Look at this 500L bad-boy!
https://www.aquaticsworld.co.uk/wp-cont ... h-tank.jpg
/predictable
Yes, I've noticed.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Why'd you have to go and make it about race? I'm enthusiastic about cops gunning down perps of all backgrounds!
Don't forge your assertion that Laquan McD "lunged" at cops a moment before getting shot. Unless you consider his spinning around from bullet impact "lunging", an unusual interpretation. The lunge propaganda story was floated before the video footage was made public. Everyone (without motivated reasoning) had ample time to correct their misapprehension. Also don't forget "Frame 394", produced by Fat Cracka and Cruella de Vil, an absurd attempt to justify gunning down a fleeing man. (You seemed to endorse it.)Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Your 'video evidence' consists of posting the Walter Scott and Philandro Castile shootings over and over. Nobody is defending those. Why do you continue to engage in the intellectually dishonest tactic of strawmanning?
I already cited Hirschfield's article,and you didn't like its provenance. Actually, the issues you raise should probably have been more appropriately addressed to how I used the reference. Hirschfield was attempting to explain why American cops are more lethal than in almost all other western nations, which is a fact. He uses data from countries not directly comparable to the US, but there are no countries directly comparable to the US! He was remarkably expansive in his hypotheses, and I see nothing wrong with that. His contention, and I mostly agree, is that gun prevalence is the main factor.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ You've still failed to quantify the extent of the alleged police abuse of force
(I note that Canadian cops are six times less lethal than American cops, if that comparison makes you happier.)Hirschfield wrote:in reply to Johnnie Loftus
You point to some issues that I did not adequately address owing to a lack of data. I did not cherry pick countries or explanations of elevated police lethality in the U.S. I reported all the Euro countries I could find info. on. The only one I excluded was Iceland because their police are not lethal. I agree that European countries are different from the U.S. in many ways. That is why my explanation points to so many different factors. Does this mean I should have focused solely on a country that is more similar to the U.S.–like Canada? Perhaps. But I still think we have much to learn from European models of policing. Their ability to respond to volatile and violent situations without killing people or dying is laudable, and it does raise questions about whether there are alternatives to our system, which unnecessarily exacts thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
Hirschfield wrote:in reply to Johnnie Loftus
You state that Denmark is a “weak example” yet you haven’t really explained why. Differences in violent crime btw the U.S. and Denmark are clearly not large enough to explain the difference in deadly force so why not explain the reasoning behind your critique a little better? In any case it is unclear to me why you are fixated on Denmark. I did not fixate on it. It is mentioned by name in the first paragraph only because it has the highest rate among the European countries with accessible data. If you know of a European country with higher rates of deadly force than Denmark I would love to hear about it and your explanation its lower rate vs. the U.S.
Please explain why it is inappropriate or insulting to ask why Danish and other European police are less likely to respond to unstable and volatile people (including those armed with knives and the unarmed) with deadly force. And, if it is a worthy question, what is your answer?
But, see, you were the *best* at it.John D wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:34 pmSo.... I designed the longest bridge ever made... and... you would think they would call me John the bridge builder......... and I cured are rare type of disease.... and you would think they would call me John the healer... but NO.... NO... they don't call me these things... but.... suck one cock....
I see McDonald perform what may have been considered a lunge, before lurching in the other direction an instant before being shot. NB: McDonald had been lunging at people and slashing tires for c. 20 minutes prior to the video snippet you reference. He was high on PCP, erratic, and dangerous.
Don't be such a complete tool! I've repeatedly and explicitly stated that the Walter Scott shooting was unjustified.Also don't forget "Frame 394", produced by Fat Cracka and Cruella de Vil, an absurd attempt to justify gunning down a fleeing man. (You seemed to endorse it.)
You've cherry-picked your data points. The question, What percentage of police uses of force are unjustified'? is one that you not only can't answer, but deem irrelevant.Of course, there are many, many other instances of questionable police use of force, some recorded, some not. While this constitutes anecdotal evidence, I note in passing that the plural of anecdote is data (in a loose sense; let's not get pedantic).
