sense as using a report from the people being shot at. It's going to be biased and skewed, and does not provide reliable results or conclusion.

"This supports what I already think, so it must be accurate"

[deleted]

Not all police interactions. If shootings aren't as common as they state, then an independent body coming in to investigate is not that odd. There are many watchdog groups requesting this access all the time.

I also don't believe that the entire data set will be skewed, but the problem is we have no clue by how much. 5%? 20%? 50%? 70%? We have no way of knowing. Again, I'm not even saying the conclusion is wrong, but it is unreliable. It could very well be 2 to 3 times as often, or could possibly be even less. There's no way to know though, because the data set is unreliable.

Even if all they did was have all officers start wearing body cameras, and have watchdog groups review the tapes after a shooting, then that would also be suffeciently non-biased. As it is, this conclusion tells us essentially nothing other than police write reports saying they were justified. Nothing more.

Body cameras are increasing everywhere. It will take time though.

Until then, we shouldn't take "studies" at face value. We should question the legitimacy of the results, and wait until we have a more reliable method, instead of taking these as irrefutable fact.

Except people are drawing conclusions that it is rampant. I have a hard time saying that the # of unarmed people killed by the police is so drastically fudged that it is unreliable. I have seen no proof otherwise.

I think it's crazy that the number of unarmed black men killed by police in 2016 is higher than the total number of people killed by Islamic terrorism in 2017 and 2018 combined: 15 (regardless of race and excluding the terrorist themself; according to johnstonsarchive.net)

Police in the United States are responsible for well in excess of 1,000 homicides annually (a number higher than most countries by two or more orders of magnitude) – some of their victims will be people armed with a pocket knife, walking menacingly with a purpose.

Your statistic means less than nothing, and neither does the absurd implication that if someone was "armed" they clearly deserved to be killed – even if "armed" should mean "presently holding a gun" and as opposed to "being within the same car as a spork" as it's presently defined.

We also have more guns than other countries. Someone else stated here that like 70% of police fatalities occurred where the person shot had already brandished a weapon or fired shots. Of course there's 30% where they haven't, but that could be any number of things. Nobody is perfect, a situation can go from peaceful to dead in seconds. There's plenty of videos showing this. Do you have any statistics showing how many fatalities are from "being within the same car as a Spiro" or a gun in the trunk? Or are you just providing your own bias and assuming it's some large number without actually knowing?

We also have more guns than other countries.

Which clearly isn't a huge threat to the police because:

  • police officer is one of the safer jobs involving physical labor in America – with nowhere near the occupational fatalities of roofing, logging or construction, for example

  • the biggest occupational threat to police is non pursuit vehicular accidents

and

  • you're several times more likely to be shot or murdered as a cab driver than as a police officer

That's according to the BLS, DoJ, FBI.

Someone else stated here that like 70% of police fatalities occurred where the person shot had already brandished a weapon or fired shots.

Someone else here mentioned that lizards faked the moon landing. Data and sources please.

It's like a few comments down from here... http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/news/2015/10/25/washington-post-overwhelming-number-of-police-shootings-justified.aspx

Also, comparing police officers to loggers and roofers doesn't make any sense. The deaths there come from accidents, not from the trees attacking them or the roofs coming at them. Cops have to make snap decisions because they interact with other humans who frequently want to escape/do them harm. They are apples and oranges.

Also the cap drivers, I still don't see the point of bringing up that statistic. Cops deal with people who are dangerous and criminal many times. Cabbies are like roaming stores with money that stay open really late. I'm not surprised more die than cops, but that still isn't part of their job.

It's like a few comments down from here...

That is not a source.

Also, comparing police officers to loggers and roofers doesn't make any sense.

Comparing occupational fatalities between occupations makes sense because it tells you how dangerous those occupations are, as compared to one another.

The deaths there come from accidents, not from the trees attacking them or the roofs coming at them.

As I literally just said, the same is true for the police. Most deaths are from accidents which they either caused or were incidentally involved in.

Those are really tiny numbers, I'm pretty sure cops kill more than that. Where did you get those stats from?

WaPo which uses FBI and police statistics plus news reports and tips around the country. It's actually that small. The news absolutely blows it out of proportion.

Ive literally looked at the fbi.govs stats to crunch out some stats. I'm telling you those numbers are too small. Try looking up the fbi stats

You're right. They are too few. And even FBI stats are opt-in by police departments, which is laughable. WaPo methodology is shot and killed rather than just killed. Taking 2016, for example, police managed to kill 208 additional people with their cars, tazers, hands, etc. that WaPo didn't include in their data.

WaPo 2016
killedbypolice.net 2016

And the person you're replying to, like every unoriginal police apologist, likes to convert human lives to a percentage to make it sound like everything is butterflies and sunflowers. However, a better comparison would be the amount of people killed by police vs. the amount of people killed by terrorists. This is a statistic that is shared often on social media, because it increases frequently--last I remember seeing it, we were around 60x more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist (domestically), nowadays. It's so absurd, that the number of police killings in just the last few years are higher than the amount killed by terrorists domestically since, and including, 9/11.

Yeah i knew those numbers didn't look right. Good catch there.

No number of unarmed people being shot is acceptable. The fact that there's no legal consequences for police brutality is where the outrage is coming from.

Thank you! They are using descriptions that are not objective measures and misrepresent the gravity of the data, in my view. How does one quantify the value or significance of the deaths that DO occur?

Lightning isent racist, and More harm happens than just shootings. Stop trying to make this look not horrible

The facts are facts. Sorry you don't like them.

The facts are the facts, but the facts happen to be very remote from the fabrications in your post.

Based on WHAT? What facts do you present that show these statistics are wrong?

Based on it being nonsense. We can't even properly estimate the number of police homicides, because the FBI has decided that their legal duty to keep record was more of a polite suggestion, and state/municipal governments don't bother keeping count. We know that this rate per capita – at its minimum is absolutely horrifying when compared against the rest of the world not presently in a state of civil war.

And here you are, relying on a definition of armed so permissive that it's essentially meaningless, as reported by the police departments themselves, to give you no useful information whatsoever about a subset of circumstances that you've casually deflated from 1000-1200 to zip.

So your methodology is silly, your conclusions are non-conclusions and you also you can't seem to do basic arithmetic, but that's beside the point.

You think 1000-1200 unarmed people are killed every year by the police? What are you talking about? You think that 1000-12000 people armed are killed by police every year? Also false. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/?utm_term=.8b6d87758cba They track police shootings above and beyond the reporting of the FBI/police. So seriously, what are you talking about? What are you talking about with my definition of armed is so permissive it is meaningless? Do you have any proof the definition is permissive? Any proof that armed is defined as a weapon within 15 feet of the victim or in a trunk of a car? Do you have any proof of anything other than your own words? Do you have any proof that a significant percent of those 700ish police fatalities are secretly unarmed? No. You don't have any proof of any of this. You just don't like the data so you dismiss the data. You don't even have a methodology. Your "methodology" is the police are bad and therefore this data is wrong. You rip on my methodology (not my methodology because I didn't write this paper or track the shootings myself). This is a ridiculous conversation and I'm not going to reply further because you don't make any sense. Also can't do basic arithmetic? About 300 people are struck by lightning. 7% of the population is a black male. 300 x .07 = 21 black men. WaPo says 17 unarmed black men were shot and killed by police. Now that I've written out the math for you, can you keep up?

You think 1000-1200 unarmed people are killed every year by the police? What are you talking about? You think that 1000-12000 people armed are killed by police every year? Also false.

Nearly every post you have made in this thread has been a total lie or shameless fabrication.

Updated estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics released in 2015 estimate the number to be around 930 per year, or 1240 if assuming that non-reporting local agencies kill people at the same rate as reporting agencies

source

Any proof that armed is defined as a weapon within 15 feet of the victim or in a trunk of a car?

Yes. Read the study and not the title. You can do so by clicking on the hyperlink with your left mouse button.

We're done.

When you look at in that light we spend and insane amount of time and energy arguing/complaining about this issue.

So your point is that.... If an unarmed black man sees a police officer nearby, then he should be slightly less scared than if he sees lightning nearby ?

I don't exactly skip freely down the street during thunderstorms, I don't think this is a good metric to make your point.

Lightning it's some completely random occurrence... hence why most people don't wander around outside during thunderstorms. I'm pretty sure simply staying inside during a storm significantly lowers your likelihood of being struck by lightning...

It's not like you are just as likely to be struck by lightning on sunny spring day vs. a horrendous thunderstorm.

They are all sorts of variables which may or may not contribute to being shot unarmed... and I've clearly seen at least one video of a black guy getting shot on a relatively routine traffic shot that would be hard to avoid....

It’s statistics, not looking at the few outliers. It’s math.

Some things can be done to avoid lightning just like some things can be done to avoid police.

Being a roofer with a random storm rolling in could lead to being struck by lightning despite all your intentions to the contrary or even though you “didn’t do anything wrong.”

While on the opposite end you could get pulled over and then shot....

The second one is just less likely to happen.

Lightning strikes are rare. So are police shootings, especially unarmed ones. That's where the comparison ends.

You guys are funny. Getting shot without being killed is an iasue, and being "roughed up" would still be an issue. It's also often not a crime just to be armed, and certainly shouldn't be a death sentwnce by itself when someone is armed.

Considering the police in the US kill more per year than police in the UK have ever killed since records have been kept, I think that it's less rare than you think it is.

We can't control lightning. We can control state agents murdering people who pose no threat.

Killing 60 unarmed people out of 330,000,000 with 70,000,000 police interactions is pretty negligible statistically. Not to mention unarmed doesn't mean innocent.

Again, the police in the UK haven't killed 60 people (armed or otherwise) in the last 150 years give or take a decade. (That may not be quite true. On my phone and I don't have the exact numbers but it's less than 100 people)

Innocence is irrelevant. In any other civilized country in the world, most would have lived thru the interaction.

That's an extremely unfair comparison. People don't think of lighting striking people as common, but it is. A valid comparison is comparing the shooting rates to other 1st world countries, in that regard, the US is a total and complete outlier, with US police averaging about 1,000 kills annually, and no other country even breaks double digits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country

The US is also vastly different than other 1st world countries in terms of guns. And lightning strikes aren't common. There's only 300 a year, and only 40ish result in death. So dying of lightning is rarer than being shot by the police but being struck by it isn't.

TIL lightning is more racist than the police

The problem is that no number above zero is acceptable until it's more white people dying.

More white people are dying already...

Well, comparing the rates rather misses the point of getting justice for those who were killed. I hope this is not used to dismiss concerns over acute police brutality.

Why? They are just the truth. It doesn't make any commentary on police brutality.

....the entire paper is about police brutality. The commentary is in what they chose to measure. I don't think it's political, but the vast majority of the comments here don't make a distinction between the conversations people are having and strawman arguments about the frequency of shootings.

[deleted]

And how many shot at the lightning first?

And did the lightning have a college degree, or can any uneducated sociopath become lightning after 6 months at fear school?

Sure, and how many armed white people were not shot?

"Armed" can be a reasonable justification for a police shooting, but preferentially shooting armed black men vs. armed white women, say, would simply be prejudice, unless you think a Glock in the hands of a white women is less lethal or something.

I do not think the statistics you request exist. That would be an impossible number to discover. I would imagine the numbers are small since women statistically are less violent in ways that would result in a police shooting.

Being armed and shot vs not getting shot mostly comes down to compliance. Obviously there are outliers that make headlines, but there are thousands every year that work out fine and never hear about.

I would imagine the numbers are small since women statistically are less violent in ways that would result in a police shooting.

I.e. police have a belief (possibly justified, but actually that doesn't matter at all... that's the textbook definition of prejudice and racism) that black men are more likely to be violent, and therefore assume that a random man who happens to be black will be violent, because they are black. Innocent black men are still innocent, and indeed the percentage of black men that are violent is still quite low... most black men are innocent. It's just a higher percentage than the percentages for other races, perhaps.

Of course. I agree. It's not surprising though that higher crime rates result in higher shootings. Regardless of the reasons.

[deleted]

Then, that begs the question, why are these rare cases over-publicized?

To sell papers, and for clicks and views, of course. So, media companies for profit, fracture society and degrade race relations. Makes you wonder, who the real enemy of the people is: the "evil" police or greedy media companies. I wish journalistic ethics would improve.

Question is, is there any way for us to stop journalists from doing it. I can tune out, but most are not.

Sure, but who owns the media?

Blaming journalists for editorial decisions is like blaming the cashier because the store doesn't stock your favorite cereal anymore.

The establishment rich are the ones profiting off our distraction.

I wish journalistic ethics would improve.

Don't say that, or they'll throw you in the hole with the rest of us!

why are these rare cases over-publicized?

Because so many of them seem like blatant tyranny by the cops. For every time we hear a story about a black kid reaching into his coat and getting shot pulling out what turned out to be a cellphone (in which case, I sorta get why the cop would panic), there is another about a cop whose victim was behaving in a peaceful, cooperative manner, and then getting shot for shits and giggles. No matter how rare the latter cases are, they are always unacceptable. The rater of that shit should be "zero."

[deleted]

Wait, so you seriously think "cops not killing people who don't deserve it " is the same thing as "criminals not doing crime"? Man I wanna live in your world.

Also "I can tell you're young"? I can tell you're ignorant and arrogant just by that statement. I wish you the best in improving yourself before someone really takes offense to it. Good luck.

What does age have to do with wanting a better world?

Because if you're young, you haven't given up on changing it.

Damn who knew that police being held accountable was such a horrible thing to want

There exist no countries where the crime rate is zero. But there exist many nations where in the last year no cop shot an unarmed person. Just sayin'...

[deleted]

https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-shootings-statistics

Apparently Japan and Britain had 0 shootings at all (armed or unarmed).

Hmm fair enough. It's a little ambiguous as to which year that's from though, I thought I remembered there were at least terrorists killed by police in U.K. last year, right? Although they would have been armed, which is an entirely different stat.

If you had lived in an other developed country it would be obvious to you that most years there is no police shooting at all. The main reason isn't that police officers are better trained (although they might be) but that they know with pretty high certainty that they are not going to encounter armed people (at least armed with guns).

17 people of all races or 17 people of african descent?

Because people are dumb and our psychology is easily manipulated... only thing we can do as the customers being marketed to is try and notice when it is happening and then actively rebel against it/ the company who is trying to manipulate us...

We aren’t that coordinated though, so instead we’ll divide ourselves into the group who believes click bait headlines and the other group who will actively work to dig further and find unbiased research/ statistics to hopefully spread the knowledge and shut out the ignorant group if they fail to see reason and change their opinion based on real life facts and stats.

Basically if we stop playing their game then we’ll find ourselves in a much better place... we’re just too simple minded as a species and there’s a lot of rich media moguls who know that.

The media are the enemy of the people

Then, that begs the question, why are these rare cases over-publicized?

Because the supposed protectors of communities shouldn't be executing civilians?

And they very rarely do. The number should be zero, I'm sure we can all agree on that, but let's not pretend there's some citizens vs police war going on in the streets. Media makes it seem that way sometimes and it really doesn't help anyone.

If anything it exacerbates the problem.

Should the media not cover instances of police killings then? Even if they are rare, coverage of state violence is extremely important

[deleted]

You are complaining that the only reason police violence seems so pervasive is bc it is so widely covered...so do you think the media should not publicize these events?

The media covers these cases because so many of them are outrageous and there's never any accountability.

These cases are extremely rare. Did you not click on the link?

Them being rare has nothing to do with wjat I was saying.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Also to point out the "patrol dangerous areas". Most officers don't just drive around where ever they please. Most have set areas they patrol. That's to help cut down on response time.

Then with patrolling dangerous areas, that adds even more danger to the cop patrolling. Then what happens when majority of the cops on the road are patrolling that one area? They would have to be constantly in contact with one another crowding the radio to make sure that doesn't happen.

Instead, they get told an area to go. Usually the same area every day. Which then when a call comes in, the closest one to that point and is not dealing with another call is dispatched. It's the most efficient way to do it.

If you have officers doing whatever they please, going where ever. You'd see a dramatic increase in response time. Which is already an issue in a lot of areas.

I understand this. I was referring to the dangerous areas within their assigned area. Sitting around parked is not helpful. Patrolling your area and in particular the parts of it where the most crime has historically occurred. In my city officers are designed to specific “neighborhoods.” Rather than just cruising down the main roads, the good officers patrol throughout the entire neighborhood.

One of the officers is actually a good friend of mine and longtime neighbor, but his area was recently changed. I have discussed body cams and police interactions with him in depth. I’m not ignorant of the inner workings of police departments

Saved lives > everything else. Period.

So you are in favor of making cars illegal? That would save a thousand times more lives than anything you could do to cops.

No amount of convenience for police officers is worth even a single innocent death.

So does the same apply to you? If so, you should never drive a car, because the convenience is not worth even a single death and cars cause more death than any other non-health-related thing. Or does "no amount of convenience" only apply to people who aren't you?

People only say that they think saving lives is more important than anything else when it affects people other than themselves and they haven't thought it through very much.

I am not in favor of completely outlawing cars because society as a whole would completely collapse. However, I do support many ways to make cars much safer than they are now. However, that’s not the topic of discussions.

Instead of attacking me as a person, who you do not even know I might add, maybe stay on topic and discuss the topic at hand which is body cams.

Saving lives is more important than anything else. If by me never driving again, lives would be saved then, yes, why would I not choose to use other forms of transportation? If there ever comes a time when I think I’m not fit to drive or if my eyesight or some other condition makes me unfit to drive then I will not.

However, returning to the subject at hand, wearing a body cam does not even inconvenience an officer as much as not driving. You are simply adding a small, lightweight camera that is strapped to their protective vest. It is not very much to ask of them

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Dude's ego is through the roof. Literally saying,

"Police officers are more equal than anyone else and deserve more privacy. Everyone else who has their actions filmed needs it because they are not police."

[deleted]

Not strapped to the chest but watching their every move, yes. Have you not worked any of those jobs where you're on camera?

Police are barely trained professionals. You don't even need a degree to become a cop. You act like 6 months is a long time and makes you a professional. I went to school for six years and have five years experience in industry and I'm still considered mid level in Aerospace. In your mind I must be a senior expert.

It also shouldn't preclude them from having to be held accountable. I don't care if Academy lasted 10 years. That's not even a salient reason to not be recorded.

My friend works as a production engineer for a cryomanufacturer working with lyophilized materials. Every single step he takes is recorded as part of GMP process and every actionable item requires extensive write-up. His schooling obliterates anything a LEO would have to go through. So there's your apples to apples since you have so little respect for hardworking lathe machinists and restaurant floor managers.

I said they SERVE the public, not that they work for the public. Your continuous strawmanning, non-sequiturs, and fallacious reasoning show me EXACTLY the kind of person that believes police shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Thanks for confirming what I already knew about people who shirk personal responsibility.

[deleted]

Luckily, these people were recording and exposed this officer's insidious behavior. If we had it your way and the citizens had not been recording, there would be no record of this cop being evil and he would continue terrorizing laws abiding citizens.

This happens all the time. I didn't even need to search for an instance where recording showed wrongdoing because it happened today.

Cameras protect the innocent. Anyone who opposes cameras wants to protect the corrupt.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

You're focusing on the wrong thing. Again, it's not that any of this stuff is undoable. It's that it is another thing that has to be decided, usually by committee, usually over the span of multiple meetings that involve elected officials at City, county, and state levels. It's not an overnight process.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I absolutley believe that stricter hiring processes and higher pay would lead to a better police presence. Better candidates often find work doing something that will pay more than what officers make. I'm not trying to disrespect your brother in law or any other officers, but it seems sometimes that being an LEO is a last resort if they fail to make it elsewhere.

Probably so! Law enforcement risk their lives, the least the government could do is actually pay them for it.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Officer involved shootings is a mere drop in the bucket of all homocides. It's an issue socially, but not really a large one statistically.

Correct. By "a prime example" I mean "of particular relevance to this discussion."

I like you, man. I think we'd get along over a beer. You seem reasonable and informed.

Aww, thanks!

[removed]

Find a place where I said he was wrong. All I said is that the data provided is insufficient to support a factual claim that rates of committing crime are higher because the data are about rates of being charged with crimes.

Edit: Here is a link to a Pew Research article that highlights the problem with treating criminal charge rates as if they were criminality rates:

Less than half of violent crimes in the US are even reported to police. And less than half of those that are reported are "cleared" (result in arrest, charging and referral of a suspect for prosecution).

TL;DR: it is irresponsible science to treat charge rates as if they were criminality rates.

I agree with your TLDR, but how can you say any amount of violent crimes go unreported, with any certainty, when they weren't reported?

Reported to police. The linked article has a detailed description of their sources

Okay, so they asked 90,000 people if they've been victims of a violent crime and if they reported it. That's a tiny sample size out of 350million people. I'm always skeptical of these kind of polls because who you choose to question will dictate your results. Age, location, income, race etc.

Also, that doesn't really mean much as the FBI stats are for criminal charges not unreported reported violent crimes.

That is exactly the point I am making here. You can't support a claim about crimes committed with these data. You can only support a claim about crimes charged.

90,000 households. The number of people interviewed was ≈160,000. The study used a rolling random sample of addresses where each households selected remains in the sample for three years (meaning about ⅓ of the household are replaced annually). This survey is collected every year. You should read the methods in the original report the Pew article is summarizing; the methods are really surprisingly good.

They also report 95% CIs, so you can decide for yourself whether 90k households is sufficient to make an inference. The β for this large of a sample is really high. With some back-of-the-envelope math these numbers mean you end up with a margin of error for the 95% CI of less than half a percent. For some reason this sub attracts a lot of people who know enough about stats to pay attention to sample size, but not enough to know how quickly ratio of n/N becomes unimportant for sufficiently large values of n.

I admit I think I'm one of those you described. My knowledge of statistics is weak, beyond the basics.

Thank you for the explanation, I find that very helpful in understanding the nuance of the study.

[removed]

The study also found that less than 1 percent of victims of police killings were unarmed. Across all racial groups, 65.3 percent of those killed possessed a firearm at the time of their death.

Where's the other 34%?

edit: yeah, other weapons (knives, bats etc.), makes sense. Thanks for the response :D

lead pipes. knives. suicides vests. chainsaws. infinity gauntlets. etc.

Crowbars and small thermonuclear devices.

Definitely some anomalous material.

Wonder if the Gravity Gun counts.

They're including people with guns in their possession, such as in the car or in the house where they were shot. They explain it in the following paragraph.

That seems completely against the spirit of a justified shooting. If the weapon is only found after, or wasn’t within reach of the victim, why is the fact that a weapon exists even relevant?

Justification is based on the information the cop has at the time of the shooting. If someone calls in a domestic abuse situation for example and says the abuser owns a gun then regardless of if the gun is locked in a safe or on the person the cop goes into the situation assuming it's on the person. However that doesn't justify shootings where there was no information about a weapon and no cause to suspect one.

I'm pretty sure that there are rules about possession, and I know car counts (I believe you have to be in the car or able to access the car), but I'm not sure about house.

Knives? Other weapons?

Probably had some other kind of weapon, like a knife.

Wouldn’t it be knives, bats, etc?

Cans of whoopass

Using something that isn’t a firearm

I would assume stuff like knives and pipes.

They are also including firearms and I would suspect random weapons in vehicles as "in possession" I would also not be surprised if they counted any knives or guns in a house as "in possession". So basically, if you have a pocket knife in your trunk it makes you an "armed" suspect.

TIL I've been a justified killing/posed a threat to an officer's life every time I've been pulled over, since I usually have a baseball bat in the trunk.

This study is frighteningly misleading.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

As MSM dies a slow, painful death, their reporting is only going to get more and more inflammatory. Luckily, people seem to be getting better at discerning when the media is creating news instead of reporting it.

Luckily, people seem to be getting better at discerning when the media is creating news instead of reporting it.

Reddit's news subs suggest that's nonsense.

I can't argue that. However, a year or two ago I never would have thought we could have a reasonable discussion about a topic like this on a default sub.

Although this sub is heavily moderated, the discussion has been very fruitful (at least for me) and I have learned a lot.

I hope this study finds it's way into the mainstream media and people can analyze and discuss the findings with civility.

I wouldn't go as far as twist our view points. It's more sensationalize. Head lines sell newspapers and draw viewers.

I don't think they're twisting in some malicious, premeditated manner, so much as grabbing on to societally popular things, and then amplifying it, because that's what drives revenue.

I'd agree, foe the most part. I think it's more politically driven than we'd like to believe, however.

The NYT just hired someone with a consistent history of racebaiting encompassing hundreds if tweets over the course if years. When they were called out, they doubled down, as did many other media sources.

It is 100% malicious and premeditated. They do not deny it.

