Red Mosquito

stip wrote:Guys, relax. Only 37 unarmed black civilians were killed by cops this year. We're not running out of black people after all.

stip wrote: The real scary statistic is that there were 250 cases of someone getting shot where there was no actual violence involved on the part of the victim. How many of these cops were prosecuted for FATAL errors of judgement.

Unlike deer, lightning bolts, and trains, these are hugely concerning because there was human choice involved, and the existence of these deaths and the lack of accountability have cultural and social implications that dwarf the number of incidents.

stip wrote:Guys, relax. Only 37 unarmed black civilians were killed by cops this year. We're not running out of black people after all.

b_i_revisited wrote:

stip wrote:Guys, relax. Only 37 unarmed black civilians were killed by cops this year. We're not running out of black people after all.

Even the most cursory reading of my post would not find any implication on my part that we are at an acceptable level of civilians of any race being killed by police. And the WaPo study data suggest the number of unarmed black Americans that were not determined to be engaged in an "Attack in Progress" and ended up dying by police shooting was 18, not 37. (Still not OK)

stip wrote: The real scary statistic is that there were 250 cases of someone getting shot where there was no actual violence involved on the part of the victim. How many of these cops were prosecuted for FATAL errors of judgement.

Unlike deer, lightning bolts, and trains, these are hugely concerning because there was human choice involved, and the existence of these deaths and the lack of accountability have cultural and social implications that dwarf the number of incidents.

We are bombarded with media scare stories and talking-heads telling us that trigger happy cops are out there having a field day with civilians as target practice and it is perfectly fair to question this assertion. To step away from the "cultural and social implications" and attempt to separate the facts from the emotions in these cases because each one of the 980 events ended in a tragedy in it's own right whether the shooting as justified or not, and emotional reactions rarely produce the kinds of rational solutions that are needed to send that 980 towards zero.

As for the silly stats, look, the statistics suggest that you are more likely to be hit by lightening or die in a plane crash or by flesh eating bacteria than you are to be an unarmed and shot by police (being killed is even less likely if you aren't attacking them). This is relevant because misleading about the risk breeds distrust by the police and the citizenry they are suppose to be protecting. Just look at the data and ask yourself "is someone trying to sell me fear?"

simple schoolboy wrote:
Did you miss the stat that the sum of civil asset forfeiture is greater than property loss by burglary?

There are many reasons that the police have rightfully lost respect. They are, in various cases, morality police, tax collectors, and enforcers of a variety of local or federal whims.

To your point, the common man in Ferguson is not likely to be killed by the police. But then again, his local government uses traffic citations and minor criminal cases as its lifesblood. Maybe he has good reason to say, 'fuck the police'.

Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week.

Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.

Armstrong claims that "the police are now taking more assets than the criminals," but this isn't exactly right: The FBI also tracks property losses from larceny and theft, in addition to plain ol' burglary. If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion, according to the FBI. That's more than double the federal asset forfeiture haul.

[In tough times, police start seizing a lot more stuff]

One other point: Those asset forfeiture deposit amounts are not necessarily the best indicator of a rise in the use of forfeiture. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money — with a portion going back to victims — thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the Institute for Justice explains. A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.

For that reason, the net assets of the funds are usually seen as a more stable indicator — those numbers show how much money is left over in the funds each year after the federal government takes care of various obligations, like payments to victims. Since this number can reflect monies taken over multiple calendar years, it's less comparable to the annual burglary statistics.

Still, even this more stable indicator hit $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Institute for Justice — higher again than the burglary losses that year.

Strat wrote:Douchebags are generally attracted to police work. Thats just kind of how it goes.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:Interactive of 2015 killings:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i ... e-killings

E.H. Ruddock wrote:haha, she shouldn't have kicked that cop.

Peeps wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:haha, she shouldn't have kicked that cop.

i am not going to lie, i dont feel any sympathy for her at all