A specious complaint, as no complete statistics exist for any public policy matter. Adequate data exist, but even did they not, that's not a free pass for you to assume whatever you wish to be true.Plus there are no complete statistics! No government agency, from the FBI on down, has rigorously collected data on police use of force!
It's reasonable to suspect the bias of an advocate of restorative justice, an anti-science concept that inevitably leads the advocate to the conclusion that no uses of force are justified.I already cited Hirschfield's article,and you didn't like its provenance.
Answer begging the question: Hirschfield can't both pretend to invite inquiry into whether alternatives exist and simultaneously declare the current protocol "unnecessary". He also fails to determine & compare the rates of "volatile and violent situations" faced by European LEO vs. their US counterparts.Hirschfield wrote:But I still think we have much to learn from European models of policing. Their ability to respond to volatile and violent situations without killing people or dying is laudable, and it does raise questions about whether there are alternatives to our system, which unnecessarily exacts thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
That's about as dishonest an interpretation as I can imagine, and I have to assume you didn't watch the doc and just assumed what its content was. It simply proved that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Slager didn't make up the part of the taser being grabbed from him. It offered no opinion on whether the subsequent shooting was justified or not, because that wasn't a focus of the documentary, but it did contain unusually coherent commentary from a BLM activist on the matter. It closed on a note that, as a Scandinavian justice fan you would approve of, which is the whole awful affair wouldn't have happened if not for appalling laws that criminalize non-payment of child support (with jail time) even when there is simply no money available to pay, a disgusting modern version of debtors prison.
A few places. Here is one:Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:51 pmFrom the surveillance camera footage. From where did you get your information on Tamir Rice?DW Adams wrote: ↑Jesus dude, do you get your news from Fox?Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ like the 1911 pistol replica (top, real below) that Tamir Rice drew and aimed at the cop:
He's not guilty of murder according to you (and Matt, presumably) because of the laxer standard of fear for personal or bystander safety, which leads to more police shooting. Need I remind you that this is a point of contention in this argument? Talk about question begging. If it weren't for the "feared for my life" standard, there would be no question about this. How am I supposed to have an honest discussion with guys who take the status quo (you're making me sound like PZ again) as unquestionable holy writ?jugheadnaut wrote: ↑ I couldn't have been clearer in my post that I thought this was a bad shoot anyway, and Slager's actions certainly merited significant jail time. He's just not guilty of murder. That's what Matt "endorsed", not that gunning down a fleeing man was justified.
Judging whether someone received a fair verdict and appropriate sentence under the law by what the law and surrounding case law actually states is not begging the question, nor dogmatic adherence to some status quo. At least in what I've discussed of this case, there is no 'laxer' or double standard for police involved. The "feared for my life" standard is extremely important and is available to anyone, not a special carve-out for police, and is generally the line between murder and non-criminal justifiable homicide. This case is more complicated because of the multi-second delay between the initial, justified decision to apply lethal force and the actual execution of that decision, during which time the victim fled, and which we all agree makes him criminally responsible. You stated that the documentary, myself (by implication) and Matt were arguing that the shooting was justified, which is just breathtakingly dishonest.Hunt wrote: ↑jugheadnaut wrote: ↑ I couldn't have been clearer in my post that I thought this was a bad shoot anyway, and Slager's actions certainly merited significant jail time. He's just not guilty of murder. That's what Matt "endorsed", not that gunning down a fleeing man was justified.
He's not guilty of murder according to you (and Matt, presumably) because of the laxer standard of fear for personal or bystander safety, which leads to more police shooting. Need I remind you that this is a point of contention in this argument? Talk about question begging. If it weren't for the "feared for my life" standard, there would be no question about this. How am I supposed to have an honest discussion with guys who take the status quo (you're making me sound like PZ again) as unquestionable holy writ?