As they say "if it bleeds, it leads"

When do you think it started like this, like I'm genuinely curious when yellow journalism like some current news started

Total speculation:

In the context of what might (in the context of the present article) be called overblown emphasis on certain news items, my guess is that it started as (i) a small, mostly ordinary (maybe slightly politicized) news item, (ii) picked up by a well-connected Twitter group and amplified to some popularity, (iii) news organizations pick up similar stories and report on them more loudly because they're popular, (iv) more Twitter storms, (v) repeat: people start seeing patterns, there's pressure to publish the results of more in-depth investigations, etc.

In that sense, there's a feedback loop between news media's desire to publish news people care about, and the public caring about things it knows about (ie things that are reported on). With a more connected populace, that feedback loop just gets stronger.

As u/slipperyfrob said, I think social media has certainly exacerbated the issue. I'm still fairly young, but I believe I've seen it get worse as the internet has exploded. People have a wealth of information at their fingertips and 24/7 access to news. News companies are vying for spots at the top in a very narrow field. I also think that once social media took precedence, the government quietly started placing tabs and influencing views. That's the outrage we've seen in only this past year alone.

I'm sure, however, it was a slow fade.

The Justine Damond case was pretty highly publicized though?

I tend to follow the majority of officer involved shootings so it's hard for me to get a exact read on the amount of attention a specific one gets. I'm basing my assumption off of rarely, if ever, I've seen her name mention in social media circles (other than reddit of course) and news that flash across the tvs inside the gym. Or my local evening news to add.

There are videos online of Castille and Rice being shot, and no officer was held accountable even though both won wrongful death civil suits. There's no public video showing the murder of Damond, and the officer hasn't been found innocent yet.

If there was no tape of Castile and Rice being shot, most likely they'd have been found guilty in the court of public opinion and only Black Lives Matter would care.

Philando Castille and Tamir Rice

I don't. Never heard of Philando Castille. Tamir rice sounds familiar but don't know anything about them or even if they're a man or a woman.

Some tides have turned. For decades, no one knew the Philando Castilles and Tamir Rices of their day. Now, since people have brought attention to these sorts of things, we have people like you saying how the media's all skewed. We shouldn't leave anyone behind, but the fact that anyone knows Tamir Rice is somewhat of a miracle. I find it odd when people are upset.

The problem with that type of thinking is that it cannot be supported or argued against. Because according to you it isn't reported until recently. So instead your forced to wait until the next Philando Castille, Justine Damond, Daniel Shaver, Andrew Finch, Stephon Clark..... (the list goes on) happens and then you claim "See! Police are murderers!"

All without acknowledging the millions of police interactions that don't result in a death or misconduct.

Sure, there are millions of police interactions that don't lead to the death of civilians, but you still can't deny that police killings in America far outnumber those of other Western countries. And I know this isn't a study of just police killing of innocent or unarmed civilians, but killing of unarmed people is also a massive outlier. Whether you argue if this is a race problem, or a gun problem with police ownership and civilian ownership, or a training problem (my stance is that it's probably a combination of all 3), I don't see how you can deny this is an actual problem in the US.

Also, saying "millions of police interactions don't result in death" doesn't suddenly invalidate all of the ones that do or make it less of a problem.

I agree with most of the things you've mentioned. And I believe every officer involved shooting should be looked at individually and indiscriminately.

And I won't deny that police killings in America out number those in other developed nations. At least no more than I can deny that America has some of the highest number of violent crimes committed (violent crimes being the most likly to be involved in a police use of deadly force) then other developed nations.

On the other hand, violent crime has been dropping in the US (and the rest of the world for that matter) for decades.

So it's not like there is no progress being made. In fact by almost every metric the US and the world at large is a significantly better place that it was just a decade or two ago, but you wouldn't know that listening to the media.

Remember that bad news outsells good news by a wide margin, so you're only ever hearing the worst of things.

How much do you want to bet the cop who shot justine damond will go to jail and the cops who shot rice and castille did not. I'm willing to bet any amount of money, the local police union arn't even supporting the cop in the damond shooting.

If you're trying to make it a race issue about the victim I would like to politely remind you of Walter Scott.

If not then I'll just say that each situation merits its own response and reaction. All three have different circumstances and reasons leading up to the shootings up to and including the traffic stop and 911 tapes. To lump them together, IMO, is disrespectful to each personal experience and makes it just another number to the grieving families.

If you're trying to make it a race issue about the victim I would like to politely remind you of Walter Scott.

The officer in the Walter Scott case was never even convicted, despite a video of him shooting Scott in the back, and then lying about what happened. His first case was declared a mistrial because a juror wanted to find him not guilty, and then he eventually pleaded guilty after the first trial.

Are you complaining because he plead guilty over a jurors conviction? Has it really gotten that bad that people are upset over that?

He's serving twenty years, and rightfully so. Justice was served. There's much better examples of police favoritism in the justice system then that one.

It seems not that he pleaded guilty over being convicted by a jury. It’s that there was a jury trial and he wasn’t convicted, despite a clear video of him shooting someone in the back multiple times and then lying about the circumstances surrounding the shooting. Even with all of that evidence, he still wasn’t convicted.

The Australian government and media have been exerting a fair bit of pressure in Justine Damonds case to get justice which surely puts her case in a unique and uncomparable catergory to the other two.

I'm going to repeat one of my earlier comments:

I've always been skeptical of the claim that poverty leads to crime. I think it's far more likely that poverty and crime are both symptoms of a deeper underlying issue. Hispanic immigrant communities, for instance, are just as impoverished as black communities but have nowhere near the same homicide rate.

A significant number of studies have shown that graduating high school and waiting until marriage to have kids are the two strongest indicators when it comes to escaping poverty and entering the middle class, and blacks have the largest number of single parent families and the second highest high school dropout rate behind Hispanics. If you compare high school graduation rate and rate of single parenthood by race, it aligns almost perfectly with the poverty rate for their respective groups.

In summary, I think there's strong evidence that upbringing plays a much larger role in whether you're a successful, law-abiding citizen than impoverishment.

This reminds me of 3 rules of staying out of poverty written by Brookings Institution:

  1. Graduating from high school.

  2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

  3. Having a full-time job.

And this is where black churches fall down on the job in a spectacular fashion. Churches are still the hub of the community, and by embracing the pro life movement, instead of the pro-contraception movement, they contribute to the problem.

[removed]

There absolutely is a pro-contraception movement, especially in the developing world. Contraception use is tied to so many positive outcomes, which is why it is pushed in places like Africa. Unfortunately, religious dogmatists like to conflate contraception with abortion, and fight tooth and nail against it.

I'm going to need sources before I take your word on that.

Who is "fighting tooth and nail" against contraception? How many? Where exactly?

The vast majority of the pro-life movement is pro-contraception, pro-adoption, pro-abstinence and pro-motherhood. As far as I'm aware the number of people opposed to contraception is so small that they barely register in the national conversation. The people who give them the most attention are the pro-abortion groups who try to hold them up as straw-man exemplars of their opposition ("Oh, no! They want to take away your contraception! Vote for us!") when in reality this simply isn't true for the majority of their opposition.

Regardless, the black statistics on abortion are irrefutable. If black churches are indeed influential advocates for the pro-life movement, they're doing a remarkably poor job at it, or simply don't have anywhere near the influence you seem to believe they have.

[removed]

Did you know all your birth control options at 16-17? How about in a school that doesn't care about you?

Are you saying the average black person in the States is too clueless to drive to Walmart, then purchase and use contraception?

For me, the contraception discussion has nothing to do with race and everyting to do with education. It seems like many people (especially young people) don't know as much about contraception as they should:

many fail to use the most effective methods or use them incorrectly or inconsistently, resulting in ill-timed or unwanted pregnancies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/well/live/contraception-for-teenagers.html

Yes, educating the public on the efficacy of contraceptives is important for public safety. This is true of any population. I did not specify any group, despite your obviously disingenuous concerns.

Is it not holding down a full time job?

[deleted]

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. If that were true then we'd see a rise in crime as income inequality increases, but the crime rate in the USA has been declining for decades and is at the lowest point since 1963, all while income inequality has been increasing. Also, as I mentioned, Hispanics are just as poor as black communities but have nowhere near the same homicide rate.

[deleted]

I've already skimmed it. It's just one study, and not a very compelling one. It also doesn't address my issue in a satisfactory manner. There are tons of studies like this that draw tenuous correlations but without conclusive evidence of causation it doesn't mean much.

EDIT: I want to address this comment:

The statistics don't care if you don't buy it. It's the truth as beared out by the statistics. Feel sorry for yourself, not me. Doesn't make a difference in the world to me if you're ignoring hard evidence.

You do realize that statistics from one study aren't conclusive evidence of anything, correct? Statistics are useful for identifying patterns, and given enough time and enough studies with enough data, they can provide compelling evidence for certain pehomena, but don't get ahead of yourself by thinking statistical correlation in a single study is "hard evidence" of anything.

Correlation does not imply causation I believe is the saying.

If he's arguing for correlation then I'm mistaken, but he literally said that relative poverty causes crime (or at least contributes in a large way), so that's how I was interpreting the remainder of his comments.

You are clearly set on your own ideas and unwilling to look at others. A terrible mindset for someone that expects other people to listen to your ideas.

Since when is not finding a specific study compelling the same as closed mindedness? It sounds like you have an agenda more than you're interested in the merit of a particular study.

Feel free to argue the merit of the study and prove me wrong, but don't assume to know my motives or mindset.

We have to assume your motives, because you vaguely mention that this doesn’t prove anything in an “satisfactory manner,” but we don’t know what you consider that to be. Your lazy responses force people to assume what your mindset is.

It's no more lazy than posting a study and just claiming it addresses my concerns without any explanation.

You're not forced to assume anything. If you want clarification, just ask.

I skimmed the study and didn't see where it addressed either of my concerns in a substantial way:

  • Income inequality has been rising in the USA for several decades, all while the crime rate has been declining substantially over the same period of time.

  • Hispanic (and Asian) communities are nearly as poor as black communities but have nowhere near the same homicide rate.

How does the study address these two issues? Point them out or explain them and we can discuss. I'm not above being proven wrong, but I do expect more participation than simply linking to a study and claiming the irrefutable higher ground.

Income inequality has been rising in the USA for several decades

In absolute figures that is definitely true but how about equality numbers specifically for problem communities in the big cities? The super wealthy have become more abundant and more wealthy but they don't come into contact with the people in the cities. You have to look at local communities to see the effect. It wouldn't surprise if the gap has become smaller after the financial crisis (pl).

The study referenced in this article suggests that income inequality is higher in large cities, but it doesn't really focus on smaller subsets of these cities. In the literature I've read on the topic, it seems most of the assumptions about income inequality and it's correlation to things like poverty, crime, health, etc. tend to break down when you examine them on a smaller scale. It makes me question how useful of a metric it is in the first place.

[deleted]

You literally said:

The key is that it's not abject poverty that causes high crime rates, it's relative poverty.

And then:

Furthermore, as I said, income inequality isn't the sole determining factor, but it is a huge indicator.

Which is it? Are you arguing causation or correlation? The evidence for correlation is fairly strong, causation not so much.

The study you quoted showed evidence of correlation but it didn't provide a strong very argument for causation. It didn't posit any mechanism by which income inequality would cause crime, for example. I'm familiar with Strain theory which some believe could have this effect but has been since been disproven and abandoned.

By all means, feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

[deleted]

Okay. Sorry for my misunderstanding as well. The evidence for correlation is pretty strong but in the studies I've seen the correlation tends to be less obvious when you focus on smaller groups of people. It might have something to do with cultural differences which you mentioned.

We don't really understand the nature of the correlation or the mechanism behind it, if any, but I've heard some explain it by the fact that humans don't judge their position in the social hierarchy in absolute terms but rather relative to others around them, and those on the bottom of the hierarchy may tend to be more open to desperate measures in order to improve their position in the hierarchy. This would contribute to their willingness to take risks that others might not take, which could include criminal acts. I don't know how well supported this theory is though.

I think the importance of the family structure is the biggest key here. A single parent means that their kid is basically unsupervised for most of the day which leaves them bored and without guidance. Studies are mounting to show that father figures are critical for a child's development, maybe more important than mothers. Over 80% of mass shooters grew up in dysfunctional families or without their parents together.

Hispanic families tend to live in huge family units. They have a lower divorce rate than blacks and whites. The entire extended family helps care for and raise the children.

I agree, but Hispanic communities have an overwhelming amount of gang involvement as well. Just a thought.

But I definitely think the decline of the family has led to major issues. We've disregarded the value of families in favor of money and independence. One only has to look at the terribly heartwrenching state of our elderly to see the absolute indifference for others the American culture has. We are an entirely self focused society. Take Instagram and other social media for example. There's such a lack of self awareness when your bubble of people includes yourself and 10,000 virtual followers.

If your theory about high school was correct, wouldn't Hispanics have a higher homicide rate, or just a higher crime rate than blacks? I find it interesting you use a statistic about Hispanics vs blacks in your first point, then mention that Hispanics drop out of high school more often later on...

I didn't say the dropout rate alone was the determining factor; I mentioned two factors: (1) high school dropout rate and (2) single parenthood.

Interestingly, while the high school dropout rate for Hispanics is higher than blacks (8.6% vs. 6.2%) but the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) actually scores Hispanics lower than blacks (11% vs. 14%). Regardless, even though Hispanics may have a higher dropout rate, they also have a lower rate of single parenthood and generally have large families with a substantial familial support structure. The end result is they up committing less crime and are slightly less poor than blacks. I don't see anything that contradicts my argument here.

I just finished reading Behave by Robert Sapolski and this was one of the major takeaways. Upbringing is the single biggest predictor of crime, poverty, some mental disorders, etc. Highly recommend the book, many more fascinating subjects about human behavior are covered.

This makes sense, given that the history of Hispanics in this country is wildly different than that of African-Americans. We're only a few generations removed from slavery and all of its long-term ramifications.

The key is whether or not people in poverty feel like the game is fair, or if it's rigged.

You can lose a fair game and not be mad, but a rigged game will make you not want to play at all.

I think this is true, but this can also come down to upbringing. If you raise your kids to be independent and hard working with the promise that it will pay dividends later in life, you're less likely to resort to crime than if your parents raise you with the attitude that society is against you and to "get yours" and "don't trust anybody".

Which leads us to the next question of why are so many black single people having kids and not graduating high school? "Upbringing?"

Upbringing, education and cultural values (both which tie back to upbringing).

Statistics actually suggest that it's not poverty that leads to crime, but rather economic inequality within a society, which is an important discrepancy!

Statistics suggest a correlation between income inequality and crime but as far as I'm aware no causation has been proven.

Well, it's not like there's a sole, direct causation of crime.... so?

I didn't say there was.

With that in mind, try to consider some of the forces against black families in having a healthy upbringing throughout the generations in America. People try to pretend this shit ended with slavery.

[deleted]

After slavery, what type of work or opportunities were offered to blacks? None! There are many instances proving that the government conspired to deprive it's black citizens from benefits provided to white citizens. Up until the last 40 years, whites wouldn't hire blacks for any type of meaningful job. Not to mention the US govt actively working against its black citizens.

Poverty doesn't cause crime. Relative poverty does. If you're near people who have vastly more than you, you're more likely to steal or commit violence towards them. It could be that the Hispanic immigrants are more homogeneous in there poverty while it can vary in black communities.

Of course that's not the only cause of course, it's an issue on multiple levels, such as fatherlessness, Regard (or lack of) towards responsibility, education, etc. So I guess I agree upbringing is a big factor.

Poverty doesn't cause crime. Relative poverty does. If you're near people who have vastly more than you, you're more likely to steal or commit violence towards them. It could be that the Hispanic immigrants are more homogeneous in there poverty while it can vary in black communities.

There's evidence of a correlation between relative poverty and crime at a very high (e.g. multinational) level but the evidence for causation is weak and in my experience the correlation tends to break down at lower levels such as at the state or city level. It's possible it's a contributing factor but it's hardly conclusive given the numerous factors involved.

[removed]

Not true. Average income for white non-latino Americans is about $67K/year vs. $53K for Laotians, $55K for Cambodians and $60K for Vietnamese. The fraction of Laotians and Vietnamese living in poverty is about equal to the rate for all Americans, and the rate is higher for Cambodians.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/fact-sheet/asian-americans-vietnamese-in-the-u-s-fact-sheet/

This is interesting. And true! I wonder if it is a cultural reason?

Two-parent households too.

I think that this has a lot more impact than we give credit for. Family life has historically been extremely impactful. And there is a dire lack of fathers and male role models in the African American community as a whole.

[deleted]

Undoubtedly. Children really need two parents.

Even one parent is fine if they have other family around. A lot of poorer asian families tend to bundle together so that the entire familial unit (grandparents, aunts, uncles) can live under 1 roof to grant success to the family as a whole. It really does take a village to raise a child, but it also depends on the village.

True. I did notice that where I lived overseas, family was much more important- the extended unit of family was closer. And there was less crime!

[deleted]

The explicitly racist war on drugs has put away many of those father's, leaving the government responsible for all these single parent families.

The long-term ramifications of slavery, and the massive damage done to the very concept of the family unit, can't be overlooked here.

Does this affect other countries as well?

I really don't know. What other country has a history like ours?

The population of new immigrants (especially documented ones) has got to be enriched for people who have their shit together enough to move their family across the world to pursue opportunity.

[deleted]

Wow!this is so intriguing! Thank you! I need to research more.

Laotian, Cambodians, and Vietnamese didn't have their social instutitions systematically destroyed by hundreds of years of slavery.

No, but they had the unfortunte experience of several decades of totalitarian rule, warfare, genocide, and all that. And more recently too.

This can be said for many east Asians: Japan had imperialist, nationalist rulers through WW2. China: communist rule since late 1940s, which has been incrementally liberalized though still authoritrian Korea: divided rather starkly at the 38th parallel since 1953. Then theres Ho chi Minh, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, etc in SE asia. Not exactly a list of stellar "institutions"...yet those that have emmigrated here from that misery usually tend to do fairly well within a generation or two.

This type of opinion is dangerous and can get you banned on this sub.

The core questions here we must ask is:

Are some cultures better than others?

Are there differences between the races?

I think any logical person who is thinking without the color of politics or false morality will answer yes to both.

false morality

cultural relativism in anthropology leads to many people trying to find merit in all cultures which somehow exonerates blame of european nations for conquering some of these cultures

Are there differences between the races?

How do you define race? How many races are there? How do you account for people who don't fit into a single neat racial category? These are just a few of the easier questions underpinning yours, and none of them have good answers.

This is an excellent point. In any sane world the answer to both of those questions would be unequivocally yes, and yet mentioning the obvious is now considered 'hate speech'.

[deleted]

Dude, we're not talking about things like traffic violations and tax evasion. We're talking about homicide. Including black-on-black homicide. That's not just a violation of "that society's laws", that's a violation of their own and their neighbor's most basic human right.

There's a definite correlation between poverty and violence

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's economic disparity not poverty. Poverty just means you have very little money. Disparity means you have very little money and your neighbor has a lot. Disparity is where the crime occurs, not poverty.

[...] and the opportunities for success we have here are insanely high.

That's just it. Compared to comparable countries, that is completely and utterly false. Getting ahead without a head start in the US is hard, which is why you see poverty propagating throughout the generations.

What you need is a state that has a pragmatic view on taxation and the redistribution of wealth.

Just a small addendum to your hypotheses... It is not so much poverty as 'relative inequality'. This can be measured with the Gini coefficient. I believe the correlation between the Gini coefficient and violent crime is something like r=0.8. Of course the reason for a high Gini coefficient can have a variety of origins.

Interesting. I've never heard about that. I'll have to look it up.

Nail on the head, it has been a poverty issue for decades. Also this is not exclusive to the States.

It is genuinely a lack of opportunity and unfortunate environments creating these situations. We need MORE funding for inner city schools not less, I agree with rewarding academic excellence but I don’t agree with the abandonment many schools face just because they aren’t filled with rich kids with tutors and the highest level home and school lives. It is a vicious cycle that feeds into itself. Yet we have people getting mad at Lebron for donating a large sum to schools.

There are so many teachers headed down the urban school route though. Because they love these kids! Funding needs to change definitely. But college funding is there. We just need to understand that these kids are valuable human beings in their own right, and care for them.

College funding in order to get these kids through college isn't completely lacking you're right, though that means little when they don't even feel like college is a possibility in their life, and they get overwhelmed by the various routes they will have to take. We as a country need to realize yes that those kids are valuable and care for them, but to do that we would first need to care about anyone but ourselves.

That's so true. I think the younger generations are becoming more aware of issues, but less prone to do something about it. Social media activism is a prominent and very dangerous issue that has really infiltrated not only American culture, but is becoming a worldwide prominently generational issue.

That’s the thing though. Personal responsibility is now apparently unfashionable and is being replaced by a culture of outrage and victimization.

Objectivity can now be easily viewed as being callous, and a threat to anyone who prioritizes emotions.

Unfortunately true.

I think it is about poverty and gang culture in America.

Maybe so. But by far, the majority of gang members are Latino. So where does that leave us with the epidemic of African American deaths?

majority of gang members are Latinos? gonna need to see your math on that

I've found a credible source for this. Here it is: https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics (Sorry for the poor link format, I'm on mobile)

Like I said, I had just been reading through the wiki statistics on crime and race in the USA.

For my part, I also looked at crime statistics, and just decided to support law enforcement in my country. There is a very small minority of people that want you to hate the cops, but they are just selling you a bad idea that starts in petulance and hate and goes nowhere from there.

People play their identity as perpetrator and victim differently. That's a bigger problem.

Can you clarify what you mean? I'm not catching your idea here.

The problem is - while of course there's truth to personal responsibility, that's the default answer that America has given to every tragedy involving an unarmed minority getting killed by police.

Yes, today's different because everyone's speaking out, we have social media to broadcast outrage everywhere... start movements, etc. But you're in here giving that same default answer like it's an enlightening education. You're not strictly wrong, but you're not helpful (except you could be, to the people who think you're wrong... but sadly that's not going to work) The forces at play here are a bit complex - but I'm just telling you, your easy solution is the same advice we've used for decades to LIE to communities who face tragedies and keep the corrupt officers in power.

I'm just trying to see what I can do personally. I'm all about calling for reform and changing things. But why do we never hear about other minorities? Asians, Hispanics, natives... Where is their representation? It makes me wonder why my attention is only being drawn to a single aspect of a very complex and difficult situation.

Governmental reform needs to occur. This is not how the USA was designed to run. But we can't just shake our fists at the government and not take personal responsibility. The government is in place because we put it there.

Came here to say similar (with probably less tact).

The study seems to point a wagging finger at police work, but (based on the article) ignores the (to me obvious) correlation of crime rates in the various races/ethnic groups studied. The rates of "death-by-cop" across racial lines is actually an inverse relationship when measured against crime rates in those same target demographics.

This salient point seems to be ignored.

Very true. And I'm not saying it's something that should be ignored. Dialogue needs to be opened, but sufficient research needs to be done as well.

Thank you. Underlying societal issues aside, what needs to be considered in this kind of study is where the shootings take place, and the demographics of that place. Blacks shot disproportionately in suburban, predominately white areas? Sounds like an issue. A crime-ridden neighborhood with high violent crime rate, with predominately minorities? Sounds less like an issue. Shootings on police officers should also be accounted for. Are they more likely to shoot suspects in areas with a higher rate of officer killings? All rhetorical obviously, but race may be more incidental than dispositive in a lot of cases.

Definitely worth examining, I'd say. We need to study and take action where appropriate.

That would be terrible because we couldn't race bait as hard.

[deleted]

Sure does. But if you're not willing to take action about a problem, you don't have the grounds to criticise and complain. At least, that's what my dad taught me.

You're justifying your beliefs by responding to a troll.

I'm just trying to express how I feel and what I think. It may be a troll, but I firmly believe that actions speak louder than words, no matter what stance you take on any issue.

Personal responsibility does not exist in many left people's minds that buy into victimhood perception and identity politics.

Out of 10 million arrests, https://www.statista.com/statistics/191261/number-of-arrests-for-all-offenses-in-the-us-since-1990/#0

Compared to https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ c.a. 1000 killings.

Gives a fatality rate of 0.01 %. I'm fine with talking about police killings, even of the occurence of racism. But the claim that police killings are common is simply not true. The obvious solution to the problem "blacks are shot more frequently with regard to general population distribution compared to whites" only have the obvious solution of shooting more whites.

Edit: I accently wrote the quota (0.0001) instead of the precentage (0.01 ). fixed now. Sorry about that.

It’s interesting to see that violent crime has dropped by 50% from the early 90s. With all the news headlines nowadays it would seems as if violent crimes were in the rise.

One of the many problems associated with a 24 news cycle.

If you don't want to see tits, change the channel. If you don't want to hear Joel Osteen beg for money, change the channel. If you don't want to hear about murders, change the channel. If you don't want to hear the president, change the channel.

If you want to go about your day unencumbered by all that bull shit, turn off the tv.

If you want to change how your country/state/city runs, vote.

If you want to make a difference, get off your ass and make it happen.

Volunteer. Go talk to those than can effect change. Rip a page out of the big business playbook and hire a lobbyist. Marching in the streets plays well on tv, but understand that the real work is done behind closed doors. Get behind those doors. Figure out what you have to offer to get what you want. Forge relationships BEFORE they are needed.

And remember that your enemy isn't necessarily their enemy. Find a way to become their ALLY, not their foe.

It goes against the media's narrative to let people know they're safer now than they were decades ago.

I think it's got more to do that good things are boring. If there was one channel showing live coverage of a hostage situation a thousand miles away and another covering the renovation of a nearby park, which would you be more likely to watch?

There are people claiming cops are being shot at every day. When in fact the rate of cops dying on the job is the lowest it's ever been.

Right? People are always saying stupid things like "this is the darkest timeline", when actually things are better for the avg person today than at any point in history.

I am a bit curious if violent crime has really dropped lately. There have been a lot of riots all around the country, but it is not clear to me that those are being counted significantly as police are often told to stand down for extended periods of time.

That really has no relevance to any of this.

One of the links took me to a graph showing violent crime rates since 1990.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191261/number-of-arrests-for-all-offenses-in-the-us-since-1990/#0

this shows number of arrests.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

This shows people shot by US police by race.

So you are saying that you clicked around and found violence crime dropped 50%? Okay...but that's not relevant to any points being made here. Murder rates in the US are still about 4x or 5x higher than Europe/Canada/Australia/etc.

I clicked on the first graph I saw when I scrolled down. Why does it matter, I just found it surprising.

It's not relevant...seemed to suggest any or all of the following:

  1. that our murder rate isn't still high
  2. suggest that police killing people is over blown
  3. suggest police killing people is helping reduce the murder rate.

This is why I'm not surprised of the responses you received:

  • One of the many problems associated with a 24 news cycle.

  • Just like the media would have you believe that police have a big tally board at HQ for top unarmed black man killer of the week, which we can see in the OP is not true.

I’m not arguing those points or the points about our murder rates being higher than other countries. I was just saying that I found those statistics interesting, whether it’s relevant or not.

Personally what enrages me is not the frequency of unjust police killings, it's the lack of punishment when they do actually happen

As far as I can tell, this is THE issue that's driving outrage on this topic. Every group of a large enough size will have some number of bad actors, but if you circumvent justice by circling the wagons when one of them acts out, it makes the whole organization look bad.

The police are not the only ones that have had this kind of issue.

And before this gets locked....

You are correct. But the other side will always say it's all fake outrage. Just scroll through this thread. Pure cancer

They will also pretend there is no middle ground of shittiness between a normal interaction and a fatal shooting

We will also pretend that cops acting as Judge Dredd is perfectly fine and that questioning authority is proof that those people, in fact, want to abolish the police altogether.

See how that works?

I think you misunderstood my comment, I was mostly talking about how a ton of stories about police abusing the authority are just waved away by the right because no one died

This right here. People are talking about police killings but there is a bigger problem with police abusing their authority. For example the epidemic of police killing dogs.

For example the epidemic of police killing dogs.

Do you have a source?

Literally dozens of anecdotal news stories!

Try thousands of reports easy. Cops dont keep record of how many they kill. Which is insane I'd expect them to document every time they fire a bullet

tbf, I want to abolish police

but that's more b/c I don't think the police system can be reformed so as to not be racist

Ridiculous notion.

disagree. community policing is a better model :)

How do you have community police when you abolish police

The word you're looking for is "reform" if you want the practice of policing to exist afterwards.

I want the practice to exist, not the institution as it is now

[deleted]

Yeah, that's what is wrong.......

You're right.

The whole point of Black Lives Matter is that when an unarmed black man is killed by the police, it should be investigated and someone should be held accountable. Don't act like it doesn't matter.

The point BLM misses consistently is that many times it's simply the fault of the person interacting with the cop. To this day they still defend Michael Brown as if he was a victim of police brutality, rather than his own insanely stupid actions, or Alton Stirling, who was dealing with the police because they got a call that he was pointing a gun in someone's face and that he tried to reach for it while being taken down. Context doesn't matter for them.. they see white cop, black man.. well that's a slam dunk, how can that not be racism?

Police are held accountable. E.g. the cop who shot that guy in the back for running is serving a murder sentence. It's not a perfect system I know, but people get riled up simply for an officer getting pay while an investigation is still going on, without even considering the police's side of the story.

You are right. I think the problem is "unjust" is a very subjective term. Like it is a very easy thing for me to watch a body/dash cam video, slowed down to see exactly what was happening, and say "well the cop acted poorly". Its very different to be in the moment, in real time, when you feel your life is a stake. So to the other cops that were there, it may look very different in the moment.

Now of course, there are clear cases of misconduct. But I feel like those are a lot more rare

They circle the wagons and get super defensive because of all the high profile cases where officers that are clearly justified in shooting suspects get bounties put on their heads, death threats and their careers ruined. I'm all for justice but let's have it on both sides.

If there wasn't a complete lack of accountability, those threats wouldn't come. More to the point, the appropriate way to respond to such threats does NOT involve abbrogating the officer's responsibility for an alleged crime.

I agree there should be accountability both for people who spread false reports and outright lie about events to police and police that lie about events.

That's what the courts are for. But we have clear evidence in some cases where a suspect is attacking an officer (or even a citizen), it goes through court and people don't want to believe the evidence. So they send death threats and even put bounties on people's family members then protests turn into riots and death because a violent criminal was shot being violent.

We straight up aren't talking about false reports. We're talking about police officers who murder people on camera, and get some paid vacation for their trouble.

There aren't many cases, but those police are rarely held accountable. Hell, there are usually a whole cadre of bootlickers who show up to defend even the most clear-cut and egregious cases.

We straight up are talking about it. We are straight up talking about every time a police officer is investigated some people scream murderer before they have any facts.

That's what makes people including police officers blindly rush to each other's defense. Wait for the facts. It's funny how everyone pushed for body cams to catch police murdering people and it's shown in almost all cases the opposite.

No. That's what you want to twist the conversation into. We aren't talking about that, though.

So we are ignoring factors and just concentrating on single cases where you feel someone was guilty and the courts disagreed? I'm sure that will fix the issue. Good luck.

It's almost like we're talking about accountability issues... Hmm... 🤔

The problem is what you call murder might not be murder that's why we have trials and courts. They have the unfortunate job of at times engaging forcibly with violent criminals. Sometimes it ends badly. This report shows just how uncommon it is to be shot and killed while unarmed by the police. Less likely than being hit by lightning.

The problem is what the courts don't call murder might actually be murder. That's why we have a brain and morals informed by human solidarity. We have the unfortunate job of at times using our brain to evaluate evidence about possible misconduct by authorities.

Aaaand that's why the jury of your peers is a thing. The courtroom might not be a perfect place to judge people but it's a hell of a lot better than doing it with a mob in the street. Just because you saw a video on YouTube doesn't mean you know what was going on.

Everyone knew for a fact that Michael brown had his hands up and was kneeling facing the other direction. Evidence placed him being shot coming in through the window of the police car. People still burned down millions of dollars in property, and put bounties on the man's family for "justice". It's why it's decided in court and not a mob of YouTube experts with pitchforks.

Aaaand that's where we point out that the jury is one of many parts involved in a trial, and that almost all of the rest of those parts are controlled by the police force and DA (who relies on the police force to operate).

If you define the institution that upholds accountability as infallible, accountability will be perfect by definition. Hey we solved the problem! Everyone pack it up.

Sorry, I can't muster the credulity to agree with this asinine line of reasoning.

Like banks and debtors in the aftermath if the great recession.

And Catholic priests...

The outage is causing only 1 thing... more distrust in police which creates an endless cycle....

Not saying we shouldn’t discuss, just saying that the way it’s been discussed is out of control

Distrust in the police isn't causing the police to kill people. Your cycle is broken. Rejoice.

It's actually media revenue that drives this, and only that.

[removed]

Michael Brown's main witness was found to be a serial liar, as well.

Edit: my bad. I meant the main witness that supported the cops version of the story.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6334714

Yes. Been a while since I read the DOJ report, but I remember it discussing how there weren't any credible witnesses supporting the "hands up don't shoot" narrative. Their stories were, apparently, self contradictory and went against the forensic evidence.

I'm glad that there's less talk about his case these days, but it's embarrassing that it's still discussed at all. And protestors still chanting "hands up, don't shoot" are basically saying that they believe a conspiracy theory. Pick actually egregious cases where there has been insufficient punishment of the officer. They are out there! (Example: Eric Garner, that Las Vegas officer who shot that guy on the floor, etc.)

And lack of punishment when they falsefiy reports in a way that makes their illegal murder magically legal. Like the many cops who have been caught planting evidence.

It's lack of punishment for anything.

It's even worse that those who bleat endlessly about how they care about the law never complain about police, ask for police reforms, or stand in solidarity with anyone who does

Well yeah but how am I supposed to even believe their "stats" when we know for a fact they are cooking the books? Thats the biggest issue, we cant believe this study because it uses stats that police gave on themselves.

[removed]

were you in the nice upscale part of Miami ? Could have been trying to scare the rift raft out of it .

Coconut grove, not quite Miami beach but certainly not the bad part

Your mistake was thinking that Miami is the same as it once was and not some overpopulated hell hole with old housing

Yep. Now imagine this guy, but with the slightest bit of contempt for minorities, and being that minority.

That statistically undetectable racial bias we just read about?

[removed]

You're missing an extremely crucial point in using deadly force: killing people, basically for any reason other than "he had a weapon aimed directly at me or someone else and showed intent to use it" is inexcusable. Refusing to comply with a lawful demand or does not constitute use of deadly force. And yes, people tend go get outraged when someone is shot and killed over a traffic stop or because "he looked not not dangerous." Pair that with a police force made mostly of one demographic (white) tasked with protecting and serving communities of a completely different demographic (PoC) as is typical in these kinds of police killings and here we are.

killing people, basically for any reason other than "he had a weapon aimed directly at me or someone else and showed intent to use it" is inexcusable. Refusing to comply with a lawful demand or does not constitute use of deadly force.

This is where you’re misunderstanding things. Anyone can have a weapon. Anyone can be dangerous with their fists. If a cop is struggling on the ground with an unarmed suspect- that is a potential deadly force encounter because the cop has a gun, taser, baton, and the keys to his car which has long guns. Every fight an officer gets into has a great possibility of being a deadly force encounter within seconds if a struggling suspect gets their hands on the officers OC spray, uses it against them, then takes their gun/baton/keys.

How about this? Don’t break the law. Follow the cops commands in an encounter.

If you somehow happen to get a bad cop who actually abuses their authority, don’t fight them on the streets- go quietly to jail, be polite, and fight it in court where you’ll win a healthy settlement that you can almost immediately retire on.

How about this? Don’t break the law. Follow the cops commands in an encounter.

Still often results in death, but moreover your dog-like submission to the government disgusts me.

and fight it in court where you’ll win a healthy settlement that you can almost immediately retire on.

Hilarious.

How often does not breaking the law and following officers' commands result in death?

killing people, basically for any reason other than "he had a weapon aimed directly at me or someone else and showed intent to use it" is inexcusable

What if a man much larger than you is fighting you and trying to grab your gun? What if someone is on top of you repeatedly bashing your head into the pavement?

Because those were two of the most high profile cases that have been made into media issues. Now maybe that isn't what really happened, but I think its a lot more complicated than "unless they are pointing a gun at you its unjustified". I think if I were in those situations and could reach a gun I'd probably use it.

One point: intent isn't an important distinction here because you have to make calls fast. If someone's got a gun pointed at me or a bystander I don't have time to psychoanalyze them and figure out if they intend to use it.

Rule 1 of weapons of any kind. Do not, repeat do not point it at anything you do not intend to destroy.

Edit: As I watch the score on this comment slowly descend: https://i.imgur.com/K7F1SZj.png

Police officer shootings are most often investigated by the police, and DAs are loathe to prosecute officers. The police say the shootings are justified, yet the video evidence shows the shooting wasn't justified, and the public is enraged. The only people police protect are other police officers.

When you say "justified", do you mean in your opinion? Or are you basing it on what policy and courts consider reasonable?

Do you have any examples in mind of a video showing unreasonable use of force that a department or DA determined to be justified?

[deleted]

The judicial system often isn't even involved... There are numerous cases of officers shooting an unarmed suspect, and the only punishment they get is a short suspension, and sometimes they even still get paid during their leave

The judicial system is more qualified to make decisions on what kind of punishment should be administered than an angry mob of protesters.

Yes. They are more qualified.

Does that magically mean they're using their power in a fair and reasonable manner?

No.

[deleted]

[removed]

Body cameras merely give an additional perspective to unjust acquittals.

Right, let's have corrupt officials who constantly kiss each other's asses to decide the outcome. I don't think so.

The only alternative that's been presented is to let the mob of protesters get what they want

Sure, if you ignore all the perfectly reasonable ideas, like increasing citizen oversight, weakening police unions power and demands for nationwide bodycams, then I can totally see why you'd think that.

I'd probably think like you do if I was ignoring so many things as well.

[deleted]

No, a loud minority of them are and you're trying to dismiss everyone because of it.

There are plenty of people asking for reasonable reform, they just don't make the news and I shouldn't have to explain that.

[deleted]

You said it right there. A minority. Most protesters do not have reasonable solutions.

Maybe you should re-read the comment you replied to.

Welcome to the criminal justice system! Proving a case is incredibly difficult. It's across the board...especially though when it comes to self defense cases. There are lots of homicides (and sex assaults, drug dealers, etc.) that don't get charged because there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction. That's the ethical standard all prosecutors have to adhere to. Ain't easy.

This is exactly the issue. People aren’t mad cause their unarmed relatives and friends are killed. Well, they are mad about that. But they make it a national thing when the cop gets off with no punishment.

The problem is that a lot of times, an officer is convicted in the court of public opinion when only 10% of the facts are known immediately after a shooting. Things such as footage have to be reviewed prior to release to the public for a myriad of reasons and by that time, everyone has is in their head that it wasn't a good shoot even if it turns out to be.

Plenty of the outrage in recent years have been due to the body cams being leaked or released though.

Honestly one could argue that the increase in outrage in recent years have been due to the increase in filming of the incidences.

Like the one in Las vegas (?) which ordered two people to crawl towards them and gave them conflicting orders how to do it and then shot the guy, while on his knees, for moving hastily.

Plenty of these killings have been presented with full context and the public have rightfully reacted to their lack of repercussions.

Like the one in Las vegas (?) which ordered two people to crawl towards them and gave them conflicting orders how to do it and then shot the guy, while on his knees, for moving hastily.

It was in Mesa AZ, it was one suspect, and he was shot because he kept reaching behind his back, after the officer told him not to or he would be shot.

I'm not saying it was a good shoot, but please do a little research before posting.

Right thanks for the location.

The point about him reaching back was that he was given several different orders constantly by several officers and its not only possible but very probable that he didnt register the "dont reach back" in the middle of "crawl forwards with your hands behind your head but keep you arms straight and you legs crossed and SLOW DOWN! SIR, YOU GOTTA LISTEN TO US, closer to the ground, speed crawl a little faster" etc etc etc

I have seen the video, several times, it does note come across clear that he would be shot if he reached by. What did come out clear is that he would be shot if he didnt crawl forward with his legs cross and his arms in several positions simultaneously.

None of that quote is accurate. The officers didn't say that. I'm not defending the officers here, I'm just detailing what happened. I still think it was a bad shoot, but it was because of his hands going behind his back after he was told not to.

During the instructions, the subject placed both hands behind his back. Neither officer told him to do so. They both then told him to put this hands in the air. The subject complied. He was then told "you do that again we are shooting you, do you understand?" He was then told not to talk and to follow the instructions. He was told "do not put your hands down for any reason." "Your hands go in the small of your back or down, we are going to shoot you, do you understand me?" The subject was then told to crawl towards the officers. While crawling, he reached behind his back again with his right hand and that was when the officer shot him.

I just watched the video a few times to be sure.

[removed]

I'm not defending the officers here, I'm just detailing what happened. I still think it was a bad shoot, but it was because of his hands going behind his back after he was told not to.

During the instructions, the subject placed both hands behind his back. Neither officer told him to do so. They both then told him to put this hands in the air. The subject complied. He was then told "you do that again we are shooting you, do you understand?" He was then told not to talk and to follow the instructions. He was told "do not put your hands down for any reason." "Your hands go in the small of your back or down, we are going to shoot you, do you understand me?" The subject was then told to crawl towards the officers. While crawling, he reached behind his back with his right hand and that was when the officer shot him.

I just watched the video a few times to be sure.

I'm not arguing the contrary; I said a lot of times not every time. However, with there being about 800,000 active duty police officers in the US, if a majority of them were going around killing people without cause, it would be a 10x a day occurrence.

It's a tragedy when anyone is killed based on a mistake and people have a right to react when that occurs.

ike the one in Las vegas (?) which ordered two people to crawl towards them and gave them conflicting orders how to do it and then shot the guy, while on his knees, for moving hastily.

That officer actually fled the country immediately after the incident to avoid prosecution.

What a terrible example to use for your "cops don't get punished" idea lmaooooo

Plenty of these killings have been presented with full context and the public have rightfully reacted to their lack of repercussions.

How can you claim "with full context" when you're grossly ignorant of the details within your very own example?

This is why we have a court of law and not a bunch of pissed of villagers carrying torches.

This is completely wrong. The reason that police are commonly acquitted is that trials are forced to focus on either only the moments immediately leading up to a shooting or the larger context, depending on which way works out better for the cop, and laws are worded in ways to make it practically impossible to convict a cop. This is how Philando Castile's murderer walked, for example.

I'm sorry but are you saying that they should be tried on information found out after the shooting? On information they didn't have? Are police supposed to be trained in precognition?

No, I'm saying that jurors are instructed to ignore certain parts of the events. For example, suppose someone is walking on the sidewalk and a cop starts following him, so the person stops and asks if there's a problem, at which point the cop tackles the person and starts hitting them, and the person instinctively puts their arms up and inadvertently hits the cop in the face (causing no injury); the person is subsequently charged with assaulting an officer. Let's assume this is all on a dashcam. A jury might be instructed to disregard all evidence before "...hits the cop in the face" even though in context it would be completely minimal, understandable, and probably even should be regarded as self-defense. If the only question the jurors are allowed to consider is "did the person strike the cop in the face?" then they are forced to return a guilty verdict. These rules are set by laws and judges.

Errors of judgement and mistakes occur in every profession, and with police that occasionally (and very rarely, even against black suspects) involves deadly force. In order for them to continue to do their job and benefit society, they need to be able to take risks and stop offenders. If they are over-prosecuted, the effectiveness of the police drops, and you get Chicago in the summer of 2015/2016.

That issue is a lot of perception but there is a kernel of truth. And that is due to outdated or unwieldy police protocols. If an officer follows a protocol and that protocol is sub-optimal, who is culpable?

The reality is that real world situations are messy and dangerous. Both parties are full of adrenaline and fighting for survival. Both parties are gonna make honest mistakes. Sweeping generalizations based on outlier cases where no perspective is even attempted is not a good way to determine policy.

"Both parties are full of adrenaline and fighting for survival." Yes, the horrid danger of traffic stops, or the risks any person takes standing outside looking at their phone. They might even be so dangerous as to complain about the cost of plasticware at Waffle House!

Unless someone does something really overt, the responsibility is on the police officer, because they are the person with the training, the authority and the gun; if you literally can't handle day to day situations than the problem is you, not the citizenry.

That should bother everyone regardless of the race of the victims.

A bad out come isn't the same as acting badly. Police officers are one of those jobs we're it's possible to do everything you were suppose to and still have the worse out come. Pinishi g strictly on out come is demanding police to be precog and for them to always have good out come. And this study as other study show, it's rare.

And this study as other study show, it's rare.

I don't care how rare it is. Yes it's rare, but it happens, and it happens where there is no punishment.

Police officers are one of those jobs we're it's possible to do everything you were suppose to and still have the worse out come

I'm talking about situations where police officers harm or kill unarmed, nonthreatening suspects.

You can't seriously argue that shooting someone showing no signs of hostility is "doing everything you were supposed to". Their job is not to shoot people. It's to protect people. A police officer shooting someone is not justified unless said person harming someone is imminent.

Cops don't have perfect knowledge. They need to think in the moment it was justified. This isn't special for cops. Self defense of your self or others depends on your frame of mind at the time, not what was actually happening. Lots of things defere to what the actor thought was happening in stead of what actually happened.

I think most complaints are about the per-capita numbers as compared to other westernized nations. We have far more cases of police using deadly force than other places.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

But the homocide rate in the us is almost 10 times as high

No it's not. Where do you get that? Once again showing you have no interest in the facts but just want to protect the police at all cause.

Murder rate in the US is around 4.5 to 4.7 per 100k. Europe is generally a bit over 1.0 per 100k. Canada is around 1.7 or so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Let's take a look at Germany. "The German Police University concluded in 2012 that German police had killed six people by gunshot in 2011 and seven in 2012." US homicide rate is about 5x higher than Germany and the population is 4x higher. So those 6.5 killed by police gun fire would be 130 killed by police gunfire in the US. However, the US number of killed by police gunfire is about 1000.

Yeah sorry about that

Yea, I'm not saying the comparison is completely valid, I'm just saying those stats are what's used to justify the complaints.

Except that 10 million arrests is skewed.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=273714

A 2 year study of 3 middle of the road police departments. Main take is that "The results reveal 893 UOF incidents, representing a UOF rate of 0.086% of 1,041,737 calls for service (1 in 1167) and 0.78% of 114,064 criminal arrests (1 in 128)." (UOF = Use of force)

That means 10 million arrests is about 100 million calls for service. Extrapolating the math puts us at roughly 78,125 uses of force during arrests.

Interesting side note, 76% of hospitalizations was unrelated to the use of force of the officers.

Also it is important to mention that Use of Force (UOF) does not mean shooting. It could be a Taser,baton, pepper spray, etc.

How many of those cases was the suspect resisting arrest?

I would not be surprised to find out that number was around 1 in 128 arrests (the same number of arrests that required use of force). Think about it 127 out of 128 people will realize its not worth fighting the officer and just be arrested. You can always fight in court.

Doesn't matter

Resisting arrest isn't a real thing guys.

Actually it does.

Actually it doesn't

Does matter. Everyone’s actions in the situation matter.

Not really. Just the cops matters. They'll just say anyone is resisting no matter what so it doesnt matter. I only care about what my taxes are paying for

Yes it matters. There is a huge difference between the person doing nothing and the person punching the cop in the face. I do not care who you are, you can not honestly expect a person the get punched in the face and not use some force.

Also do you have any evidence to back your claims that the police say everyone is resisting?

No it doesn't, "resisting arrest" just means anything a cop wants it to, if cops can't be controlled then we don't need them in the first place. Any excessive force is unjustified, regardless of "resisting". Remember, disrespecting an officer is punishable by public execution.

No it’s doesnt mean just anything. It means you active try to stop an arrest, whether that is pulling away, running, or fighting. Guess what, your actions have consequences in the real world.

Guess what, your actions have consequences in the real world.

Cops need to learn this.

It actually just means anything cops want it to. Look at the evidence dude. "Stop resisting" the cop shouts at the unconscious man as he kicks him again. Did you see about that little girl?

You're basing your beliefs on the actions of a tiny percentage of cops and using that to generalize all of them? If cops were a race, that would be called racism.

Not really tho? ACAB

No but I saw how many police have died so far this year. Have you?

Also what evidence there Eddie Bravo? You tell me to just look it up with out any facts.

Not enough, that's for sure

Thanks for showing your true colors mate.

Funny how u say citizens should learn this bit noy the one that can legally kill by the government

Okay I do not know what you’re say exactly but if you’re saying police need to learn that actions have consequences I’d like to point this out.

Police are the ones that see the consequences every day, the kid that speeding and driving drunk and killed a child walking down the street, the guy that picked a fight at the bar and had his head smashed in. Every day this is a reality. While people like you think that you can walk around and do what you want and that nothing is going to happen. But bad things happen all the times all because of someone’s actions or inactions

However if they use force you are arrested, you are at least resisting an officer.

I think it's 0.001%, not 0.0001%.

Not sure if that impacts your point, just saying it's 1 killing per ten thousand arrests not 1 in a hundred thousand.

Maybe we stop harassing minorities?

They are comparatively common. The rate of people killed by cops on Canada is something like one sixth the rate of whites in the US. The UK has an even lower rate

More poverty and ghettoization in the USA could account for that

My point is just that the rates in the US are atypical, and that shootings by cops happen quite often.

I'm not sure to what extent ghettoization is an explanation for a discrepancy for whites being shot, in terms of what percent are in areas that'd apply to and all.

Well obviously, the US has wayyy more guns. Police are 100x more likely to shoot someone armed than unarmed.