I was taking this in the larger context of the argument that Matt and I are embroiled in. To "justify" can also mean partial justification, to mitigate, to lessen. I've understood exactly what you meant from the start, it's just that I'm not interested in discussing the letter of the law. The letter of the law is my bone of contention. Sorry if I stepped on some toes in the process. I shouldn't have written "an absurd attempt to justify" since that's not what I meant in absolute terms.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑Judging whether someone received a fair verdict and appropriate sentence under the law by what the law and surrounding case law actually states is not begging the question, nor dogmatic adherence to some status quo. At least in what I've discussed of this case, there is no 'laxer' or double standard for police involved. The "feared for my life" standard is extremely important and is available to anyone, not a special carve-out for police, and is generally the line between murder and non-criminal justifiable homicide. This case is more complicated because of the multi-second delay between the initial, justified decision to apply lethal force and the actual execution of that decision, during which time the victim fled, and which we all agree makes him criminally responsible. You stated that the documentary, myself (by implication) and Matt were arguing that the shooting was justified, which is just breathtakingly dishonest.Hunt wrote: ↑jugheadnaut wrote: ↑ I couldn't have been clearer in my post that I thought this was a bad shoot anyway, and Slager's actions certainly merited significant jail time. He's just not guilty of murder. That's what Matt "endorsed", not that gunning down a fleeing man was justified.
He's not guilty of murder according to you (and Matt, presumably) because of the laxer standard of fear for personal or bystander safety, which leads to more police shooting. Need I remind you that this is a point of contention in this argument? Talk about question begging. If it weren't for the "feared for my life" standard, there would be no question about this. How am I supposed to have an honest discussion with guys who take the status quo (you're making me sound like PZ again) as unquestionable holy writ?
A better solution would be to feed American cops more and more donuts until they become house sized. Soon the adipose tissue will make them impervious to bullets and they will no longer need to carry guns.mordacious1 wrote: ↑ Since foreign police are better trained and can diffuse a situation before it gets violent and don’t have to shoot anyone, it’s obvious what we should do. Pick a city, starting with Chicago, use the above mentioned savings and hire several hundred Canadian, British or French police and let them clean up one city at a time. Pay them enough and they will come.
Now who's being obscurantist? If I can't prove anything, neither can you. The number of police killings are function of law, policy, doctrine, etc. A single court case:Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ You've cherry-picked your data points. The question, What percentage of police uses of force are unjustified'? is one that you not only can't answer, but deem irrelevant.
It's also the genetic fallacy; because I know you're a fan of informal logic.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ It's reasonable to suspect the bias of an advocate of restorative justice, an anti-science concept that inevitably leads the advocate to the conclusion that no uses of force are justified.
But I also offered substantive critique of the article itself, namely that it was comprised primarily of argument by assertion, omitted or grossly distorted key facts, and that Hirschfield undermined his own assertion that police use of force is racially-driven.
You're language lawyering again, and being a logic geek. Barring direct comparison to other countries, it's entirely reasonable to draw approximate lines between them, particularly when you're willing to make relative adjustments, and he is. You've admitted that policy decisions are made from inexact information. Cops in other countries are less lethal, even while compensating for confounding factors. Are guns less lethal in Europe than America, are knives?Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Answer begging the question: Hirschfield can't both pretend to invite inquiry into whether alternatives exist and simultaneously declare the current protocol "unnecessary". He also fails to determine & compare the rates of "volatile and violent situations" faced by European LEO vs. their US counterparts.
I like my women like my coffee, iced.KiwiInOz wrote: ↑So, you're saying it was just a one time thing.Service Dog wrote: ↑ like if you enjoy fucking a corpse just-once you'd be a necrophile, even if it's a one-time thing.
Welcome to my world?John D wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:10 amWell.... I have lost some respect for Ken Burns....
.ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwRQztpF6qU
FTFY.Service Dog wrote: ↑I like my women like my coffee, iced roasted, ground up, and boiled.KiwiInOz wrote: ↑So, you're saying it was just a one time thing.Service Dog wrote: ↑ like if you enjoy fucking a corpse just-once you'd be a necrophile, even if it's a one-time thing.
That link is fishy. Why is the focus on Ken Burns, and his 2012 documentary? The Central Park Five weren't freed by Burns or his documentary, but by the investigation by NYC DA, Robert Morgenthau-- in 2002. I don't think much of Ken Burns-- especially since hearing a podcast about how his documentaries are created by a well-funded office full of underlings researching vast amounts of source material & stitching that together into compelling narratives. It seems to me. that places Burn's role too far downstream from uncovering the original story from original sources. But that just shows it's even-stupider to seek truth in this case... by investigating Ken Burns documentaries themselves. That's starting even-further downstream from the truth.