The homicide rates between the two countries is only different by about a factor of 3.5 or so, though.

Canadian gun ownership rates are only about half that of the US. The US does not have wayyy higher gun ownership rates.

Thats not what i said, I said we have wayyy more guns.

But what matters is the how many people are armed, not how many guns there are.

Well, at least I'm glad you understand that more guns makes the US less safe.

Im trying to not make this a racial thing. The us has a much higher black population than canada. And on average they live in lower income areas and cause more crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

Approximately 50% of people killed by the police are white...or nearly 500. White non-hispanic are 63% of the US population.

So now what's your new argument?

You literally just stated my point. Thanks

How? White people in the US are far more likely to be killed by cops than white people in Canada.

Oh, I get it...your lack of critical thinking lead you to believe that because white people killed by cops is a little lower than their % of population so therefore it must mean that whites people in the US are killed at the same rate as Canada?

No you are looking at thinks with little to no reguard for the fact that because there are literally 100x the guns in the US that cops must be way more defensive.

May be due to the crime rate, how many police the US have, and Canada only having 1/10 the population.

Homie mentioned rate, not total. That said, I have no idea if the statement made is true.

Yea me either. Also not sure if Canada has the same drug/crime issues we have.

Would 1/10th the population matter if it were proportional?

Yeah let's ignore the fact that USA has shit ton of it's population in prison. No wonder the deaths seem meaningless, when people get arrested and imprisoned for the slightest reasons.

That’s a legislative issue. Not an enforcement issue.

Arrest rates and prison populations are not "just" a legislative issue. Enforcement and judgment are huge aspects.

I mean, a good part of the responsibility is also on the people committing the crime.

So is your argument that way more people break the law in the US than other countries? This thread was about the overall prison population in the US.

Whataboutism

So what is your solution? Close all prisons and let criminals free?

I mean that's to assume that everyone currently in prison is actually guilty of the crime that they were charged for. Then there's the major question of whether or not someone's punishment fits their crime, which ties back to the issue of private prisons, where more incarcerations = profit

And in what way do private prisons have ANY influence over who is arrested?

The government controls how many people are in prison.

And do you even know how private prisons make their money? The government gives them money per each criminal they take.

So no, more incarcerations does not give profit to the people who control the amount of incarcerations.

  1. Private prisons lobbying the government 2. Government conflicts of interest

Also if you're being paid per incarceration, that's enough incentive for you to enforce as much as you can, which also means that the most efficient route is to rack up incarcerations for low-resource crimes (such as theft and drug possession) than arguably more heinous crimes that require more time/resources

How are you fine with that, when other countries have a rate that is over 100 times lower than that?

Have some perspective.

Roughly half of those are white

Half of what are white?

People killed in the us by police

Police killings may not be common, but they are still too common. One compliant/nonthreatening person getting killed is too many.

I think we can all agree that one unjustified killing is too many but there’s always going to be some just because of the massive sample that is the entirety of the US police force. A sample that large is bound to have bad actors.

The number cannot ever be zero

Why not? It’s zero in other countries...

In the vast majority of unarmed police shootings, the suspect was being uncooperative.

I wish people would stop thinking the world can be perfect. It can't.

No one knows how many people police kill.

Anyone who thinks im wrong please provide a link

I'm actually really amazed to see how reasonable people are being here, and straying away from the emotionally fueled spitting contest. It's refreshing.

I’ve never seen anyone claim shootings are common. What’s common is the lack of consequences for the officers. What’s common is cops covering for and apologizing for bad behavior.

Shootings are only part of it, however. Another part of the problem is police violence, and just generally harassing people. There was a video I remember not long ago of a guy getting arrested in a parking lot, the guy was not resisting was begging them not to hurt him, and they slammed him headfirst on the ground. He was more or less ok physically, but stuff like that is still a huge problem. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, the other problem is that this sort of thing is even harder to study than shootings.

Also want to note that not everyone killed by the police have been shot. And also that we've seen at least one instance of the police planting a weapon on someone after killing them, though I'm guessing the latter isn't as common.

But the claim that police killings are common is simply not true

Neither is terrorism, but I still have to take my shoes off at the airport.

I don't think you should have to

Police killings are uncommon.

Police beatings, destruction of property, and false charges happen with some frequency, though are a still a tiny percentage of overall stops - even the shittiest cops can manage to write a ticket without incident, even if they go over the line at some point every week.

Police lying in reports and in court are fairly common, though.

I think its important as a society to acknowledge that simply being a minority predisposes you to living in violent neighborhoods where you ate more likely to be profiled by police with that violence.

Its important to acknowledge that minority groups are predisposed and that if the reason isnt overt racism by police leaders its implicit racism by the structures of society.

Where I love, we have similar issues with natives and its important just to acknowledge the different living conditions they tend to live in compared to the rest of the population.

Your numbers are off by two orders of magnitude. Fatal shootings are 100 times more frequent.

10,000,000 people (roughly) arrested in 2016.

1000 fatal police shootings in 2017.

10,000,000/1,000 = 10,000

There is a fatal shooting for every ten thousand arrests.

As a proportion of total arrests the fatality rate is indeed .0001 (or 1/10,000). As a percentage of the total arrests, that proportion must be multiplied by 100.

So the fatality rate is actually .01%

1000+ killing a year. Most European nations have less than 10 per year. It’s a huge problem even if you believe 1000+ killed isn’t enough to be labeled ‘common’

Using your logic, no type of killing is common. In fact, other than maybe cancer, there isn’t a type of death that is common

edit: US has 4X more population than say Germany. US has 4x higher murder rate than say Germany. Germany police kill typically less than 10 people per year. Let's just use the upper range, 10. So 10 x 4 x 4 = 160 people killed. US officers kill 1,100 or so per year. That's an additional 940 people.

You're not comparing apples with apples, though. Consider the population sizes and densities, overall crime rate, violent crime rate, etc. I agree that we should be working to lower the number of incidents but you have to use meaningful information to make better choices.

Consider the population sizes and densities, overall crime rate, violent crime rate, etc

US has 4X more population than say Germany. US has 4x higher murder rate than say Germany. Germany police kill typically less than 10 people per year. Let's just use the upper range, 10. So 10 x 4 x 4 = 160 people killed. US officers kill 1,100 or so per year. That's an additional 940 people.

So now what excuse do you have for those 940 and how is that not a major problem?

[deleted]

Where do you even get that lie?

I mean do police ever admit when they fuck up? Dont they just falsify reports and claim it was justified when it clearly wasnt? I cant possibly trust that data. Its like using the honor system.

They admit to bad shoots all the time. That didn't get as much media attention because it's not outrage inducing.

Examples? They often say "I feared for my life". Less than 0.5% of police killing ever lead to a conviction of a crime.

Other countries see less than 5 a year.

1000 is insanity. Not to mention about 5-10% of those are unarmed. There's no excuse to ever shoot and kill someone who's unarmed. Not one.

Other countries also have populations significantly less than the US. And no excuse? What if they are unarmed but beating someone, or reaching for a weapon, or a vehicle that could result in an accident? It's not as simple as you make it out.

Generally speaking you account for the population difference when making this comparison, so you ain't wrong to call that out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country

Feel free to make your own comparison but Germany, a nation of some 80 million, recorded 10 police killings in 2015. That same year the FBI counted 441 "justifiable homicides" by police.

The US has a population of about 320 million. That's a population 4 times larger than Germany, but you've got a police fatality rate that's 44 times greater. I can't be arsed doing the math proper for the rate, but it looks to be about 10 times higher in the US than it is in Germany once you account for the population difference.

It ain't simple, as you say, but it sure as fuck ain't too complicated to label it a real problem that deserves attention. What isn't simple is the true cause and the solution, that's the complicated part.

[deleted]

If you can't handle hand to hand combat you're too fat and lazy to be a cop.

This is so insanely stupid for so many reasons. One being that fights are not always 1 on 1.

You need to stop watching stupid action movies and go out into the real world for a bit.

Other countries do not have the gun violence the US has either. Keep in mind that unarmed does not mean the person does not present themselves as a deadly force threat. The guy eating the face off of the homeless guy was unarmed for the sake of this statistic as an example.

Other countries don't have 330 million people and the problems like this one that grow exponentially with population.

That person didn't but generally speaking people compare rates rather than the total number, so population difference is accounted for. When that's done, the US looks worse as the difference is staggering.

As for the problems that grow exponentially with population I'd like to know what you're implying.

I'm say that you shouldn't expect a linear increase in this type of thing as your population grows.

Density I can see mattering, but the population living in cities is pretty uniform across western nations of similar development.

Why does population total matter?

That's just not true

Do you know what the percentage of the US population that is? That’s not insane.

Yeah, compared to other similar countries, police killings in the US are extremely common

That's still not true

Compared to other police departments around the developed world, it is extremely common in the US.

Police killings are only part of the problem. There is a vastly bigger problem with police committing crimes and being violent without killing people.

So what percentage of attempted arrests ending in death of the suspect would be statistically significant to you?

My rule of thumb is 0.5% for ease. But in this issue I think comparing it to death by firearms overall wich is 33000 per year in the us.

Holy crap!! You're saying that 1 in in 200 arrest leading to a death is what it would take to be significant for you? Wow, you got some issues.

There are some 10 million arrest a year. It would take 50,000 killings by police for you to be concerned? That's insane. At 50,000 killed, that would be one of the leading causes of death

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191261/number-of-arrests-for-all-offenses-in-the-us-since-1990/

This clearly shows you have every intention to give the police every unreasonable support

Consern would be much earlier, but yes it would take police killings to be one of the leading casues of death before I consider it one of the leading causes of death.

but yes it would take police killings to be one of the leading casues of death before I consider it one of the leading causes of death.

But nobody is arguing about it having to be one of the top 5 causes of death. Before reaching 50,000 deaths, it would be THE leading cause of death that isn't related with aging.

Clearly you have no every interest in supporting the police practices no matter how terrible your argument is.

What are you arguing for?

I'm arguing that something doesn't have to be the leading cause of death just to be a concern. We have 1,000 people killed a year by police whereas many western nations are under 10 people killed by year. Even if you adjust for population, we still have a huge difference in killed by police per capita. Even adjusting for murder rates and population, we still have a huge difference.

Suicides kill 20k people per year. That would be less than half the number that you raised as a concern. Your logic than leads us to believe you don't think much should be done to reduce that 20k number since it isn't large enough to be a concern for you.

I would have used it compared to causes of death overall probably within a specific age group as well which would have made it significant. But you bring up a good point that people generally don't die now days.

I am prepered to change my mind at this point though, as the homocide rate in other european countries are much higher than I anticipated.

I would have used it compared to causes of death overall probably within a specific age group as well which would have made it significant

CDC actually has that information

Leading causes of death by age group: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_of_death_age_group_2016_1056w814h.gif

Leading causes of death by non-natural ways: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_of_death_highlighting_violence_2016_1030w800h.gif

Leading causes of unintentional injury deaths :https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_of_death_highlighting_unintentional_2016_1040w800h.gif

The 3rd is just breaking down the 'unintentional injury deaths' that when grouped is the leading cause of death of every age group 1-44. Appeears that among unintentional injury deaths, under 24yrs of age the #1 cause is death in automobile accidents and 35-64 it's accidental poisoning and 65+ it's falling down.

So there's 33,000 shooting deaths in the US per year and about a third of those are from police? Or is that a separate category?

I think it's the same but not sure. A 33rd not a 3rd though

How are there so many unknown?

[removed]

[removed]

To rephrase the question only slightly: out of the times that the state has killed somebody, how many times has the state deemed itself legally or morally culpable for the killing?

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that the state probably deems the state to be blameless with almost metronomic regularity.

Where is the evidence that racism is the reason for higher incidence of black fatalities? The article just asserts that and moves on citing stop and frisk. I'd really like to know how you measure racism in a huge beurocracy like the police force. For such a huge charge though, I need some evidence.

[removed]

I checked the study's methodology and they don't explain anything beyond the way they composed the database from which the figures/ratios are drawn.

drugs and other soft crimes are p even probability distributions across race e.g. http://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice

which highlights a flaw in trying to answer your question. we cant rely on the justice department's stats about crime to say who commits the most crimes, because any actual trend can be obfuscated by uneven enforcement.

Awesome, thanks. However, incidents for which deadly force is appropriate (let’s just agree that some fixed definition exists somewhere in law or policy) are probably not those soft crimes, or necessarily proportionate to them, so I don’t agree that your link has full bearing on the issue.

I 100% agree that the tools of understanding are only as good as their own clarity of vision.

However, at the very beginning, I think “is distribution regular?” is a question that needs to be answered before one can reasonably move on to “why are outcomes irregular?” Let alone “how can we reduce outcomes of a certain type?”

Again, I’m not saying this isn’t addressed. I’m just saying people seem to only talk about this as though regular distribution was a given, and that would be a glaring process error.

well the question becomes "why wouldn't they be regular"

if its socioeconomic, capitalism is the problem
if it's not, you're having to argue race realism

and no matter which one you pick, both sides are gonna hate you

You can’t make assumptions in advance of data.

It sounds like you are implying that you prefer to assume distribution is regular because you would be uncomfortable with what you see as the available explanations were it to not be.

That’s like asking “why wouldn’t the earth be the center of the universe? If it’s not, then god must not love us”. First you need clear data about what is and only afterward can you start to ask the right questions about why.

Regardless, you definitely can’t take effective action in the world unless you understand the world as it really is and packaging together assumptions about “capitalism” or “race realism” (which sounds a far cry from just “behavior has coincident genetic elements”- and that’s a far cry from just “culture affects behavior and is coincident with ‘race’”) in advance of even knowing the real conditions is not useful.

It definitely doesn’t affect data if politically minded people “hate” it.

you would actually want to assume theres no irregularities in the distribution, since that's your null hypothesis

I don’t understand how you can possibly think that making assumptions at all is preferable to not making assumptions.

that's how science works

you assume no correlation between variables and attempt to disprove that

You seem rational. There is possibly a conversation here in which we can both learn why the other begins from a different position. It would help me keep from arguing if you didn’t say things like “that’s how science works”. For one thing, making additional unnecessary assumptions is not how “science works”, so you probably think that it’s necessary to assume that an unknown variable has a definite distribution when you are studying a given outcome. Can you help me understand why you think this is useful?

that is, for the most part, what modern philosophy of science thinks research is. See Popper and falsification

you dont assume a definite distribution, you assume the distribution is uncorrelated to any variables, in this case: crime and race, without counterevidence

Now we’re getting somewhere.

I am not assuming that crime correlates with race.

I hypothesize that fatality correlates with incidents in which fatality is justified, where “justified” means “in accordance with law and police regulations”.

To answer the question “why is fatality distributed as it is” I would first like to know whether fatality does or does not correlate with incidents in which it should actually be occurring, where “should”, again, refers to law and policy.

If it occurs where it “should” this explains distribution with just one question, which is why I think this question should be ruled out first.

[deleted]

well the egg here is probably hundreds of years of intergenerational oppression and policy aimed at promoting poverty in certain races has led to a situation that, on the surface, necessitates excessive policing while propagating crime via felon disenfranchisement to feed the prison industrial complex which results in a feedback loop of more poverty, crime, and perceived police necessity

This is consistently overlooked when people rely on these statistics to form an opinion. Almost all the data is fruit from a poisonous tree.

It's because they started with a conclusion and worked backwards. It's typical of studies like this.

Black men accounted for 52.5% of all homicides from 1980 to 2008. You're on the right track.

great comment

Careful, you might get censored for talking like that on r/science

Comments are unlocked...

Why does it matter? If the results end up being minorities are more predisposed to being killed by police because they tend to be more confrontational what would that tell you and why would it matter?

I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems like you are saying that we can solve a problem without understanding its causes.

If the problem is caused by anything other than biased policing, focusing on policing won’t solve the problem.

At an absolute minimum, understanding the role policing plays is incomplete unless we understand what is being policed in the first place.

I’m satisfied that systemic bias has been shown to exist. The existence of an undetermined amount of bias is insufficient evidence to explain an arbitrary degree of asymmetry in outcomes as resulting from bias.

I remember seeing that when adjusted for violent crime rates, blacks were actually less likely to be involved in officer involved shootings than whites. On top of that, white officers are less likely to pull the trigger than black or Hispanic officers (though I suspect this could be attributed to the police force having a similar ethnic makeup to the area it polices).

I think part of it also could be that the white officer has an awareness that if he pulls the trigger in an encounter with a minority suspect, he'll be judged and condemned immediately by some in the media and loud anti-police voices in the community before any investigation whatsoever is conducted.

Generally, the racism charge is shown by comparing situations where race is the only difference and setting if it causes a change in outcome.

The most common involve sentencing. You gather a large amount of data on black and white offenders, then look for everyone that committed a scientific set of crimes with the same criminal history and see if the non-white defendants get harsher sentences. Most studies that look at it find this disparity.

You are right that simply saying "blacks have a higher percentage of their population arrested" doesn't prove racism. The problem is that there are only three justifications: - blacks are more criminal because of their nature (race) - blacks are more criminal because of their social conditions - the police are racist and arrest more blacks (possibly unconscious bias)

The first idea is racist (which doesn't necessarily make it untrue, it just makes it unfeasible as an answer). The second idea is abhorrent to a country which prides itself on equal opportunity. The third idea is what BLM hangs its hat on.

Having studied sociology and read up on the studies, it is most likely a mix of two and three, with two being stronger. This is where the idea of systemic racism comes in. We, as a society, fail to give people equal opportunities in society and many of those who are non-white and then use their failure to thrive as proof that they are inferior.

[deleted]

I'd like the story to be true and verifiable with data so we can stamp it out where it still existst. The system needs to go to great lengths to be fair. Claiming it is unfair by design is a huge charge and should not be done without evidence. This clouds the real issues that may exist and needs to be called out.

Not every claim of racism is a gaslight from the left mate. Sometimes just sometimes, they are actually right about it. This is one of those cases. If you can't see the pattern I don't know what to tell you.

That isnt very scientific. Just trust the assertion without asking to see any data? It is highly probable that there are other factors to explain differences in arrest rates between different groups. Like differences in the commission of crimes for instance?

[deleted]

I disagree with this 100%. This is an ideological push to re-define anything that isn't equal outcome as "bad" or "immoral." The definition you describe above borrows the stigma and outrage from the word "racism" in order to pressure society into enforcing equality of outcome. This is an evil idea, and a terrible one. Any rule which is equally applied to all, like laws should be, will result in unequal effects on any groups you choose to define. Race, sex, shoe size, eye color, whatever - different outcomes. There is nothing wrong with this and it isn't something we need to fix. Applying the term "racism" as a default is clearly motivated by politics and worldview. I don't accept this as an appropriate label.

Nobody here said anything about "equality of outcome" before you did. Even the example given, stop and frisk, is specifically the law being applied unequally in practice.

which are more about disparate impact than bias or intent.

"disparate impact" = "unequal outcome"

And the same comment later explains that this disparate impact is the result of unequal treatment by the law.

Have you seen my goalpost anywhere?

Nice fallacy fallacy. I can look up those on Wikipedia too.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough originally, but the point is that you've been dismissing the definition of "institutional racism" because you think it's referring to unequal outcomes from equal treatment, when that was never what it was referring to. It's referring to unequal outcomes from treatment that isn't equal.

He literally says outcome is important and intent or bias isn't. He also uses the word "target" which implies intent, so the argument isn't very coherent. The main thrust though is that if outcomes are different that is the important bit and we can call those racist. I disagree with this blind association as it pushes us to fear enforcing reasonable laws if too many people in a given group will break them.

I'd disagree with his assertion that "bias" is not important, since institutional racism does involve some degree of bias on the part of the institutions enforcing it. And "targeting" doesn't imply intent, if black communities are targeted disproportionately by stop-and-frisk, it's not necessarily because the police are thinking "they're black, so let's do it this way." It may just be a result of subtler biases among the police departments. Either way, the result is unequal treatment.

The "unequal treatment" is the important part, which was explained in the original comment you were replying to. Broadly different outcomes between races aren't the topic of discussion, merely the result of unequal treatment.

I think laws like stop and frisk exist because in the 80s people like you would claim that police don't patrol black neighborhoods because they're racist and dont care. So in the 90s theres a big push to clean those neighborhoods up and now you scream racism because police are policing black neighborhoods.

The "police are racist" charge is made no matter what cops do.

People like you? That's racist.

This point is important. The verb "target" does imply intent. That is just part of the definition of the word. Here is that definition:

verb

1. select as an object of attention or attack. "two men were targeted by the attackers" synonyms: pick out, single out, earmark, fix on; attack, aim at, fire at "he was targeted by a gunman"

You can't select something without intent. You can't pay attention to something or attack something without intent. This is dictionary territory. Whether you two realize it or not, that word connotes intent.

This is important because it makes what he says an accusation. As if stop and frisk and other measures in the inner city are picking on minorities that get caught. There is a difference between this scenario and one in which a law being equally enforced results in group differences in prosecution. That difference is intent. My position is we shouldn't care about the results if the enforcement is equal.

Another point I'd like to mention is about crime rates in different precincts. If you take downtown Detroit or Chicago and compare it with a wealthy suburb I would hope you would have vastly different policing strategies as the crime rates are like night and day. This also isn't racism, but practical public safety.

we should be afraid to enforce laws

laws are bad

Hes referring to situations like leaving an uncovered pickup filled with new nike's beside an inner city basketball court with the intent of arresting any kids who help themselves.

Lets not muddy the waters here. That tactic is meant to target a very specific demographic.

Okay, so I'm asking for the data for how often that happens and what percentage of the disproportionate arrests are due to this. You know, actual evidence.

I'm sure black men, roughly 6% of the population, commit over half the murders in the US because of racism. Or maybe it's poverty? That explains why rural Appalachia has so much violent crime. Wait a second...

Maybe both povery and density of living quarters have to be taken into effect?

When racism against the Irish was more accepted, rural appalachia was a more violent place. Violent family feuds and wars were a thing in that era.

That's not racist. If they're the policy doesn't mandate any racial discrimination it's not racist.

Whatever you wanna call it, the result is someone is more likely to miss out on the oppurtunities afforded by this society simply by virtue of the race they were born into.

Its isnt saying that at all. Nowhere does it say the results are due to racism. It just states that these are the results. Its on us as responsible members of the community to reflect om the results and ask why it might be.

You can come to the conclusion that its racism but its a lot more nuanced than that.

From the article, emphasis added:

The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects.

[removed]

Wait seriously? Did the article say that?

Did it say what?

fist_fighting = armed

If you are fist fighting with a cop who has a gun the potentiality of you getting his gun is very high = armed.

Did you see the video of that low life degenerate thug right before he encountered the cop? The one where he went in to that store and strong armed the clerk for whatever he wanted.

"The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects." - the article seems to have a lot of commentary and things like "this seems to imply..." I would love to see raw data on this. Whatever the case it's definitely thought-provoking and might show that this is beyond being personal and maybe more institutional iiiif we could see some methods and data

Edit: grammar

[removed]

[removed]

For drug use which happens at a similar race African Americans are arrested at a 5x higher rate. The problem is that a significantly higher portion of minorities in the us live in poverty then white Americans. When you look at the violence by location crime rates are about the same.

Just searched up the drug thing and you right those rates are way higher, what do you mean by violence by location though

Traditionally poorer neighborhoods/areas are disproportionatly affected by crime.

[deleted]

Well I would say that's true for General upkeep/vandalism but the root causes of crime like robbery, murder, gang activity ect is usually socioeconomic circumstance. I think the second group of crime is the one we were referencing to.

[deleted]

The community would have to come together to solve the effects of predatory capitalism and a failing public education system to solve that problem.

poverty

yes, this is why rural Appalachia is the most dangerous region in the country.

I’m having trouble finding the evidence you’re mentioning. Can you point me to it? And does it differentiate “rate” and “frequency”? Because if not they aren’t doing a very meaningful analysis.

https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/

"African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites."

Yeah but there isn’t any mention of frequency. So we don’t know how many days out of the month (or times per day) each group is using drugs. I’m not trying to be nit picky I just think it’s dishonest to make conclusions without that piece of the puzzle.

Edit: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf

Page 21 of this report reveals that the survey asked participants if they had used marijuana in the past year. Because there isn’t a delineation between someone who tried pot once and someone who smokes 200 days out of the year, I remain skeptical.

I heard something recently that drug addict that stole counts as 1 criminal, that banker that fraud millions that's 1 criminal. That's funny to me cause i bet the banker hurt more people, and causes more damage to the economy but no one talks about that, makes me realize WHITE collar crimes.

makes me realize WHITE collar crimes.

Because someone who works in an office more than likely wears a white collared shift, in contrast to blue collar: denim.

Do you even have a basic high school education.

If he did he should to know to use a question mark at the end of a question instead of a period, right?

Which is tied vastly more strongly to income level than to race, so you're right — it's not institutional racism in just the police, it's in society as a whole.

Curious to see how training levels play into this, as well.

Anecdotally, it seems like you hear fewer cases involving deadly force involving State Police - who have more training and more stringent requirements.

State Police are not the ones typically patrolling the rough neighborhoods. They primarily cover highways and assist in rural areas where the local police are few.

And on top of that, I'm sure not nearly as many people run when they're pulled over on a highway with no cover or places to hide for 200+ feet in any direction

Hundreds of hours of YouTube footage may disagree with ya

Well sure, but how many total hours of footage would there be if all traffic stops were captured? Hundreds of hours sounds like a lot, but compared to the huge number of traffic stops, it's not a whole lot.

Comment said "not nearly as many people" not "no one."

State troopers are the ones most likely to run into high risk suspects that are trying to go 'elsewhere'

You should watch more Cops.

Most rough neighborhood pds are also staffed with rookie/young cops. If you ever go to affluent neighborhoods, Greenwich CT for instance the police are usually much older

That's completely up to the specific departments, and by no means a general rule

Its not a general rule its just a general observation based on what I've seen. Also what most cops want. Dude on the force 10+ years probably doesn't want to patrol the high crime areas anymore and is more likely to get a nicer pist than a guy right out of the academy

Thats not true at least in NJ. They cover large portions of the state, in neighborhoods (good and bad) along with highways. Not sure of other states

That's because certain parts of New Jersey lack local police departments.

State Troopers assist in localities where departments are few or non existent. In the case of New Jersey, that's entire areas of the state that lack local PD. In a lot of other states, it's rural areas where local PD is few in number and where local PD is nonexistent, or only work part time

Every state has their own nuances

State police are now being posted in high crime parts of cities. Most of them black neighborhoods.

but not nearly as many encounters in rough neighborhoods.

State police typically do large SWAT busts and drug stings (where I'm from anyway) so there are plenty of high intensity, dangerous situations that everyone walks away from.

State police is almost only dealing with traffic stops on the highway

Depends on where you are.

There are on city police where I live - it’s either county or state.

State Police generally aren’t the ones riding around the hood, though. They’re more out on the highway.

There are probably fewer state police and fewer instances of them dealing with people altogether.

I think that's more a consequence of their particular job responsibilities versus training.

Anecdotally, it seems like you hear fewer cases involving deadly force involving State Police - who have more training and more stringent requirements.

Citation needed.

Considering that many consent decrees have "close your police academy and send them to the state one instead" as a condition of reform, there's probably more to this than most people think.

State police and city police don't really do the same things, though, so it's hard to compare actual results.

...and again they typically patrol different areas, but I can’t help but wonder if other departments having the same (or better) training wouldn’t help. I can’t think of a time when I’ve seen a state trooper who wasn’t physically fit, either.

In my small town at least, there are sometimes officers who think they’re big fish in a small pond and act like it, but any interactions I’ve ever had with state police have been very professional.

Using the same standards for city cops that are used for staties would be a huge improvement, IMHO. I think the fact that the Department of Justice recognizes this and sometimes enforces it as part of reform efforts speaks volumes.

Overall training for US police is rediciously short and easy

Ever been through a police academy? If your answer is no then you don't know what you're talking about.

Actually its pretty easy to say.

https://work.chron.com/long-train-cop-21366.html

Compare it to for example the german police who have to do several years of training.

Also the starting requirements are lower then in germany or other european countries. You can look it up

No those still are not easy requirements considering the physical and mental rigours of the academy. Policing is comparable to a trade in the fact a high school diploma may be the minimum, but you spend 5-6 months in school for a very specialized career. I encourage you to go to your local police station and training academy and ask questions. It would be a very good eye opening and educational opportunity.

Yea and these will tell me that it takes 3 years of training to become a policeman and from there yearly tests in terms of fitness and mental.

Gun training on weekly bases even years into the career.

You're confusing the college education that some countries require with the academy education that is provided. Additionally, it can vary between countries and in Germany specifically between each state, border patrol and customs. Again, the European standards are not years of training. It is college that makes up their length. The American states police commissions also require yearly and weekly trainings on the things you mention. I do thank you for this conversation because it made me do some google searching today.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/policing/eur551.htm

US police is a monolith? A Continental sized country with 330 million people cannot be generalized easily, my areas police are paid very well but have very stringent requirements. Other places, not so much.

I agree (and have two relatives who are LEOs) but state police academy is fairly rigorous and their standards once they’re in are fairly strict.

I have a problem with this part of the study:

The study also found that less than 1 percent of victims of police killings were unarmed. Across all racial groups, 65.3 percent of those killed possessed a firearm at the time of their death.

"The gun could be in their car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed," says Menifield. "This shouldn't be surprising because of the availability and ease of getting a gun in the United States."

Questions:

1.) Were the police aware of the presence of the firearm at the time of shooting?

2.) Was the firearm legally owned and possessed?

3.) How exactly did the police become aware of the firearm?

I ask these because the police could have found a gun in the trunk, that doesn't suddenly mean the victim "was armed". The firearm has to actually be part and present in the altercation for the suspect to be considered "Armed".

A suspect being armed isn't a reason to shoot. A suspect attacking or moving in unpredictable ways, is likely to bring a harder move from a cop. It's hard to evaluate the data, without the statistics for everytime a cop interacted with an armed African American and didn't shoot them.

Exactly, which is why I question their definition of "armed" that merely includes the presence of the weapon and doesn't include whether the presence of the weapon was known to the officers prior to the shooting.

Philando Castile aside I wonder how many were CCW shootings (cop shoots legal carrier in car)

How many people in general have a blunt object in their car that could be considered a weapon? I have a lug wrench in both my and my spouses car. That 99%+ armed stat looks pretty dubious the way they are defining armed.

[removed]

There is so little police use of deadly force that is ruled unjustified, that you probably could not make a statistical analysis base on that data.

[deleted]

But then they wouldnt get the result they wanted

Why shoukd those questions be asked? They dont impact the results or point of the study at all.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

Exactly. People forget this extremely important fact most of the time. Police focus on high crime areas, which tend to be poorer areas, which tend to be areas mostly inhabited by minorities.

[deleted]

Broken windows, stop and frisk, the drug war all disproportionately affect poor minority communities. Quality of life tickets target poor neighborhoods. Putting the blame on poor communities is insane and racist. Not all blame is on the police, the rest goes to politicians and 'pull yourself up by your bootstrap' bootlicking fascists like you.

pull yourself up by your bootstrap' bootlicking fascists like you

But... they specifically agree with you.

However it's actually remnants of past racism that have created an environment in which black Americans commit a disproportionately large amount of crimes.

You're completely on the same page as the comment you're responding to, but you're calling them a fascist. They're not putting the blame on poor communities, they're putting it on America's treatment of them in the past. We should be able to agree that crime IS worse there, precisely for that reason we agree on.

So saying that the remnants of past racism is leading to problems today makes them a corpratist totalitarian nationalist?

If you are going to use words, please learn what they mean. I'm sick and tired of people calling Market Liberals and Conservatives "Reactionary Facists(despite the fact that facism is revolutionary, not reactionary)"

NYC's stop and frisk program showed that being black was a better predictor of whether you'd be engaged by police than you actually doing something bad. Blacks were stopped far more often than whites, even though whites were far more likely to actually have a weapon or other contraband when searched. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/13/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-stop-and-frisk-and-why-the-courts-shut-it-down/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1bcd490bdbd0

[deleted]

Of course you don't have time to read a news article. Why would you, when you want to rant and make your point?

Dude... a judge decided it was illegal. They didn't "account for" all that nonsense you listed because, well, they were just racist idiots. "Other" is not a reason. It's a space to fill in a reason... "Other" was used more than once and not disciplined as a reason to stop and frisk. This is just the surface...

If ANY of the things you pointed out were actually legit, the court case would have sussed those out. To be perfectly frank, defending NYC stop and frisk is reprehensible.

Whoa careful there buddy! Wouldn't want to go against the ~ G R O U P T H I N K ~

There's a ton of data on racial disparities in policing. Marijuana arrests (higher for blacks) compared to usage rates (about even) are a quick example. And there are of course many other issues, which the authors likely cite in their research.

Excluding discrimination (and mental health, economics, etc.) from a bigger discussion would be very misleading, and I can't imagine who that would benefit.

Between the data discussed here and the already published study showing the higher kills/encounter, nobody can say that blacks are being killed in a racist manner.

I think that goes too far, at least if you want to be able to have a productive debate with someone who's actually experienced racism. Sometimes people try to explain their experiences with statistics, and sometimes those explanations turn out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean the experiences don't exist. Finding a way to acknowledge that is helpful and respectful.

[removed]

So then the question is, are cops of every ethnicity more inclined to use deadly force against minorities, or are minorities more likely to act aggressively or put themselves in more dangerous/threatening positions?

Most likely both, but it is likely not affected by skin color.

This study hints that other factors are driving forces, such as area. For example, in low income areas, more crime happens. So therefore there are more criminals and therefore more people likely to get into lethal police fights.

Similarly, since there are more criminals, police know that they can't take risks or they could die easily, so deadly force is more common.

The differences in ethnicity is a side-effect of the fact that certain minorities are overrepresented in the low income and bad neighborhood demographics.

Low income areas have more crime

[removed]

TLDR: because minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime here in the US, minorities are disproportionately killed by police officers.

[removed]

Watch Alex Jones much?

This is just right wing conspiracy dribble. You are simply a racist trying to shroud your bigotry in statistics. Go back to r/The_Donald

[deleted]

Had they done the same numbers using

FBI UCR

statistic's they would not have reached the same conclusion even remotely.

"They are wrong because they didn't do what I would've done"

No they are wrong because they didn't use accurate numbers but opted for subjective data to fit thier narrative.

The study doesn't seem to factor in the rate of violent crime by race which shows the rate of police shootings to be over represented when whites are the victim.

From the article:

Bad policing, bad law, not 'bad apples,' behind disproportionate killing of black men.

The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects.
"The question of the basic causes of racial disparities in police killings has profound real-world implications for policing a diverse society," Menifield says, suggesting that appropriate reforms for a fundamentally institutional problem would target racism in police department practices and criminal policy that result in over policing of minority populations.

...

In addition, he says, police departments need to bring in external reviewers to examine all of their institutional practices including hiring, promotions and training. The long?running racial discrepancies in the way that force is applied to suspects have significantly eroded trust between law enforcement and the public whom they serve, the researchers argue.
"There is definitely a problem when one race of people are being killed by police at much higher rates than other populations," Menifield says. "This unfortunate state of affairs is unlikely to improve until fundamental changes in public policy and policing are undertaken."

It's almost like the narrative is more important than the facts for some people.

[removed]

The study also found that less than 1 percent of victims of police killings were unarmed. Across all racial groups, 65.3 percent of those killed possessed a firearm at the time of their death.

"The gun could be in their car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed," says Menifield. "This shouldn't be surprising because of the availability and ease of getting a gun in the United States."

This is notable: by the constraints of this study, a suspect with a gun in their glove compartment or trunk is regarded as equivalently armed as someone with a gun on their person. In light of the fact that LEO's ace-in-the-hole justification for the killing of suspects is almost always fear-for-one's-life, this is a sloppy, irresponsible, and/or dishonest way of classifying the data. I'd like to see the stats on how many people killed by LEO actually had a gun on their person.

It also works the other way.

For example, attacking an officer with your hands is considered unarmed.

I also believe attacking someone with your vehicle makes you unarmed.

Both of which can be quite deadly, yet are put into the same bucket as someone laying on the ground tied up.

Is there data available that adds clarity on the status of the weapon in 'armed' cases?

Reading this, isn’t the last bit...killing of unarmed rare....saying something as well? Following police direction, perhaps not showing a weapon or being visibly armed? Yes, there is an issue, but black deaths go beyond the simple...blame police for shootings.

I see videos with people arguing with the police and blaming police. The issue is also a trend to encourage confronting police. Aggression escalates, when faced with aggression.

Man, there was a great video out of I believe San Francisco showing the police chasing a guy on foot, and when he reached for a gun in his wasteband the cops shot in and the gun flopped out and under a car.

It took 60 seconds for a mob to form around the police officers, accusing them of shooting another unarmed minority. Meanwhile the cops are frantically trying to find the gun through the mob that's becoming increasing violent.

I think the problem is in beginning with an assumption the police are in the wrong. I always assume the police are doing the right thing..unless I'm convinced otherwise. Generally, people being shot are either not following directions or are perceived as armed and the officers think they are about to be attacked.

I've seen a few with someone trying to reach for a cell phone...the officer probably thought could be a reach for a weapon as well.

Lesson is to follow directions and you'll probably never come close to being shot.

I don't go as far as assuming cops are doing the right thing, but there's basically never a reason to not just go along with the cops commands and then fight that shit in court later if they were doing something wrong. Provoking/antagonizing them is never going to end well for either party.

I watched a guy turn a traffic stop into 4 cops piled on top of him with pepper spray. Short version...he argued with them, refused to hand over an ID, got out of his car and very close to officer #1. Second car pulled up....everything turned formal....”Sir this...Sir that....”. Directions not followed...escalated and it went really badly for him.

There was no point and he had multiple opportunities to stop.

Yes, I agree with you and also know I might not want to be a cop.

Lesson is to follow directions and you'll probably never come close to being shot.

I mean, there are definitely a couple cases of people being fully compliant and then being shot literally out of the blue... but those are incredibly rare and definitely not the norm. As well, at least in the two cases that come to my mind, both of those cops were actually charged.

Those 'cell phone reaching' shootings almost always have a context.

I find it so fascinating that people come into these science threads to argue against something someone who is - by all accounts - a professional or expert on the subject matter. To disagree or try to totally discount things like this, is tantamount to claiming that your limited knowledge and experience is more relevant or trustworthy than their research. To see something like this, and not use it as a lens, or an opportunity to learn something or add to your knowledge base and weigh that against what you THINK you know or have seen - well that's just dumb.

I think it's healthy to question the "experts". They're human too, and it's a far better practice to examine everything critically and learn to evaluate the evidence on your own than it is to blindly trust someone else to do it for you. It's also important to judge evidence on it's own merit, regardless of the source. Disagreeing with the conclusions of a study is fine as long as you aren't discounting them offhand for the wrong reasons. I think all evidence should be considered but on the same note there's no reason every study should be trusted by default.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree on that. Question, research, investigate - but there are many people who just think it is wrong or they know better based on some anecdotal evidence or bias they inherently have.

This is a crucial identity-defining issue used as a rallying cry. It can't just be given up because of facts.

I think it's healthy to question the "experts".

Yeah but only when the experts are saying things we don't like am i rite

Its a lack of public trust in "the man"

But since the article is missing alot of facts... we are allowed to question it or say its not enough evidence OVERALL. As many have pointed out theres ALOT more studying that could be done because this is a VERY complex situation. I'd also like to see something like this done be a group of people who are non-biased in any way. By that I mean someone black, someone white, someone asian, someone republican, someone democrat...etc. If they can all agree with the evidence. Then I'd believe it.

We also tend to hold people with degrees on pedastools and its dangerous. Just because you have a expoensive piece of paper doesn't mean your right in everything you say. I'm met doctors who knew less then me. Heck I don't have a degree in computers and yet "degreed" techs I am often correcting them.

I encourage you to go read the actual study, and not just the brief description of it.

If nothing else it points out a discrepancy that should be further investigated. A disproportionate amount of things happening on one side vs. the other certainly warrants continued investigation. I think you'd agree.

Just because you have a expoensive piece of paper doesn't mean your right in everything you say. I'm met doctors who knew less then me. Heck I don't have a degree in computers and yet "degreed" techs I am often correcting them.

Except they have more than an expensive piece of paper. PhD and even masters students/graduates have years of experience actually conducting the research, analyzing data, and refining methods.

I agree that we shouldn’t put anyone on a pedestal but that “piece of paper” represents much more than a couple theoretical classes like a bachelors degree does. People doing research have a lot of practical experience with their subject on top of the hours and hours of time they put into simply being familiar with the data in their field.

The questions you should ask yourself is "Would you put the same level of criteria and doubt on an article/study that supports your way of thinking?" If you can honestly say yes, then alright.

This kind of post appears every time and its just asinine. Arguing is valid.

Before you disagree consider that I am a field expert in arguing, and therefore an authority which, as per one of our views, makes me immune to arguments.

First off, if it appears every time, then you wasting time to comment on it would be asinine.

Second, I didn't say anything about being immune to arguments - I said - and you can just take a real quick peek maybe a few inches above your comment to see it "literally" - "To disagree or try to totally discount things like this, is tantamount to claiming that your limited knowledge and experience is more relevant or trustworthy than their research. To see something like this, and not use it as a lens, or an opportunity to learn something or add to your knowledge base and weigh that against what you THINK you know or have seen - well that's just dumb."

I challenge you, and I am an expert in challenging, to prove to me where I said that arguing is invalid. Furthermore, I challenge you to show me where I said that it was beyond doubt or scrutiny.

To disagree is silly - to provide counter evidence from sources rather than just spout off what you think you know... Cool! To totally discount is dumb - to provide evidence that would show something like this is questionable or discredited... Cool! To add nothing to this but hearsay, anecdotal evidence, or bias... Lame! That would be so lame.

Is this like that segment where that black reporter wanted to prove how easy it is to distinguish if someone has a weapon or not, and then proceeds to do a training course and shoot the suspect in every instance?

Can't we just be concerned about cops killing unarmed innocent people? It always has to be a race thing

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Did you read the article at all?

[removed]

So just by the title alone it says police having to use deadly force is the problem. I mean yes, it's a problem that police have to deal with if they have to use it. Other then that if the police have to use deadly force facing a subject with a weapon and the threat of death and/or serious physical harm is present, how is that the problem of the police?

I think more people need to see some of the body cam footage from police stops to see what they have to deal with, before they judge the police. I've seen several videos where the police have a split second before they get shot by a criminal they are arresting, and I've seen a few videos where the policeman wasn't fast enough.

I, personally, am more concerned with the officer that risks his life to serve the community staying alive than a person -of any race - that decides to get involved in shady behavior or be stupid enough to pull a weapon on a cop.

[deleted]

I thought being armed is legal?

Depends by state and concealed carry laws.

Not when you’re committing crimes.

Because being armed, which is legal, is not a justifiable reason on its own to be shot

Not legal to be armed while committing crimes, which is usually how you end up in police encounters, committing crimes.

You dont have to be committing a crime to be stopped by the police. Like if you get pulled over for speeding and you have a legal gun and your permit you arent comitting a crime but you are armed

Correct, and I’m willing to bet roughly zero people were shot at a simple speeding stop while legally armed.

Doesn’t detract from the point that the most common way to come in contact with police is committing a crime, many crimes disqualify legal armament, and armed criminals are more likely to react in a way that will lead to them getting shot.

Unless you're a minority, as the article is explaining.

A police officer is not intended as an executioner, and "suspect" doesn't have any particular meaning because the police haven't found them guilty of anything. A "suspect" is basically just a guy they're looking for. Just because someone is armed, doesn't mean they're guilty or that they deserve to be executed. A huge portion of Americans are armed, but it would be absurd for the police to shoot them all just because they had weapons.

It only makes sense for police to use deadly force if there's no other appropriate way for them to subdue the subject AND there's imminent danger to someone else.

What’s your evidence to show that this isn’t what is already done? Are you claiming that there’s a disproportionate amount of illegitimate uses of force, and if so, what’s your data?

I'm not making any claims of that type. I'm just responding to the post above mine, which asked why it was a problem to kill someone who was ARMED. My answer is that 1. Someone who is armed isn't necessarily a bad person and 2. Most (or even all) bad people don't deserve to die, and 3. Even if they do, this is the job of the Courts, not the Police.

Also, even if a use of force is "legitimate", that doesn't necessarily mean we can't attempt to do better. Perhaps there are less lethal options we should be considering, such as counseling suspects rather than drawing weapons. We might understand why a police officer used force legitimately but also want to reduce the instances where his has to take place.

The consequence of allowing police to shoot any armed suspect would be disastrous considering how many millions of Americans are armed.

To pursue such changes, you have to prove there are enough illegitimate uses of lethal force to justify the increased risk to officers that prolonged deescalarion tactics inherently bring.

Not responding with force quickly to the wrong person will get cops killed, and i don’t see the data that cops are murdering innocent people at a rate high enough to convince me to mandate such protocols.

De-escalation is something that can save lives.

Or it can get lots of cops killed by mandating excessive de-escalation protocol leading to police operating from a disadvantageous position against violent people.

It works elsewhere.

Places with entirely different cultures, legal systems, demographics/populations, histories, and a million other independent factors.

Why do you assume such different scenarios can have a simple copy/paste “solution?”

When it works pretty much everywhere except in a few places, it probably isn't a very specific solution.

That’s not an answer to any question I asked. Why do you think it will work in the USA when we differ so vastly from these other places?

Do people in the USA enjoy getting killed? If not, they'll probably respond to de-escalation.

And I really don't see how the USA differs so vastly from other western nations, especially for example Canada.

they’ll probably respond to de-escalation

you’re assuming everyone is a rational actor (criminals already disregard social norms and the well-being of others by nature of being criminals), plus mandated police passivity incentivizes violence towards police (slower escalation gives violent criminals the advantage).

The USA has a far more diverse population, culturally and racially, than about any modern first world nation. Lots of US subcultures are still honor cultures, wherein people fight before submitting to someone else (police). There’s history (and current agitation by evil people) to stoke inter-race hatred. There lots of guns, and lots more illegal guns, in hands of criminals. Prison sentences are harder, and we still use the death penalty for bad hombres. There’s tons of variables, not hard to think through the mountain of reasons why policing in the USA is vastly different than Canada, Europe, etc.

Obviously this change in police training would have to come with other changes of the justice system - nobody will let himself be arrested if the almost certain outcome of that is execution.

Totally not surprising that it doesn't matter the race of the officer. It's not a problem with bias in individual officers. It's an issue of bias in policing in general. Bias in training. Bias in prioritizing enforcement. It's a systemic issue.

That's why I roll my eyes whenever someone claims that the problem is the union protecting the bad officers. You hear about another outrageous injustice, an officer acquitted or not charged, and you hear another story about how the officer followed his or her training and followed protocol and acted appropriately. At some point you need to question the training and the protocol.

[removed]

Is there a reason they only used 2014/2015? All they said was "most recent years sufficient data was available". Doesn't seem like 2 years of data would be sufficient to analyze where and when this proposed problem started?

Probably the most recent, comprehensive databases available. Data needs to be collected, include the right info, and be checked/ reviewed to make sure it is correct. I don't imagine databases included the race of the arresting officers until recently, so that scrapped the pre 2014 data sets. And checking / reviewing databases is not a police priority, so that probably eliminates the post 2015 ones.

Source: Database manager for my company for 15 years on projects.

Does this also mean that there's an issue of self-reporting? How probable is it for police to fudge the numbers/send incomplete information?

Thats what the database checking and verification is for. To try and root out fraud and bias (conscious and unconscious). Additionally, we dont have a nationalized police force (fortunately). So that results in 10,000s of police forces using 1000s of different database systems, all collecting different things, each with their own priorities and methods of collection/ review. This leads to a real jumble in assembling comprehensive, country-wide data sets. And thats what the researchers are up against.

Data takes a while to gather. Understand that police departments large and small send in their data to centralize said data. Then, someone must compile said data. Data must be sifted through, math done and must reach out to departments about incomplete data. All of this takes a lot of time. This is why you won't see the last couple of years.

Source: Criminal Justice undergrad.

I'm interested in this as well.

From the article: "We chose 2014 and 2015 because these are the first years for which there are complete data during the contemporary moment of heightened salience of police killings of citizens, especially young black men" (p. 5).

They then go on to describe how they created the dataset: "The database was constructed in a multistep process. We began by drawing on data gathered by Killed By Police, a nongovernmental entity that tracks police killings reported in the news and updates its data set each day. We chose this source as a base because the site links each killing with a news story that we could locate online. In order to ensure that the accuracy of the data, we cross-checked it with two other websites that collect data on police killings (lethaldb.silk.co and FatalEncounters.org)"

While it's true that many have died unjustly at the hands of cops, there reason why it seems to be a "problem" is because of the internet. Good or bad, the internet and smart phones have made documenting these occurrences easier. I bet the statistics of 20 years ago to present day are still pretty much the same, it's just that now we SEE it because of our advancing technology

Wow this thread has seriously been refreshing. People actually using facts instead of their feelings to form an opinion and even try to brainstorm ways we could help alleviate the problems black America is facing.

We can't fix the issue if we refuse to even admit there is one and trying to push the blame off on other things is only going to further complicate the problem and slow down progress.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The person who claims that something was stolen must prove it.

The person who claims that nothing was stolen, must not prove it.

Same goes for racism.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects.

"The question of the basic causes of racial disparities in police killings has profound real-world implications for policing a diverse society," Menifield says, suggesting that appropriate reforms for a fundamentally institutional problem would target racism in police department practices and criminal policy that result in over policing of minority populations.