Well, that editorial certainly brings out the Dickensian aspect of the story.DW Adams wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 11:34 amA few places. Here is one:Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:51 pmFrom the surveillance camera footage. From where did you get your information on Tamir Rice?DW Adams wrote: ↑Jesus dude, do you get your news from Fox?Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ like the 1911 pistol replica (top, real below) that Tamir Rice drew and aimed at the cop:
https://www.gq.com/story/tamir-rice-story
A 5'10", 185 lb. individual who'd been described by Dispatch as an adult male.Metrosexuals Quarterly wrote:How does a 12-year-old boy with a toy gun on a playground get shot to death on-camera by the police without anyone getting charged?
FTR, I find the tasing justified in lieu of the attempt to resist arrest, and lethal force would have been justified had the struggle to steal the taser continued. I believe the cop was genuinely confused when he fired, but that still amounted to negligent homicide.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑ I couldn't have been clearer in my post that I thought this was a bad shoot anyway, and Slager's actions certainly merited significant jail time. He's just not guilty of murder. That's what Matt "endorsed", not that gunning down a fleeing man was justified.
It's not just 'status quo', it is the law, to wit:Hunt wrote: ↑ He's not guilty of murder according to you (and Matt, presumably) because of the laxer standard of fear for personal or bystander safety, which leads to more police shooting.... If it weren't for the "feared for my life" standard, there would be no question about this. How am I supposed to have an honest discussion with guys who take the status quo ... as unquestionable holy writ?
jugheadnaut wrote: ↑ ... there is no 'laxer' or double standard for police involved. The "feared for my life" standard is extremely important and is available to anyone, not a special carve-out for police, and is generally the line between murder and non-criminal justifiable homicide.
Hunt, do you advocate revoking this right to self-defense from civilians, or just from cops? Or just from white cops when facing black perps?The Letter of the Law (California Department of Justice) wrote:Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Life and Body
The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life- threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape and robbery are examples of forcible and life- threatening crimes.
My statement you quote above suffices as response to the charge of committing a genetic fallacy.Hunt wrote: ↑It's also the genetic fallacy; because I know you're a fan of informal logic.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ It's reasonable to suspect the bias of an advocate of restorative justice, an anti-science concept that inevitably leads the advocate to the conclusion that no uses of force are justified.
But I also offered substantive critique of the article itself, namely that it was comprised primarily of argument by assertion, omitted or grossly distorted key facts, and that Hirschfield undermined his own assertion that police use of force is racially-driven.
I wasn't the one who began all this with the assertion that all or nearly all police use of force is excessive. The onus is on you.As I indicated above, you're holding others to a standard you don't meet either. The question can't be answered (obscurantist fatalism), yet here's my firmly held belief. How about you start showing that American police use of deadly force is justified?
Thinks, but cannot establish quantitatively. He merely presumes that correlation = causation, switching the correlation in question (racism in urban areas, gun prevalence in rural) as convenient to his a priori assumptions. And, no Hirschfield does not factor in numerous possible confounding factors.Hirschfield thinks racism and deadly force are correlated but that's not the whole story. Racism is obviously not a factor in much of rural America, where there is still significant use of deadly force.
Define 'many'.Are you saying you don't think racism is a factor in deadly force in many urban black neighborhoods? Really. This may bring this discussion to a whole new level.
"Patently" might be a little strong. A couple of the studies Heather MacD cites are empirical "video game" violence simulator studies. They demonstrate implicit race bias (PZ's favorite type), though ultimately unbiased responses. In other words, cops are primed for more violent brown and black people, but higher cognitive functions (training) ultimately override it.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ That blacks are disproportionately targeted by police use of force, and due to the racism of the police, is a patently false narrative.
Fryer's paper opens with this:PNAS wrote:Black or anti-Hispanic disparities in fatal shootings, when focusing on different sub-types of shootings (e.g., unarmed shootings or “suicide by cop”), data are too uncertain to draw firm conclusions.