[removed]

From the report:

The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects.

An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So where's the evidence that systematic racism exists or is the reason? The paper authors are only asserting that 🤔

[removed]

[removed]

The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects.

"The question of the basic causes of racial disparities in police killings has profound real-world implications for policing a diverse society," Menifield says, suggesting that appropriate reforms for a fundamentally institutional problem would target racism in police department practices and criminal policy that result in over policing of minority populations.

The root goes deeper than that. Police don’t target minorities just for the hell of it. They target them because they’re far more likely to be caught with something. The problem is the institutionalized racism that has been going on for decades that brought minorities down to that point. Jumping on the police is jumping on the symptom and not the problem. As long as the problem remains so will the symptoms.

They target them because they’re far more likely to be caught with something.

If you reread the part that I quoted, you'll see that there is over policing of minority populations. If you put anything under a microscope, you're going to see more and find more.

The comedian John Mulaney has a great bit on this. He started talking about marijuana and someone in the audience went "whoo". Then he said:

All right, don't "whoo" if you're white. It's always been legal for us. Come on, sir. We don't go to jail for marijuana, you silly billy. When I was arrested with a one-hitter at a Rusted Root concert, I did not serve hard time. I think I got an award.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Of course you have. The cops can never find the footage from the bad kills. Y'know, technology always breaking for entire squads just when something bad happens. The rest of the world record breaking kill rate is entirely the victim's fault. I'm not saying there aren't good cops though. My brother was a cop in CO for a long time. If they're bad for anything there, it's usually high speed runs when they get bored.

[removed]

[removed]

I don't think this was ever a white cop black victim situation. Its been pointed out before that the race of the cop doesn't have much relevancy. It was even pointed out in an NWA song that the race of the cop doesn't matter as much as people think it does. The importent thing to look at is the race of the victim. That is where we see racism comes into play.

[removed]

[removed]

All this article shows is some people will do whatever it takes to stay in the "house", that it glosses over the wide spectrum of police brutality in which people are fighting for, and that there is, in essence, a direct bias in police training that leads to a "shoot first, vacation later" mentality when they see someone of color. But hey, theres a black guys picture on the article, so it must be gospel.

Most important takeaway to me is that the police need external reviewers. They are never going to hold themselves accountable or to a higher standard on their own. "Internal investigation" may as well be slang for beating off and smoking confiscated weed until the media forgets about whatever the latest scandal is.

Aka all the stuff about rampant racism in the news is completely false. People are less racist now than they’ve ever been.

Tell me why 13% of the of population is responsible for over 50% of the murder rate. The utilization of the number 28% of people killed by police are black is a moronic figure to use. You aren’t factoring in history of criminal activity, the likelihood of police being killed by a black person, etc. this study is very skewed and is selectively using data to push a narrative. You have to factor in how many people the police shot were violent offenders. It’s a crime problem it’s a fatherless household problem. This is political propaganda, not science.

why is any of this surprising though? its logical as an officer regardless of skin to be cautious when dealing with any individual that your experience deems to be more likely a personal danger. Just so happens that the ethnicity that has a higher frequency chance of being a danger to them is generally black due to a whole network of historical issues. But telling cops they're racist because they pull over people who statistically are more likely to be doing something illegal isn't racist. Its efficient.

And they have so much pressure for stats to be met for the political machine. I can understand blacks frustration but i don't know how this problem is fixable.

It's been pretty well established by social science research that minorites can exhibit racism toward other minorites, even members of the same minority group.

I'd like to see a study of whether police departments with a higher percentage of black officers kill black suspects at a rate above, below or at the national baseline.

[removed]

[removed]

2017 Stats source

Unarmed whites killed by police: 22

Unarmed blacks killed by police: 16

[removed]

[removed]

It doesn't matter, people will continue to build the hateful rhetoric narrative that it's evil racist white cops killing innocent blacks. I'm glad we have the science to point at, but when has science ever convinced anyone?

[removed]

You really have to these days to get unbiased opinions on things that go against most of reddit's agenda..

Well, I'd say it's necessary to get all the opinions, but I certainly wouldn't say that controversial comments necessarily contain less bias.

I'll agree to that.

For the most part the point I was trying to make is that you're only getting one side a lot of times on reddit if you don't sort by controversial..

[removed]

Now adjust for income.

Cops kill poor people. Blacks are disproportionately poor. It's a class issue being framed as a race issue for political purposes.

I don't even think that is the bottom of the barrel.

Cops kill people that act out and are violent or non compliant. Poor people with access to guns and nothing to lose (because the path to middle class is so tough) is the issue.

Came here to zay zis. -Marx

i dont think that Hungry Santa quote is accurate.

[removed]

This still does not address one major problem, when a police officer has a gun pointed at you, DO NOT fight back. If the officer is doing something wrong, arguing with him/her in the heat of the moment will not solve the problem. That is not the time to fight bad policy. You will not win and will just increase tensions. It sucks to be arrested, but fighting it in the court of law or even the court of public opinion is better than taking a bullet.

[removed]

A lot of people are going to disagree with this due to the effect the media has trying to stay in business.

Since the articles talks about races:

The relevant facts here would be, what races most frequently attack police officers?

Are there any statistics on that?

There are no white problems, black problems, police problems, white police problems; there are humanity problems. The more we point the finger outwards, the longer these issues will confront us.

[removed]

Resisting arrest and the higher violent crime rate by blacks are glaring omissions. I don't know if that's just the article or also the study. The article comes off politically biased. If the study is like that too though then it's not very good science imo.

Black men are 6% of the population and responsible for roughly 52% of all murders. Not only will that have police in their area far more often, responding to actual murders and attempted murders, it will have an effect on any individuals perception of who is more likely to be a dangerous individual. This is human nature and a built in safety feature that is just as right as it is wrong at times. There's no way around this, we've had the same software for hundreds of thousands of years. You may as well try to convince a young straight 18 year old male to not be sexually active. Just isn't going to happen. And lets not forget the number one killer of blacks are blacks, by light years.

You mean to tell me that the cops aren't literally hitler?

[removed]

The problem is this debate keeps getting reframed to be a "police shooting problem" when the problem is literally police violence.

Police can kill you in a lot of ways that don't involve shooting.

Freddie gray was given a rough ride and they severed his spine.

Police choked this man to death when he wouldn't get down because they didn't produce an arrest warrant. https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/watch-video-shows-louisiana-cops-pulling-man-off-tractor-choking-death-serving-expired-warrant/

They choked Eric Garner to death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner

They slammed this indian granfather to the ground causing him a spinal cord injury, he didn't speak english. He was unarmed, walking down the street. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/11/alabama-cops-leave-a-grandfather-partially-paralyzed-after-frisk-goes-awry/

The specter of abuse of force goes way beyond police shootings.

Edit: They tasered this 11 year old, 90 lb girl for shoplifting https://www.vox.com/2018/8/8/17665036/cincinnati-police-department-taser-11-year-old-girl-excessive-force

I've seen young adults be tasered by police (for nonviolent interactions) and their hearts actually have stopped.

[removed]

[removed]

Comply or die is the end of every road of conflict against the govt.

No it isn't, you can be put in jail without being executed.

You are complying with going to jail or they'll beat your ass.

Refuse to comply hard enough and they kill you.

Fines lead to jail lead to death through non-compliance as well.

Prisons don't just shoot people that refuse to comply.

The people taking you there will.

the police pointed his gun at the man. "this is the police, get on the ground"

but the man turned towards the police, with a smug grin upon his face. "do you have an arrest warrant?"

"this is the police, get on the ground"

but the man was unperturbed and unafraid. "i'm afraid i don't have to do as you say, officer, for you see, my rights clearly indicate that--"

the man is then choke-slammed by the police for his noncompliance, and unfortunately inflicts collateral damage upon himself because of his actions, resulting in death.

see also, that one 17 year old who was told to exit a vehicle, told the officer to his face "what are you gonna do? shoot me?" and was then shot in the head and killed.

Im sorry but those are pretty funny

Lethal force for non-compliance should not be an acceptable standard. Trigger happy police and their lack of accountability is a much bigger problem

Or you could just comply and be fine

Interesting how people forget that actions have consequences

The problem is you.

So you're saying most non compliant criminals are black? This is obviously nonsense.

Easy access to guns, poor law enforcement education programs, selective recruitment of below average intelligence into the force, cops covering each other's criminal activity up, and racism still being a cultural obsession in the US, are just some of the US-specific problems that lead to the following results.

Every developed nation has criminals that are non compliant. None of them have a problem with excessively killing people and none of them excessively kill one particular racial group.

The Freddie Gray case went to trial and the police officers were found not guilty. The officer driving the van was black, and there was no evidence of a rough ride.

Eric Garner resisted arrest and was killed by accident. He was obese being held down by several officers and his heart just couldn't withstand that kind of stress. Its a terrible tragedy but Im not sure what they were suppose to do when he refused to be arrested.

4/6 of the officers in the Freddy Gray trial were black

Don’t you dare bring facts into this argument you insensitive monster!!!

Yeah guys this study is trash check out my nitpicked links for the TRUTH!

[removed]

[removed]

The killing of blacks is a black problem

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It doesn’t matter which side of the spectrum you’re on, I would be careful using this at you next dinner party. Look at many sources and cite many sources never just one. Sometimes even in the sciences you get some people who are trying to find the results they are looking for.

But don't use the media as one of your sources.

The problem with using news media as a source is that many people just use either Fox or CNN. Which is awful if you want a free thinking group of people. It’s not bad to watch networks that lean to one side, it’s bad to only watch one side of the argument. If you watch both side you will be able to be a freethinking individual instead of being being drip fed what the networks want you to think.

Or watch PBS because they are one of the best networks.

This is especially true for the social sciences which have a much higher ratio of liberal to conservative PHD's than most of the hard sciences.

No I’m not saying don’t believe it because it doesn’t fit in with your ideology just look at different sources as well.

[removed]

[removed]

That data is pretty suspect as blacks are disproportionately targeted for police stops, as well as disproportionately charged and sentenced for the same crimes.

I think everyone is aware that the majority of police interactions don't end in violence. I think the issue is the lack of accountability when violence is misused.

I live in northwest Louisiana. Cops killed a white guy in my town the other day. He was unarmed but supposedly there was a gun in trunk? But he was killed for apparently using car to ram. No other details really and I'm unsure of officer race. We have a large percentage of black officers.

So you're saying the media is pushing a narrative to divide the nation? Seems legit.

What exactly is the problem we're talking about, this article is very vague. For instance, are the number of police shootings per race divided by the number of interactions with each individual race? Seems you can't compare raw numbers usefully.

I was surprised to learn that in America black suspects are no more likely to be killed by police than white suspects.

If you listened to the (media), you'd get a different impression.

Hence my surprise!

title: no 'bad apples'

3rd paragraph: 'there might be some bad apples'

also being armed doesn't justify being shot in a country where owning a gun is legal.

Maybe its a suspect problem for providing so much threat, as to warrant being shot. There is such a thing as personal accountability. But hey, PhD doesn't mean smart automatically, some folks are capable of being very well programmed, instead of plastic thinking.

It says that a higher proportion of suspects killed are black than if the deaths were evenly spread out across the population. That doesn’t prove that racist policies are the absolute cause though. It’s also possible that black suspects are more likely to do something that leads to deadly force being used than white suspects. Especially since the study also says that very few victims of police shootings were unarmed. Does anyone know of a study that shows that black victims of police shootings are more likely to have been innocent than white suspects.

I don't see the study addressing rates of crime by different races adjusting for population which is an incredibly important factor if you are studying deadly force.

[removed]

[removed]

If my only source of information was reddit, it would seem like every cop in the U.S would shoot every black person they see

I don’t intend for this to be or appear as though I’m blaming the victims, but is there a statical difference between how suspects of different races react to being confronted by the police?

If there’s a possibility that black suspects have a tendency to act in a more aggressive manner (potentially influenced as by a perception of discrimination, or by adopting a more aggressive attitude/personality as a defensive mechanism for hostile environments), then there is more than just discrimination to work on fixing.

I of course don’t have any sources or data for this, but I’ curious to know what others think about the possibility, as well as studies to examine whether or not there is such a difference in reactions.

PEOPLE WHO RESIST GET SHOT. This is not racism. This is not rocket science. Police officers will defend their own lives vigorously. And so would you if you were a police officer.

Subtract from those statistics every single person like Michael Brown who was actively resisting. Subtract out everybody who was disobeying lawful commands, and making sudden movements. Subtract out everybody who got shot after a chase.

Subtract them out, and look at the data again.

And I have to applaud the mental gymnastics around calling black police racists against blacks. "Yeah, they're black, but they're cops, so they're like honorary white, and this is racism." Absolutely ridiculous.

Opening your front door is not resisting.

Asking for a warrant is not resisting.

Driving and minding your own business is not resisting.

Sleeping in your home is not resisting.

There's a lot of controversial opinions floating around here, but at least there's research being done.

We need more, but it's a start. There's just so many layers to go through.

This was my problem with this issue to begin with. It is so exceedingly rare as to not really matter in the scheme of issues we face and the attention it receives is so out of whack.

Some number of the uses of force are justified by police department guidelines and relevant laws.

Are these incidents evenly or unevenly distributed across racial groups? Uneven distribution explains uneven outcomes all by itself.

I mean hasn’t it been shown that a large part of the BLM movement promoting violence etc and so widespread across twitter they caused the mobilization of all the protests that turned violent was in large part due to those Russian hackers and bot accounts ? They did it on purpose to cause unrest.

[removed]

I need to read this article in a moment, I hope they cover why police would have to be on a higher Edge or more likely to use deadly force with some people versus others. What president has been set in the past which would make the police react differently?

furthering that out, if we wipe off every known instance of crime, criminals, interactions with the police, records Etc. I am talking a total and clean slate for all crime - who becomes the first, and then the more egregious offenders, the police or the criminals? I'm going to guess criminal Behavior consistently over. Of time creating a pattern forces the police to react in a certain way.

I'm assuming I need to pay in order to read the whole thing?

I'd like to see an analysis of the actions and reactions of the suspects of any killing compared to the heightened state of alert the police may have had. Did the suspect run, get verbally abusive, pull a weapon or act respectful and follow the police orders so that the situation could be defused rather than exacerbated? Were the police following up on the third of many "armed and dangerous" suspects that day and thus, were over-alerted to personal or standby civilian danger?

What about police shootings of white compared to those of black?

I don't think I ever thought of it as a "white" police problem, as much as a police problem. I realized that some of the incidents that have been publicized involved minority officers.

I contributed the incidents more towards poor training or more accurately the wrong person being in the wrong profession. I didn't think they were racially motivated, per se.

What always angered me what that it seemed that the officers were never found of any guilt when it was obvious in some cases that unnecessary force was used.

A lot of people are just going to read the title and make assumptions coming in. In this case I highly recommend reading the article- there is a lot more to it than the title suggests.

I'd be interested in how many of the be armed victims were actively brandishing their weapons vs just so happening to be carrying at the time.

I've been saying this for years... Did we really need a scientific study to read stats off of recorded, public documentations?

That said, 1 needless murder of a civilian by a cop is too many. It's just not the epidemic the world would have you believe.

Hypothetically, if I were the police chief and it was my responsibility to decide where to allocate limited resources, I'd ask for a heat map that showed where violent crime is being committed at a higher rate and allocate accordingly.

Wouldn't this method result in similar data considering violent crime is committed in higher rates in some minority communities? I'd send traffic cops to areas that are prone to traffic violations and beat cops to areas that are prone to violence. I'm not sure I could expect a police chief to do something differently when given limited resources.

I know there are issues with doing it this way, such as: what if the data suggesting higher densities of violent crime is only available because the increased police presence. More police, more arrests, higher density.

If you were a police chief, what would you do? There are no wrong answers. I just want to open up a dialog to get a better understanding of the different possibilities.

Below are some numbers for comparison with some other countries. Number are annoying to find. I've multiplied up the number to match the country in question's population with that of America's.

Since 2009, US law enforcement officers have killed [3153 people.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States)

UK: 21. Multiplied: 98.5

Canada: 91 Multiplied: 821

Germany: 74. Multiplied: 291

Pretty irrelevant numbers considering the US has much more crime and dangerous criminals than those countries

Canada, UK, and Germany dont have the Detroit's, Chicago's, flints, st Louis, etx type of high violent crime cities that US police have to deal with

It's important to put the numbers in the broader context especially when the headline contains the following sentence: "and the killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare."

Furthermore, the US has about 5 time the nubmer of intentional homicides compared to the UK. So, it's significantly worse, but that's hardly sufficient to justify or disregard more than 30 times the number of killings by law enforcement.

Edit: added link.

What does this sentence mean; that blacks are more likely to have a weapon at the scene, and that lethal force is justified almost all the time?

High profile cases that get tons of media attention skew the public's perception of crime frequency. This is known as the Wedding Cake model, with the high profile cases being represented as the smallest portion on the top of the cake. Meanwhile the foudation of the cake is made up of routine traffic stops, arrests, etc.

If you make them think they will be killed if cops stop them they will carry weapons and shoot first when busted

I don't know if this one will be disproved or confirmed but I am sure that measurements are the way forward. We need more studies like this to continue adding facts to our discussion. We can't begin to work on resolving things until we understand whats happening.

What about the general unnecessary use of force?

Luckily they have an enormous pool of data to work with. Their r value is probably pretty good...

Analysis of that headline indicates that defining killing black suspects as a police problem is a flawed and/or biased statement and that suspects being armed is the determining factor, not race...

The problem is even it happens there are very little consequences for police. It's a lack of accountability issue.

Because it is their job to serve and protect. They CANNOT do that job if there is a zero tolerance policy for messing up. Their job relies on the public working with them and helping them, not impeding and trying to make their jobs harder. It's hard enough as is. Is a doctor held accountable if he loses a patient due to a poor decision? No...it happens. Humans are involved so there will always be the human element of not being able to be right 100% of the time.

This goes way beyond not being right 100% of the time. This is about inadequate training, gross incompetence, outright murder in some cases, and no accountability for any of that.

Oh but boys will be boys, right?

Well what kind of "boys" are attracted to the police force? Generally guys that have had military training? They have been trained to kill and to be aggressive. Couple that an armed and divided society with low wages and what do you get?

"Keeping the Peace" and mediating sometimes requires fighting fire with fire. If you don't understand that, then I encourage you to go on ride alongs with police on the Mexico border or in Chicago. You will understand their side of the story very very quickly.

Yeah, they need to stop hiring those emotional time bombs.

I've been on ride alongs and participated in a humming police training in high school, I know what it's about. If you're that scared for your life you aren't the right person for the job. They need someone with more balls (or 0 balls). Either way you're not cut it for it. If the stress of the job has effected you then it's time to switch careers.

I can agree with that. A good police officer is one that can react without emotion but even that can seem to lead to trouble sometimes. I think it's a tough problem to solve which is why we see so much differing of opinion.

No one likes to deal with defiance or pre-determined/perceived defiance based on internal ideas(prejudice). So when some individuals have to deal with that "defiance" and they have a weapon(or the opportunity) then some act on that.

Admittedly, I haven’t read the report, but it I’d like it to be rare enough so that I don’t see a new video of it every week. How rare would it have to be in order for this to happen?

Glad there's finally a definitive study on this. Maybe we can stop spreading paranoia in the streets and just get on with our lives.

What’s even more rare is the unjustified shooting of an unarmed suspect. With the amount of incidents cops have to respond to every year, probably in the tens of millions and less than a dozen end up in some sort of unjustified killing, that’s a pretty small error rate, probably way smaller than most professions

These analyses are still asking the wrong questions. Instead of using the base rate of ethnicity subgroups in the overall population, which doesn’t make sense as it ignores the context of what defines a police encounter, the base rate of propensity to commit violent or armed action as an ethnic stratification should be used.

When comparing the rate by which people of ethnic subgroups are killed by police to the rate that ethnic subgroups are involved in violent crime, there is almost no discrepancy.

This is at least alluded to in the statement that it’s rare cops kill unarmed people.

The study also found that less than 1 percent of victims of police killings were unarmed. Across all racial groups, 65.3 percent of those killed possessed a firearm at the time of their death.

"The gun could be in their car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed," says Menifield. 

I'm not a fan of combining those numbers. An officer who never knew the suspect was armed, but then found a gun after shooting him, is being placed in the same category as someone actively threatening the police officer.

I don't doubt that a majority of police shootings are because they genuinely feel threatened and have actual cause to shoot first, but the combination of those numbers with coincidental gun ownership just confuses the issue.

It's like how MAAD measures their drunk driving statistics. They'll include a crushed up beer can gathering dust under the back seat after a driver hit a patch of black ice and crashed. Just because police need to report things like that doesn't mean that the report implies that it was part of the accident/shooting.

Not to diminish the significance of this study but some of us have known this for years. Jon Singleton touches on this point a few times in his films. All we can do is watch in sadness as people either learn the hard way or wallow in ignorance.

One of the contributing factors has to do with how cops patrol cities closer than suburbs and when you break down where everyone lives you see that minorities tend to live within cities in greater numbers (as a percentage of overall population.)

I tried to find the source of this study following the connections and all I saw was what you pasted here. Although I agree that there is evidence that there is bias, we need to deal with facts. Unlike the other side, we shouldn't offer "opinions," or uncorroborated factoids.

If there was a study done, we need to see the source. What were the basis for it, etc.

[removed]

Its still a race problem.

So it's not a police problem at all, but a criminal problem.

This seems like a smokescreen for the problem of police murdering people and then not being prosecuted. The statistics around how many are less important than the murders going unpunished.

Very interesting to see some deeper details on this epidemic. I noticed they were comparing police killing numbers to overall population percentages. Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare percentages to overall apprehensions?

"There might be some bad apples in the police department, but white officers are no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers," says Charles Menifield, lead author of the study and SPAA's dean.

Make the data public. I can see some discrepancies between some the asseverations.

I knew it wasn't common and the problem isn't much of how rampant it is, it's more of how easy the cops that do kill someone get off.

The killing of whites is the same problem. Why focus on only blacks.

This is not a race issue.....unless one ignores statistical facts and has an agenda(wait...that would be defined as racism if that was done, sigh)

How does having a gun in your car make you "armed". What bologna.

Wow, whoever could have imagined. Well there goes a certain groups narrative

So the problem is that police are racist, not that white police are racist. Maybe we can put some pressure on PDs to do more deescalation training?

This makes sense. Being a cop is an impossible job. When the last 900 arrests and negative interactions you had were with minorities you will probably start subconsciously creating stereotypes in your mind about "these" people. I can see what the problem is and the only solution I can think of is robo cops. Robots will not behave differently and will not created their own bias like humans do.

Note:. Cops killing people is bad. I'm not trying to defend either side. Just saying I can see why policing is hard.

If all media outlets reported things with such a deep analysis, problems would get solved or improved much easier and drastically.

Ahem ... what are the most dangerous people to arrest? It sort of decides how you approach people.

"There might be some bad apples in the police department, but white officers are no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers," says Charles Menifield, lead author of the study and SPAA's dean. "Still, the killings are no less racist but will require a very different set of remedies if we are to change the culture and stop this from happening." That last sentence really drives the point home.

Police reform is what we need.

I don't know who to believe anymore. Often these studies are funded by groups with agendas or driven by confirmation bias.

Bout time someone said it. It’s shocks some people that everything in the world might not be about race. Training, culture, fear, work exhaustion and mental health all affect the police forces too. It’s not some mouth- breathing redneck, it’s a mouth-breathing system.

What about other colours

That title and paragraph sounds like an awkward AF way of saying "study finds police killing of black suspects is not affected by the officer's race."

Terrorist attacks in the USA are also extremely rare but all of us gave up many fundamental rights out of fear of em

People still break the law and need to be ticketed/arrested. Quotas are generally beat by normal officer activity anyway.

Am I reading this right that they're dumping together the use of deadly force against suspects who comply and those who resist or even assault the officer into one analysis?

So rare that it happens here far more than in other nations, even those that have guns?

I don’t see why anyone would think this would just be a problem with white officers. You really think your average black or Hispanic officer walking around South-Central has an easier time of telling who’s a threat and who isn’t? Either you know everyone personally or you learned how to handle the situation the same way the white guys did: on the job.

The numbers do not lie but let's not forget that this study is only the numbers. It does not look at any of the factors that led to the shooting. Maybe this is not a police problem but more of a society problem.

I wonder if they'll ever realize how cyclical it all is. Blacks are told they're going to be shot by a cop, so they are more likely to be aggressive towards cops, thus increasing the likelihood of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

From lack of wisdom, and wisdom comes from experience.

i recently saw Lil Wayne talking about the time when he accidentally shot himself when home alone at the age of 12. he talks with a true admiration sense about this white cop who rushed him to the hospital whereas two other black officers were just standing there questioning a wounded kid

So what it sounds like this is saying is : no, our police are not specially racist and no, the police do not randomly shoot unarmed black men often because it is rare for anyone unarmed to be killed.

I feel like this blows a hole in the entire “black men are being murdered by cops in droves” narrative that allot of left-leaning people have been so adamant about.

Similar stats and reasoning could be used to argue that cops discriminate against older ages, the male sex, and the non-Quaker religions.

This analysis is BS.

Cops lie. Cops are corrupt. AUthority is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Independence and Authority are OPPOSITES.

The full text of the article can be viewed here

http://www.academia.edu/36914984/Do_White_Law_Enforcement_Officers_Target_Minority_Suspects

In Chicago, a Latino cop or a Brother will shoot you or beat on you as fast as a White cop; maybe faster. This is the truth.

So, tldr; me. Is it because of bias in the police officer(s), or is it because of larger (culture, etc.) problems in the specific minority group than in other groups?

A police problem, but yet rare. How?

Describing the police’s use of force as the problem is bold when police are 18 times more likely to be shot by a black person than the other way around.

Implicit biases are a big part of the problem and they are systemwide. Combined with the brain chemistry under duress and it creates a situation where these problems are more likely. TMS might provide a short term solution.

It's almost like the narrative is more important than the facts for some people.

This confirms what I have been saying for years: anyone exposed to the firehose of racism coming out of the media is going to end up with racist behaviors aligned to those messages, it doesn't matter if the listener is black or white.

I'm pretty sure everyone already knows this. It's only that those who feel their opinion supercedes actual facts tend to also be the loudest. It makes it seem like there are more of them.

Why is that a police problem? Show the stats on justified shootings vs. illegal shootings by police. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning.

It's worth emphasizing: there is nothing illegal about being "armed" in this country; the second amendment makes that clear. Philando Castille was armed, and legally.

So while the data on "unarmed" suspects is interesting, I think it doesn't change the fact that there's a double-standard with regard to the application of the second amendment. If you're a black man with a concealed carry, it's clear the police--regardless of their race--are going to respond accordingly.

Which is to say they'll probably shoot you.

This is the most thoughtful discussion of police shootings I have ever seen anywhere but especially on reddit. You guys are awesome.

So what you're saying is that all cops are bastards and we can prove it with science?

This article seems to make a lot of assumptions without enough detail to back them up

Even then, there's no way to accurately represent situations like this as statistics. It has nothing to do with whether you find a gun on them after the fact. Whether or not the suspect gets out alive is based on compliance alone, and you won't see how many times the suspect tried to ram police with a vehicle or obscure a reach into their pockets in statistics about unarmed suspects.

Just because it’s rare that they are unarmed, doesn’t mean they were a threat being armed.

I did a research paper in college where I examined police shootings based on the poverty line. When you only look at poor people black and white people are killed by police with near perfect correlation to their populations. Did a Spearman's rank correlation test on states by their ranking in police killings and the poverty population by state. It returned an 0.8312.

This study seems to take for granted that there IS a problem with blacks being more likely to be shot by cops, but that Harvard study a few years ago found that cops were less likely to use deadly force against blacks than others. While this study, showing cops treat blacks equally regardless of the race of the cop, it is still perpetuating a common misperception that blacks are unfairly shot more than other races.

Wow you mean actual scientific analysis of the the subject reveals the objective truth.

A police problem or an armed and aggressive suspect problem?

Tom Robbins had this figured out way back in 1980.

“Hawaii once had a rat problem. Then, somebody hit upon a brilliant solution. import mongooses from India. Mongooses would kill the rats. It worked. Mongooses did kill the rats. Mongooses also killed chickens, young pigs, birds, cats, dogs, and small children. There have been reports of mongooses attacking motorbikes, power lawn mowers, golf carts, and James Michener. in Hawaii now, there are as many mongooses as there once were rats. Hawaii had traded its rat problem for a mongoose problem. Hawaii was determined nothing like that would ever happen again. ..... Society had a crime problem. It hired cops to attack crime. Now society has a cop problem.”

It’s because the targets they shoot at are black outlines of head and torsos. They develop muscle memory and in times of stress when the see a black subject they react as they would during target practice and all the training they’ve received.

Everybody knows this but the current trend is to not believe it because that's what television TELLS us to FEEL.

The Globalists are paying the big (and broke) media to run stories that make citizens divided. Divide and Conquer.

Then there are the angry politicians and their dependents (not constituents) that just don't think things through... they just want to win something.

Alternatively, don't put yourself in a situation where getting shot is on the table.

Unarmed, cooperating suspect, shot? Rare if ever!

No sympathy for murderers and thieves getting themselves shot.

I wonder how this data compares before 2012. Could the current civil rights trend of awareness rather than policy changes have effected this?

As illuminating as this study is, I’d hate for it to be a vehicle for people to look at and say there isn’t any racism in this country. As someone else mentioned, we need to understand why people are driven to crime or feel the need to carry a weapon. Systemic racism is very real in America, even if this study doesn’t show it.

and just like that, the Reddit hivemind switches sides and pretends like they were never on the opposite side of the police fatality debate

Good on y'all on accepting what was commonly accepted off the internet and outside of a tv.

Hold on here, how do the percentage of deaths compare to the percentage the people doing the crimes? Don't want to get shot, don't accociate with or be a criminal.

We recently have had more and more break ins/home invasion type crimes in rural areas here. The property owners were physicaly attacked quads and vehicles we being stolen and the farmer shoots and kills one of them. The farmer was brought up on charges... Like what the actual fuck! There was a firearm in the vehicle that the criminals drove onto the property. He eventually got off but our Prime minister flew the criminals family to Ottawa to meet with them...

Point being said is Don't wanna die, don't do any crimes...

I don't hate any race or color, there is good and bad in every race.

There was also that Harvard economist’s study that found that unarmed whites were more likely to be shot than unarmed blacks, although blacks were more likely to be the victims of force by the police in general, just not deadly force.

The data in general on this subject seems mixed and demonizing all cops or white cops or black cops doesn’t seem to be supported by the data.

How we deal with abuses when they do occur often seems crazy lenient and unacceptable though for sure.

When was a school shooter shot and Killed is what I meant

Nobody is interested in this boring factual analysis - bring on racial tensions!

The black community really needs to reevalute in light of these facts and it's also strange that no one is rioting the 100+ black on black shootings in Chicago every weekend.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

You've quoted nothing but opinions.

Its actually the person who published and worked on the scientific paper. The point is that the research actually concludes that policing as an institution is the responsible factor. Which makes sense - its easier to believe that people will follow orders and do bad (and not even realize it) than join forces to do bad.

Hopefully this gets PDs to start talking about criminal justice and tactics reforms that'll make them less likely to escalate into shooting people jumping up and down unarmed.

Hopefully this gets PDs to start talking about criminal justice and tactics reforms that'll make them less likely to escalate into shooting people jumping up and down unarmed.

They make less money that way, due to missing quotas, kickbacks from private prison industry's leaders into the dept. pension fund, etc.

Tell me about it. My wife is from Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area where there was a great racket between judges, corrections, police, and private industry to lock kids up in jail for exactly that.

It justified corporate plundering of tax dollars and the judges got kick backs. Kids for Cash scandal.

I'm super skeptical that anyone cares enough to push for reform until the enforcement system screws over their lives specifically.

There are people that do, but if it doesn't hit the avg. american in the nuts or in the wallet, you won't get much of a reaction. We are a selfish country. If our president wasn't making that obvious enough to the world.

Thanks for bringing a different, but apparently unwanted perspective to this.

Its a little funny because the post title says specifically:

"killing of suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem" indicating that there is a systemic problem... but I think they just zero'd in on a different interpretation of the title.

Yes, I'm really disappointed in the moderation today. I'm used to the runaway pitchfork mentality on most of Reddit.

Let's be honest, the real title should've been "No disproportionate killings found"

"No" is a pretty high bar.

Did you read the article or the paper or even the posts title?

... the killing of black suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem ...

Its saying there is a problem and you originally agreed with it.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

So, blacks are just as likely to be shot but more likely to be stopped?

No. They are more likely to be shot. They are just as likely to be shot while unarmed.

Yes, while race is a major issue and problem for police and policing, it is subsidiary to the larger structure problems inherent in the existence of policing in the USA.

Until absolute compliance to their authority can not be met with deadly force, human lives are valued more than private property, and police are subject to the same rule of law as the rest of us... America's system of policing will always be fundamentally flawed.

Police kill more white people and the media never talks about it

We know this. Blacks whine and complain much more than white people do so they give the impression that they are victimised more.

This study indicates that there isn't any correlation between the race of police officers and the race of the victim - but still shows a disproportionate amount of African Americans are killed by police. 28% of police killings are African American, more than twice their percentage of the population (12%). Further, the study found in 99% of all police killings, the victim had a gun around or on them at the time of death. It isn't made clear what the criteria for having a gun on them.

I'm curious whether or not a better correlation can be found using the income or net worth of the victim, but that data isn't going to be available

You'll find a correlation between race and crime. Try looking at other Western Nations with sizeable black populations ( France, the UK), and a pattern begins to emerge.... Wealth/net worth and crime are literally r^2=0.4-0.5 correlated, while race and crime are literally .8-.9

Care to provide academic sources?

Edit: editing in numbers isn't the same as providing a source. Most sources you provide will be links to papers hosted on medical/scientific journals or .edu sites. They'll include an abstract a body and citations of their own. Numbers without the context of the study done to produce them are meaningless, and worse, often misleading (intentionally or otherwise) if not fabricated. Since you have gotten these numbers from somewhere, I imagine you could simply link your source for us

For better context: The article says police killing unarmed suspect is extremely rare, but less than 50 cops are killed by citizens per year (https://www.statista.com/chart/11727/us-police-deaths-spiked-last-year/) and 68 unarmed people were killed by police in 2017, which contradicts the article's claim that only 1% of victims are unarmed, since a total of about 987 people were killed by police in 2017 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/) .

So when you hear "extremely rare," keep in mind that the fear of cops being targeted or killed is even more rare than unarmed citizens being killed. Unarmed citizens being injured or unjustly detained is even far larger of a number. So let's not let a misperceived "rarity" get in the way of justice being served in the countless cases we are aware of.

[removed]

[removed]

This might be a bit off topic, but I think the issue a lot ppl overlook when talking about use of deadly force by police against whites or minorities is that there are often never any consequences for the officers involved in what often are excessive uses of force.

So there really isn’t any accountability for when misconduct does occur, at most it’s a slap on the wrist. And the DA office won’t pursue charges bc they need police depts cooperation for cases they prosecute. There shouldn’t be this kind of conflict of interest, officers should be held to the same standard as everyone else. And yes I know their job is more difficult than most, but there has to be some kind of de escalation training for police so we know they’ll respond in an appropriate manner.

[removed]

A corollary to the problem of inherent bias in cops (regardless of race) seems to be training and selection of persons deemed “suitable” to be police officers. If you flip out and start emptying your clip in the wrong situation, or give someone brain damage because they are being “difficult,” you just plain don’t have what it takes to be a police officer, and the training has to be designed to weed out these itchy trigger fingers.

From a policy perspective, we as a society ought to decide: what laws are and are not worth enforcing?

All laws, at the end of the day, are fundamentally backed by guns and muscle. That doesn't mean that they're inherently immoral, but rather we should decide which laws are worth enforcing with the understanding that every citizen-law enforcement contact carries with it the risk of a violent confrontation.

Laws against murder and assault are certainly within the societal consensus that these statutes are worth enforcing, even at the risk of violence from armed agents of the state where necessary. Prohibitions against selling untaxed cigarettes (Eric Garner's death), maybe not so much.

Do your research and be wary of excerpts (even the one below). It is easy to bend the stats and pick and choose what you want to tell the story you want. Read it all and think critically!!

This is from the linked article: “They found that African Americans are killed by police more than twice as often as the general population. While only about 12 percent of the American population is black, 28 percent of people killed by police during this two-year period were black, according to the research, which also found that Latinos were killed slightly more than would be expected and white citizens less often.

The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects.”

[removed]

The unfortunate thing is that this publication will likely fall on deaf ears and most won't even bother to see or read this study before forming or maintaining their view on police.

The stats for police homicide are readily available and have been for years. Anyone who actually wanted to know the truth about police homicide rates and their relationship to race could go look through the published stats and do some math to see that not only are police homicide extremely rare compared to police interaction, a majority of them involve violent criminals.

For those who still want to cling to the narrative that police are targeting minorities, the reality is that police shootings disproportionately target violent criminals and unfortunately black Americans are overrepresented in these crimes. We see proportionate police homicides for white Americans to their rates of violent crimes as well.

The problem we have in America is that a majority of citizens lack the desire or ability to think critically before forming an opinion.

Police are a tribe, it's always an us v them mentality at that context. The media knows what sells views so that's what they do. Inflammatory news is profitable news

The problem isn't how RARE the killing of suspects is. The problem is officers are NOT HELD RESPONSIBLE. If there was justice in the wrongful deaths besides a paid vacation and taxpayers paying out millions then people wouldn't be so upset.

Did they control for the fact that black Americans have more interactions with police than other groups?

[removed]

Not a white police problem...

I wonder if people here have any idea how statistics regarding research works. It's never 100% fact. It's based on p-values. Anything can be challenged!

I don't know if this includes the situations where they think a person is going for a weapon when they arent. Also incidents that go unreported all together. Incidents that are non lethal brutality and or harassment, the fact that many cops caught doing this barely get a slap on the rust. Police in general being less and less of community servants and being more militarized. Cops being able to get away with things without facing as much punishment also attracts people to become police that is not in a community's best interest. White supremacists recruiting police or having low key members join police forces as they consider it being on the "front lines".. And a president that refuses to speak out against these groups and borderline encouring them at times..

All these are factors in this current climate that don't register in mathematical data of any kind.

Most people don't even try to understand..

I'm white and have been pulled over with friends who are black on a few occasions (even had a cop once directly tell me that salt n pepper don't mix and that was the reason he even pulled us over) But still being white and being paranoid of the police because you have maybe weed in the car or something like that.. It's still not the same as what especially black males deal with.. Their reaction is totally different.. More than having to worry about going to jail for something dumb or whatever.. When they have police engage them they fear for their life... Every time.. And it shouldn't be that way.. "what about the police they are afraid too.."

Well the difference is they knew that would be the case when they took the job.. That is part of their job.. The risk of it all.. Someone just existing shouldn't havr to fear for their lives because of the color of their skin when being engaged by police.. And until police dept start vetting candidates better.. And holding police to a higher standard than even ab average citizen breaking the law.. Nothing will change.

Did anyone significant claim the problem is only white cops? Not the training, not the prejudices everyone has in their heads and not just white people?

Murder is rare.

It's a black problem. Stop being disrespectful and giving them a reason to resort to their duty belt. Maybe if they were nice and polite they wouldn't get shot? But then again how many of you turd balls have actually been through an academy

Hat if blacks stopped acting like animals? What if the police got to a state where they didn’t have to fear for their lives every time they pulled over a black person in a vehicle, not knowing if they were armed or not? Maybe the black community needs to start figuring some shit out first, then we, as an entire country, can take another look at this whole “police brutality” nonsense.

Damn. This is what people don't understand is that excessive use of force is being found in a lot of situations -- it appears to be a problem with the departmental training, not necessarily the officer themself.

When whitey goes for my gun I gets the drop on him!

It sounds like minorities give police the most problems.

Typical of race baiting media to generally attention to issues that don't exist or are focusing on the wrong thing.

Rather be black dealing with a cop than being black in a black community. Statistically speaking I’m way better off

"Extremely Rare" is a gross overstatement. 1 in 10 people who are killed by police are unarmed. Saying something is extremely rare makes me think like maybe 1 a year.

No surprises there. The media are shit-stirrers.

12 unarmed black males have been shot and killed by police this year so far. Twelve.

Meanwhile, black males have killed other black males by the hundreds so far this year. In recent years (most recent via CDC), the number one killer of black males aged 15-34 is homicide, and over 90% of those deaths were black on black.

If black lives matter, why not work on the real problem? I know why we don't, but do you? That's not snark - post your thoughts on this, the real problem.

I knew it. How the hell did it take this long to surface? You would think journalists were actually interested in data

They say that white citizens are killed less often than the other groups, but if you look at any recorded data it shows that whites are the most commonly killed group why is that not mentioned in this article?

Studies like these are like ink blots, you can see whatever the fuck your subconscious wants you to see.

I agree with the results this study found.

These shootings have been an issue for me and something I have studied and paid close attention to since one of my best friends from childhood through high school was murdered in a bad shooting by the LVMPD.

From what I have seen, this sad state of affairs is created by two main issues which synergistically reinforce each other. Those issues are complete unaccountability - these officers are almost never held accountable for questionable or bad shootings, and generally the only time any chance at accountability happens is when someone other than the police department has irrefutable, un-spinable evidence, like the Walter Scott case. Officers almost never get prosecuted and almost never ever get convicted.

The second component is poor training; and to cover all that is wrong with the sort of training police have been receiving for the past 15 to 20 years would take pages.

There is also another issue and that involves former combat infantry-men becoming police officers (usually a very bad idea, they generally don’t make good cops).

Those issues seem to affect many departments. Then you have departments like the LVMPD, where they have those issues as well but there is corruption and outright felonies committed to cover up bad shootings (see the Erik Scott case).

This really needs to change.

So basically the media is the one who made it seem there is a racial bias to get viewers so they can make more money. The media causes people to hate each other in order to fatten their own pockets. Fuck the media!

It was never a problem to begin with. The mass media has been pushing these types of scenarios to the top of their headlines to promote their agenda and earn clicks.

I thought the data was clear on that for a while now

They found that African Americans are killed by police more than twice as often as the general population. While only about 12 percent of the American population is black, 28 percent of people killed by police during this two-year period were black, according to the research, which also found that Latinos were killed slightly more than would be expected and white citizens less often.

The articles data conflicts with the it's posted title, also apparently being armed in the scope of this study means a gun within access not necessarily on their person. Also the author of the study brings up the idea that his data is possibly not right due to the fact data like this from departments is limited despite them being required to report it by law.

But this is the exact opposite of what I've been hearing from many media outlets like Huffington Post, Vice, Mother Jones, etc. Are they just lying or what? What's in it for them?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Didn’t say “all blue lives murder bud” I’ll go ahead and steal a comment I read on here earlier. If 1% of all babies born in hospitals were born dead, how would hospitals look? How many people have to be murdered before you care?

Talk to me when the police are the cause of 50% of homicides.

Police should be the cause of 0% of homicides Becky.

And Blacks shouldnt be the cause of 50% of them.

Well that’s what happens when you sabotage an entire race, deny them education, jobs, and adequate housing. Make sure to cross the street when you see one of us, that might help.

Ah yes. Something that literally didnt effect you because you were born after it was abolished. You're literally justifying straight up murder. By your logic, you cant blame police for killing.

Yeah because police were enslaved and oppressed in America, you win again internet guy.

Thanks for agreeing with me mate.

Ah yes someone doesn’t understand historical context.

Cool. Guess because im Irish And Italian i have the right to murder and vandalise shit.

Yeah because African slavery and Irish indentured servitude are exactly the same, you just keep killing me with logic, I can’t keep up.

Not when there's a group of criminals who are murduring Innocents, Thurman.

I'll take an officer going home safely to his family before a criminal home to his stash of drugs and illegal weapons.

The officer is probably going home to beat his wife like most cops do.

And all I said was the vast majority of them do not. Doesn't matter if you said all of them or not. The vast majority don't, regardless of what you think.

And no I don't have a problem with that because unarmed doesn't mean not dangerous.

You’re arguing against a point nobody is trying to make.

Haha whatever you say there Mr. blue lives murder claim.

I am really suspicious about the "armed" claim, because it includes suspects who had a gun in their car and not on them. I know plenty of guys who have hunting rifles or a handgun in a lockbox in their trunk.

Also if I am reading it correctly it is saying that 99% were "armed", and of that 65% had a firearm "somewhere" because it is not definied. So 34% were "armed" with something, this could be a pocketknife or pepper spray or who knows. And if you go by what they consider as "armed" with a handgun, this could just mean that there was a knife, somewhere in your car, at some point.

While the rest of the data seems interesting, and well analysed, there is definitely some fishy things going on with the "armed" suspect statistic.

[removed]

[removed]

Well it would depend on where that hospital is. The US newborn mortality is 3.7/1000 so 0.37% meaning a 1% would be basic 3 times the average, so at first glance it would be alarming.

But, a rural hospital might very well be expected to be around that number since a lot of times newborn mortality is due to complications in labor that could have been prevented if they’d gotten to the hospital earlier. In a rural area, it’s likely that the average woman is getting to the hospital further along in labor than in an urban hospital, meaning that the doctors are playing catch-up.

One year of data, while interesting, is a relatively insignificant dataset. I’d be more interested in trend data over 5+ years to get a better understanding of the patterns and correlations.

[removed]

"The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects."

[removed]

They do statistically, but institutionally, they’ve been discriminated against. Most are born into poverty and he ghettos because of segregation.

[deleted]

Not anecdotal when every study conducted on the issue reaches the same conclusion.

[removed]

The term "extremely rare" is misleading. Relative to the killings of armed individuals, they are rare. But relative to unarmed killings in other developed countries, they are horrifyingly frequent. There's a good book titled "when police kill" that does a similar analysis.

The point of this is that it isn't a race issue but a policing issue, which should make solving the problem easier than when people can't even agree on what is happening. Longer and better training and vetting periods and more repercussions for officers that do cross the lines would likely bring America up to standards. Also, standardising police training and pay.

I agree that better training and vetting can do a lot to improve our police force, but in no other country are police regularly dealing with armed citizens the way our police do. Our police are quicker on the trigger because they have to be.

But also no other country has police academies as short as in the US. The fact they have to deal with so much weapons SHOULD mean that the US would have the best and longest training.

I totally buy that our police need more training, and cross-country comparative analysis is obviously useful. Just out of curiosity, do you have a source for this claim? I’d be interested in doing some further reading.

Thanks in advance!

I thought this blog was a really interesting read, its a police forum and people from a lot of different countries chime in: https://www.lcpdfr.com/forums/topic/57119-how-long-should-a-police-academy-be/

Thank you! I’ll take a read this evening

The good news is a policing problem is much easier to solve than a racism issue. Ending stop and frisk arrests for minor drug possession is a good start. Approaching the topic from institutional racism has no solution in sight.

Policing has been oppressive for its entire history. Police departments in the south originated from slave catchers, and in the north were explicitly anti immigrant. We might be able to decrease deaths, but facing that history, it's an extraordinary claim that police will ever be "good."

And it's that attitude that will prohibit that. You have to be willing to go for complete reforms, in the police but also in the public eye. You have to create a bond of trust, otherwise stuff like this will indeed keep happening.

I took a grad course with Dr. Gerald Easter, who has done a lot of work on policing in political science. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a decent police force, but we've never seen modern police lose power or discretion. It would be extraordinary to see a successful reform of any modern police department.

What are you suggesting then? If reform is out of the question, then what? Just don't have anyone to enforce law and order? Let criminals go unpunished? You just want to call the current system bad without offering up any alternative? Is no system better than any system?

Crimes were prosecuted before modern policing. Society functioned. The vast majority of police spend their time enforcing drug and traffic law - if those laws are needed they certainly don't need an infinitely discretionary and well armed enforcement force.

seems a bit misleading. Of course police will kill some number of people in the course of their work. The question should be, how are our police using force, compared to other police forces around the world, and of the instances where force is not justified, what are the circumstances of those incidences... and then the glaring flaw in a study like this. relying on the information provided by police to review them.

It's really hard to believe anything the police say or do, when more and more frequently we're seeing video and photographic evidence of police using force in brutal unnecessary ways... or out right killing people in vicious cowardly ways. When if not for that evidence, those killings would be swept under the rug.

and then circling back. how we've become so accustomed to just accept police killings in general. Shouldn't the goal be... as few as humanly possible police killings?

Really stupid to compare our numbers to other police forces around the world. Of course countries like the UK and Canada are going to have lower rates of officer involved shooting. It’s incredibly unlikely for the suspects they’re stopping to have a gun on them, whereas in the US, the vast majority of the populace can legally walk into Walmart or bass pro and buy a shotgun or handgun. Being an officer in the US is inherently much more dangerous.

That's the question we should be asking, but then as soon as it's asked, someone will bring race into it.

The accusation of police bias, as I understand it, is not (merely) personal. It’s systemic. The title and subtitle of this article says that straightforwardly.

In the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, "Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals."

Yes, individuals can participate in the systemic persecution of their own group. That a black cop unjustly kills a black man is not proof that the system is not racist; it’s further proof that the system might indeed be racist.

[deleted]

Oh look, someone who read the article!

[removed]

[deleted]

It's almost as if they commit more crime or something.

To address one issue is not to say that another issue doesn’t exist. Science is about objectively analyzing one issue at a time without bias or emotion. Science is not meant for making political statements.

This is an interesting finding; I would be interested to see a follow up that examines police abuse rather than police killings. I wonder how the ethnic minority police who kill ethnic minority suspects/victims view those suspects; perhaps they are socialized into a mindset similar to the White police?

When considering police abuse of ethnic minorities, obviously killing/murder is the worst outcome, but communities can still feel oppressed by police without being killed per se. If you are systemically oppressed by those in power, the threat of dying can be a very powerful influence.

Further, if considering total police abuse, there may be more nuance between the ethnicity of the police and the victim. It may not just be White/Black or White/Minority; there are plenty of ethnic minorities with prejudicial views of other ethnic groups.

I believe the issue many have with the police these days is the perception that no matter what the police do, they are right and you are wrong and that at the end of the day, even if they are found to be in the wrong, they take no punishment and you are still worse off or dead.

I wonder how the ethnic minority police who kill ethnic minority suspects/victims view those suspects; perhaps they are socialized into a mindset similar to the White police?

When the data refute your racist white-racism narrative, just pivot to “they must be suffering from white-think.”

Disgusting.

You used quotes in your comment but I never mentioned white-think. I did talk about the mentality that officers may have, but I didn't say they had to be White to think that.

I'm sorry you find my opinions disgusting, I'd be interested to hear your interpretations rather than an attempt at being divisive.

[removed]

Its too bad people like you feel the need to post in subreddits designed for scientific conversations when you clearly have no interest in learning or understanding different perspectives. Good luck to you in your next trolling endeavor.

Rare. So it's Ok to shoot a guy in the back and call that "Rare"? Call it what it is - murder. US cops are trigger happy. You what stats? then compare US cops' use of firearms to those of other countries.

Do you know what the word rare means?

Are you also going to compare the number of guns and gun owners in the US? Obviously firearm use is going to be different in the US than other countries when US civilians own 46% of all guns in the world.

If you're going to be an asshole, at least do it right. Why don't you give us a link showing the stats that prove that "US cops are trigger happy"?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

"The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects."

To all you people discrediting BLM, the article only confirms their stance. The system IS racist and this research confirms it. Stop throwing the baby out with the bath water.

How is the system racist? Tell me what laws are racist

Only one that comes to mind is affirmative action

You really think it needs to be a 'law' and not just an entrenched practice to have an effect? You never been in situation where things were done certain way 'off the books'?

Needs evidence. Prove your claim.

[removed]

Any particular concept you want to elaborate on for me to explore, or are you just going to Gish Gallop off to your perceived moral high ground?

You can't expect to achieve an understanding of something without putting in the work, and I'm not your mommy.

But maybe start with this.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559889541/92-percent-of-african-americans-say-black-americans-face-discrimination-today

I'm a foreign minority that can't live in my country because I'd be targeted for bribes and general abuse by police, none of which is on 'on the books'. It's how the world works, but comfortable suburban white people like to pretend things magically got fixed after Jim Crow ended, and lynchings weren't public sport.

Self reported perceptions of reality aren’t science. Cubans really like their healthcare more than most nations, despite it being extremely low-quality compared to developed countries. Subjective interpretations of reality are just that, subjective interpretations.

Do you have data proving that these things happen on a wide-spread scale and that people support them, not condemn them, when discovered? Or just anecdotal evidence of individuals behaving poorly?

Thank you.

Racism is a function of fear and ignorance, not race. In the case of the police racism is systemic. The way the system is set up makes equal treatment under the law impossible.

It is human nature to rely on past experience and knowledge. But knowledge and experience are always incomplete. That incompleteness of knowledge can very naturally and without ill intent become prejudice. In fact, ignoring that incompleteness of knowledge increases the chances of prejudiced behavior.

In the case of the police the racism is inevitable unless confronted. The war on drugs, poverty and systemic discrimination remaining from the days of slavery makes it more likely that people of color become violent criminals. This results on the police encountering disproportionately more criminals of color.

Because the police are human and they must believe what their eyes tells them, inevitably they will develop a very prejudiced view of the world. If they acknowledge their inevitable prejudice, they are more likely to NOT act on their prejudice. If they ignore their prejudice and pretend they are not racist, then they become monsters.

So it is not white power but simply systematic racism? Or is there besides statistical bias a non racism explanation to minorities being overrepresented?

Prove to me systematic racism exists.

From the publication:

The disproportionate killing of black men occurs, according to the researchers, because Institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system targets minority communities with policies - like stop and frisk and the war on drugs -- that have more destructive effects.

"The question of the basic causes of racial disparities in police killings has profound real-world implications for policing a diverse society," Menifield says, suggesting that appropriate reforms for a fundamentally institutional problem would target racism in police department practices and criminal policy that result in over policing of minority populations.

I feel like this is unfair though to say these policies specifically target minorities. Maybe indirectly but these policies are put into place in high crime areas, which tend to be urban and high minority. Sure they tend to effect minorities more but can you prove thats intentional?

Sorry, I was unclear. How do you actually know that this is racist. For the study to occur it must have operationalised the term no?

[removed]

What if one race commits crimes with higher frequency?

The article never addresses the fact that black men are responsible for roughly 50% of the homicides in the US, for example.

I thought the whole drug war part covered that

The researchers seem to forget that the ares for search and frisk are chosen based on crime risk rather than race of its people.

But stop and frisk is primarily done to minorities. For example, in 2010 New York City had the following demographic breakdown, with the following breakdown of stop and frisk (S&F):

Race | % of Population^[1] | % S&F^[2] --- | --- | --- White | 44.0 | 54 Black | 25.5 | 9

As you can see, there's a huge prejudiced.

You've made a mistake in your table. The S&F column is supposed to be upside down. Now it looks like whites are more likely to be S&F.

But stop and frisk is primarily done to minorities.

Yes. I never claimed anything to the opposite.

As you can see, there's a huge prejudiced.

Is it a prejudice based on race or crime risk? Your data demonstrate correlation based on race, they do not rule out any other correlation.

What seems more interesting to me in that data you linked is the relationship between annual amount of S&F and the amount of innocent people that were searched.

Year | S&F | % innocent ---|----|---- 2003 | 160,851 | 87 2005 | 398,191 | 89 2007 | 472,096 | 87 2009 | 581,168 | 88 2011 | 685,724 | 88 2013 | 191,851 | 88 2015 | 22,565 | 80 2017 | 10,861 | 67

So the current trend is a lot less frequent and a lot more accurate S&F.

Here: https://www.reddit.com/user/guidetti324/comments?sort=controversial&t=month

"...the killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare.". Only Americans can say this as if 'extremely rare' is acceptable...

Agreed. When a plane crashes it's a tragedy, and it typically results in reform across the entire aviation industry to ensure it never happens again if possible.

But when the police murder an innocent civilian americans just say "oh well it doesn't happen that often."

Sorry folks, but that isn't good enough.

Yea I think this statistic might be connected to another one i keep hearing about

Would shooting unarmed be underreported or simply lied about because you are essentially expecting a crooked cop to be truthful about the situation where they may face consequences.

There is several generation of anecdotal accounts across the nation so from that and personal experience telling the truth is extremely rare in comparison not the action of unarmed killings.

What exactly is the problem we're talking about, this article is very vague. For instance, are the number of police shootings per race divided by the number of interactions with each individual race? Seems you can't compare raw numbers usefully.

Menifield was the Associate Dean of my Master's program; insightful, well-rounded, smart guy. Happy to see him doing great work.

Killings of unarmed black men by white police officers across the nation have garnered massive media attention in recent years, raising the question: Do white law enforcement officers target minority suspects?

An extensive, new national study from the School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA) at Rutgers University-Newark reveals some surprising answers. Analysis of every use of deadly force by police officers across the United States indicates that the killing of black suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem, and the killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare.

Where's the surprising answer???

...but not as rare as other human communities around the world. And not as rare as anyone would like.

Lack of punishment is the real issue imo.

So I'm going to assume new training is needed for a lot...

Killing unarmed suspects is extremely rare... Yet in Minnesota / Twin Cities it occurs at a regular basis.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

What this article is saying is that black suspects that are killed by police are usually armed, and considered extremely dangerous.

That police are killing armed suspects isn't indicative of bad policing. Cops usually shoot to kill rather than risk getting shot.

The study also found that less than 1 percent of victims of police killings were unarmed. Across all racial groups, 65.3 percent of those killed possessed a firearm at the time of their death.

"The gun could be in their car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed," says Menifield.

So then 35% had something other than a gun. The cop has a gun, taser, and pepper spray ... but had to use deadly force? MMMMMMMMMMMkay. And let us not forget that it's just saying 65% had a gun on or near them. Not that they had the weapon in their hand ready to fire, or even pointed at the officer. Then remember that over 33% of the US population own a gun LEGALLY. So yeah, to say that it's EXTREMELY rare that someone that was unarmed was killed is probably just a tad bit misleading.

Judging by the title of the article and past U.S. Western History, control, jealousy, propaganda, and fear can lead any group to unscrupulous actions against another. Particularly if there has been a pattern. If you look at history-world-wide you will also see similar results of persecution pertaining to religious beliefs. People feel entitled, and some believe that their worth is more than the worth and rights of others, which is is one of the main and reasons why have occurred.

The problem should start with addressing the issue of academies allowing pictures of suspects to be used on mannequins for shooting, besides the color of the mannequins. All mannequins should either be dark purple and or grey. Violent-prone officers should also not be wearing badges with guns and should under-go psycho-analysis for traces of hate propaganda and domestic violence. These psycho-analysis should be a requirement done every 3 months, to make sure that these officers are mentally fit and well to carry out duties.

If you send the sick and the brainwashed out as a front-line of defense, then they will behave as such. I believe this article's title denies this, seeing as such commentary made by biggots can be found mostly on any forum such as this: https://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/21/video-games-race-black-protagonists-509328.html

It's not rare. There's a whole wiki page full of police killings going back decades.

Read. The. Article.

A wiki page going back decades in a country of hundreds of millions of people with millions of encounters each year means jack. It’s extremely rare.

I know how this sound, i just think this is important context, as i didn't see it mentiones so far.

Afro Americans are (according to FBI statistics) significantly overrepresented in Killing police officers more than 2 to 1. (30% of all police killings)

That suggests to me that the cause for these confrontations is a more underlying complex issue of societal nature (different feedback loops, especislly circles of fear, economic struggles, obviously also racial biases of officers and many more.(racial biases and racism are overlapping but also very different!)

It's strange that people don't seem to bring up the fact that America is awash with guns when they discuss the high rate of police shootings.

"...But don't let it be a black and a white one Cuz they slam ya down to the street top Black police showin out for the white cop"

Quote from NWA (Ice Cube) Fuk Tha Police 1988

NWA and everybody else have known this for ages, no "Study" needed.

actually thats really not very factual you are more likely to be shot and killed as a white man in america than as a black man. below is a link with a simple picture for you to look at.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

people who do this kinda thing really piss me off. yea our system isnt perfect but ya know what? nothing is perfect and its a hellava lot better than living in 80% of the rest of the world. and wile you go and shoot off facts about how other countries have better systems i want you to first realize most of those countries have homogeneous racial groups for their population and are smaller than most states. and i would put money on the fact that half of them have their defense bills paid for by us.

get off your high horse. you just make yourself look stupid to anyone with an IQ above 30. maybe if you even read the article you would have seen the very last thing on the webpage:

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

even the website thats posting it knows it shit. why dont you?

Actually you are more likely to be shot by police if you are black. Black suspects are disproportionately shot at a much higher rate than whites

this is not true, i left a link in my comment and if you do basic research there is information EVERYWHERE saying that by the numbers whites are shot more than blacks. check out the FBI database. check out any reputable source that gives you the raw data instead of a bs story. hell the one in the OP has a blurb at the end that says they didnt fact check. if it was a reputable article it would have posted on a reputable site.

the web site i used as a source makes its money off of being a source website that gives you access to information they have compiled and their living is off of whether or not you get correct information in a way that you can understand

Exactly. Im glad we agree that blacks are shot at higher rates than whites.

yea...no. you are still wrong and ignoring everything wile spouting crap isnt going to change that.

You linked stats yourself that prove my point.

457 white, 223 black in 2017-2018.

If white police officers aren't more likely to shoot a black suspect than black officers then how is racism a factor? Are Black Officers also racist against their own race?

Treat perp differently because of skin color = racism. You could still be black yourself and do that

[removed]

It’s definitely a problem in itself if you’re committing a crime or engaging in an act so that a police officer has to come and be weary about you. If you’re acting in a way that threatens the lives of others, yourself, or the officers, you are the problem. Not the fact that you got shot being for being reckless and idiotic.

How many unarmed suspects were "armed" after the fact? It happens.

This has been known since at least the early 90s. I remember reading a few studies after the college basketball players were gunned down in their van while travelling.

Brutality on the contrary is absolutely flourishing.

Just to be clear, people decrying racism in policing aren't claiming that it is strictly a "white police problem," but a general policing problem. I don't know why the title seems to make that assumption.

I’ve been saying this for years, stop making this a race issue as that only divides us amongst ourselves.

This is a police problem. It’s a problem with a lack of accountability to the people they serve. It’s a problem of group of government employees who take the idea of “we have to have each other’s backs” far past the point of logic.

Glad this article is putting science and numbers to what some of us can plainly see.

What? All main stream news outlets lie to get viewers? How surprising!

The title and responses demonstrate a misinterpretation of the article. To me, it supports the commonly held belief that minority suspects are disproportionately targeted and killed by police. The adds that the killing is not done by disproportionately white officers.

Victims are disproportionately minorities, all cops are part of the problem (and hopefully the solution).

"Victims are disproportionately minorities."

Depends where you take your proportion from. Versus the overall population, sure. However, if you take it from the population of violent offenders (people who commit armed robbery, homicide, rape) then it actually is not disproportionate, at least in the direction you are intending.

Doesn't address the massive gap in them reporting these deaths at all.

For those of you who are suprised...cut off the news and fact check. The news has one job, and that is to increase viewership. Our media is set to sensationalize and to turn public opinion and it's much easier to boost views when you make issues about race and inequality. When you take this and combine it with incident reports detailing officer interactions where suspects are identified by race it makes for a great story to push no matter what the actual incident was about.

Why don’t school shooters ever get shot by police ?

What? They literally do almost every time. Only recently have I heard of them surrendering to police

I feel like people miss the obvious in a lot of these situations for fear of being labeled as prejudiced. Minorities get shot/incarcerated the most partially because institutional racism, but also because they commit the most street crime. Take a look at the roughest neighborhoods and look at the racial disparities. Now, with that being said, it isn’t skin color that creates these issues. It’s income disparity, education, location (urban va rural) and in a minor minor way, culture (glorification of gangs and violence, which sources back up from disparity). I don’t have the data to back it up, but I’d bet a black man from Beverley Hills is less likely to get shot than a white man from Compton. People assume correlation equals causation when it comes to racial issues, then are unable to get to the root of the problem which is income. White people commit a ton of crime, but it’s generally white collar, which is harder and more expensive to prove, in grey areas of liability, are able to get a proper defense, and don’t require a weapon to carry out.

My question is while they mention that killing of unarmed suspects is rare, how much more often is the suspect a minority when they are killed while unarmed?

But at the end of the day if a police officer feels threatened enough by an unarmed person to end their life before using any other deterrent they shouldn't be an officer. Period.

Rare compared to what? How often they kill armed suspects? Certainly not rare compared to rates in other countries.

Wait, I thought the issue has always been that police executions are a failure to uphold due process?

[removed]

we are a stupid and violent race...

The problem is it doesn't matter the race of the officer. They are trained and leaned on. To isolate and focus on minorities. It's just that white cops get singled out. Because it's a really sore topic due to slavery's past. When they address the racial profiling then all of the uncalled for killings would stop.

"the killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare."

Compared to what? Whats the control?

No one knows how many people police actually kill.

I thought it was crazy too but its true

Trayvon Martin. That’s all I have to say about that...

It says only 1% of suspects were unarmed and then it says "The gun could be in their car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed," which means that the officer didn't necessarily know they were armed at the time if the shooting!

Let's define 'extremely rare' because there seem to be lots of unarmed folks getting shot/choked to death by police.

Interesting how in the U.S. killing about 10 unarmed people a year is considered "extremely rare".

Given a population of over 320 MILLION people....yeah...I kind of think it is.

I disagree with points of this study (or at least how it's presented.) I'll be citing a weapons-bias study by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Here it is

From my study: Police are more likely to believe that innocuous objects are lethal weapons when held by a black person. Police are also quicker to use lethal force. Police, react less quickly than the average person would, however, there is still implicit bias, that I believe the posted study mentions above. I believe the title or the article downplays that implicit bias or fails to mention it, or how it can lead to the situations where unarmed blacks are killed.

Also, 79% of Police Officers are White. So if it's a police problem, its a white police problem because we know the demographics of police and that all people, including police are more likely to think blacks have weapons when they don't and are faster to fire.

it’s almost like minority police officers internalized the racism they experience from society, I wonder if there is a term for that...

Well I hope this might at least cross racism off the list for a while

Analysis of every use of deadly force by police officers across the United States indicates that the killing of black suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem

Except the FBI has warned for years that white supremacy groups have been infiltrating law enforcement agencies in all levels of government in the US.

The FBI is a law enforcement agency.

This is an irresponsible study. We know that police departments keep terrible records of incidents where they kill people. We know that there isn't any oversight in this area, which means that the data the study used comes from self-reporting of precincts which is going to be incredibly biased.

Also 1% gives no context. Yes it might be 1% of the badly reported numbers, that doesn't give us a real sense of how many times this actually happens.

When you add that to the fact that just because the police say a subject is armed, doesn't mean there are real issues with those interactions. Take the Bundy Clan who stormed the government building with weapons, and the entire group was peacefully arrested with no gunfire exchanged, yet you have instances where black men and black children are walking around with a toy gun and they are killed without question by police. These are things that can't be Quantified in this study, yet this study will be used to make Arguments for the fact that unarmed shootings of minorities are insignificant.

This study lacks context and is dangerous for public policy.

Yeah, I'm not sure I like the size of that data set. Just two years?

Even more rare than cops killing unarmed citizens? Accountability and justice for killing unarmed citizens.

One of the main reasons the black community is so violent is they can't rely on police or the judicial system. So of course you have the wild west. If you think the color of your skin makes you more violent, well I guess you just don't understand continental drift.

The black community discourages cooperation and vital information regarding crimes as "Snitching". The police cannot rely on the black community for information because it is willingly withheld.

The American government has through the police enforced racist policies and outright segregation from separate but equal to jim crow up to the war on drugs. It's not even debatable it's history. Do you think one day it just stopped?

What are some of the racist policing policies currently in place?

Stop and frisk.

People of all races have been stopped and frisked under that law. Provide evidence that it's solely African Americans.

[removed]

I wonder how many of the "armed" suspects had weapons planted on them

"and the killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare"
I'm not so sure about that...

Less than 1 percent of total police killings is pretty rare, wouldn’t you say?

Sure and I don't think that the data is a lie, is just that what is considered an armed suspect?

I say that because we have a LOT of killings of innocent people on the streets by the cops, mainly black.

[deleted]

Because people like you drive the ratings while ignoring the miniscule percentage of killings per interactions.

Because, "Police officer shoots suspect" is a much bigger news story than "Police officer arrest suspect without incident."

But... what does “white people” mean? And, what about the clear evidence that racial and gender plays a huge role in on social - political -judicial issues? This whole thing is kind of ignorant and wants to use shock vs accurate language imo.

[removed]

Poorly written and a lot of assumptions with almost no data - a very strange “science” article.

The killing of unarmed or armed suspect does not happen at the same rate in other First World Country. The goal is zero. The police shouldn't kill anyone.

[deleted]

"The study also found that less than 1 percent of victims of police killings were unarmed."

From the article

problem

what's the problem? if it's not motivated by racism then what's wrong?

[removed]

"the killing of unarmed suspects of any race is extremely rare."

that might be because it's super easy to plant a gun on a suspect if there are no witnesses around

To al the idiots asking how it can be extremely rare if it “happens so much”: maybe you should’ve completed middle school math??

The US doesn't have a police problem, it has a gun control problem.

Police in the US have too many guns, I agree.

I meant regular people. Not sure which is greater, national debt or number of private guns.

The reason our police shoot people too often is because American LEO culture fetishizes firearms employment as a problem solving method and departments are more heavily armed than ever thanks to free surplus military equipment.

Hardly. The fact that the article states 65 % of suspects shot had a firearm, and that unarmed suspects were rarely shot is quite telling.

"had a firearm" by their definition doesn't mean "holding a firearm". But I guess it's okay to shoot people who have a gun in the car that's 15 feet away from where they are standing

Obviously you've already made up your mind about this without much evidence considered. I don't believe American police are homicidal maniacs. Less guns means less gun violence overall. Check any other developed nation's crime stats.

So if there's a gun with no bullets in the trunk of my car and and I get shot by a cop while sitting in the driver's seat I'm considered "armed".

...

Right.

...

Oh, and these stats are those as reported by the police and their reports, well I'm sure there's no bias there or anything.

...

Yeap, perfectly fine study.

Here's a fool proof way to get through life without getting shot by a police officer.

  1. Don't break the law.
  2. If you do, comply and accept your punishment.
  3. Treat them like people (hint...they are)

Chris Rock skit intensifies

Do I need to link all the videos of people complying and getting killed? Or should I assume you just think they all deserve it?

Except that cops offten lie on police reports and the data is published through police union oversight committees thats some purpose is to put out data in favor of more police funding..

Pretty sure everyone except the Donald knew it wasn't a black/white issue. They are the only ones saying BLM is protesting white people. Even the media has specifically said it is a police issue and frequently reports on killings by minority cops.

Lets take the title as truth: then why do cops who kill unarmed suspects still get away with it? If its such a rare thing, its probably just a few bad cops, yet the whole community still rallies around them

Is this supposed to be a breath of fresh air? Like, "Oh! Thank God! They're only killing unarmed people sometimes...phew!"

[deleted]

Except 10, 30, or 70 out of 320,000,000 IS an anomaly. Literally less than “million to one odds.”

I agree that we should “aim for zero” but you make it sound like a much more significant occurrence than it is.

[deleted]

I never saw you upset over a slain officer in the line of duty. You are so transparent.

Man it feels good to be proven right. Cops kill everyone, all our lives matter.

And they do it because they're trained to, they're not trained to de-escalate situations (in general, examples like Salt Lake are an exception) and they're not trained how to properly use a firearm. They're just trained how to draw and they're told that everyone is a potential threat..and so this is what we get because of that.

THat is what a drop gun or knife is for.

Not according to what I see on YouTube n Facebook. It's extremely common. Must be your personal perspective on what you consider Rare. I see WAAAAY to much police brutality and injustice.

Your worldview is shaped by headlines, not trendlines.

I would like to see a study that examines the use of lethal force by police among other First World countries. Like Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Japan. Not necessarily in alphabetical order.

My bet is that in the US on a per capita basis, policing is far more deadly.

[removed]

Because they plant guns on the person they just shot..

This analysis is BS.

Cops lie. Cops are corrupt. AUthority is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Independence and Authority are OPPOSITES.

[removed]

So, sure we've seen this in the movies and even possibly a story or two here and there of this actually happening but do you have any actual statistical proof that what your saying here is a systemic problem in the US police force?

If they all cover it up and no one investigates, the absence of reports is proof that this is an acceptable and protected practice. It's not like they decided to become worse when they got body cameras. It's been 75 years of injustice that's unacknowledged for whatever reason by Centrists

[deleted]

We shouldn't worry about what appears.to be a racist and murderous system without concrete proof. I mean it's never affected any of us around here, in this gated community! - enlightened centrist

[deleted]

Yeah that's the kind of shit that scumbags on the right to refuse to admit to police abuses believe in.

With all do respect, this sounds like a bunch of BS.

To you a white centrist

Why you gotta bring race into this?

Maybe investigate the use of dropsy testimony throughout history, illegal searches etc., and the failing of the 4th amendment.

Maybe research Mapp v. Ohio where "the Supreme Court held that the federal exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases was binding on the states" and thereafter the number of police claiming the suspect "dropped" something increased as much as 79%.

Yeah. Post deleted. Already see where this dumpster fire is going.

In before lock

That's not surprising. The problems with police are ingrained systemically. There is so many racist policies and mindsets required to be a cop.

[deleted]

No, this study gets credibility because it is a peer review scientific publicatio conducted by someone with a PhD in the field.

Felt the same! And yea its worldwide!

To be honest... this supports my theory that police shoot because the feel too at risk. They never know when someone has a gun and shoot with little provocation.

I’m curious, how does this article support that theory?

Police shooting from police encounters is 0.01%. That's pretty low.

Analysis brought to you by your friends at the nypd. We're working on our shootings but at least you can see were not targeting blacks anymore! See, we're getting better!