Indeed, here's a PLOS paper that concludes that unarmed blacks are 3.5 times more likely to be killed than unarmed whites, though there is wide geographic disparity. The paper shows that overall crime rate is not a factor.Fryer wrote:This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force,
blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force
in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian
behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities.
You're going to say that it's because blacks are more violent; according to MacD the Justice Dept. also reports that cops are five times as likely to be killed by blacks as whites, which exactly mirrors the figure above. Alright, I'm not saying you and she don't have good points.Correll wrote:Investigators have consistently found evidence that police
use greater force, including lethal force, with minority suspects
than with White suspects (e.g., Inn, Wheeler, & Sparling, 1977;
Smith, 2004; see Geller, 1982, for a review). Data from the
Department of Justice (2001), itself, indicate that Black suspects
are approximately five times more likely than White suspects, per
capita, to die at the hands of a police officer.
Did you rent or buy the pdf? Neither did I.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Thinks, but cannot establish quantitatively. He merely presumes that correlation = causation, switching the correlation in question (racism in urban areas, gun prevalence in rural) as convenient to his a priori assumptions. And, no Hirschfield does not factor in numerous possible confounding factors.
This is true, I'm not denying it. However we have to ask whether it is enough to justify double digit rate increase in cop lethality.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: But the USA is not anything like Denmark or Finland. Bottom line, the reasons cops kill more perps in the US is because in the US we have more perps to kill.
You're putting words in my mouth. The "laxer standard" is in comparison to the "absolute necessity" of euro cops, not armed citizens. If anything I expect cops to be less lethal than civilians when protecting themselves, since they're the ones (supposedly) trained to first use deescalation, non-lethal force, and so on, in progression. Armed civilians may well skip all that and go right to pulling the trigger. In fact, I think they do; that's (partly) why American homicide rates are off the charts. Of course, this only characterizes a subset of homicides, but homicides are homicides, justified or not.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Hunt, do you advocate revoking this right to self-defense from civilians, or just from cops? Or just from white cops when facing black perps?
My math skills aren't so good, so maybe you could explain why a Bayesian analysis (conducted by an anthropologist whose academic focus seems to be Latin American street art) is appropriate in this instance. And could you also point out where in that paper the claim, that crime commission rate is not a factor, is substantiated. Cuz, given that blacks commit crimes as 3x the rate of whites, there is a close correlation.Hunt wrote: ↑ Indeed, here's a PLOS paper that concludes that unarmed blacks are 3.5 times more likely to be killed than unarmed whites, though there is wide geographic disparity. The paper shows that overall crime rate is not a factor.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0141854
I consider 60+ years 'distant.' Sorry you were born too late to confess to your White Guilt during the Civil Rights movement, but that's no excuse to fabricate a non-existent racism problem today.I just don't think we can say this narrative is "patently" untrue. The days of dogs and fire hoses and not that far distant in our past.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Your chart shows the US has 2-3x the number of violent criminals than European countries. The number of criminals in the US armed with guns is also much, much higher. Overall, violent crime in the US has been steadily declining for decades, yet the proportion committed by gangs and drug cartels -- both extremely violent & dangerous groups -- has risen sharply. We're also experiencing a huge increase in crimes committed by perps under the influence of drugs, who are typically violence-prone and, most importantly, erratic.Hunt wrote: ↑ America is exceptional in crime, but not so much that useful comparisons can't be made. The US is commensurate in many types of euro crime, except that it has very excessive violent crime rate. [....]
[....]
Let's recap a little. This is one of your foundational assumptions.
This is true, I'm not denying it. However we have to ask whether it is enough to justify double digit rate increase in cop lethality.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: But the USA is not anything like Denmark or Finland. Bottom line, the reasons cops kill more perps in the US is because in the US we have more perps to kill.
As a point of comparison, in the UK there is the following list of police officers killed in the line of duty:Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Your chart shows the US has 2-3x the number of violent criminals than European countries. The number of criminals in the US armed with guns is also much, much higher. Overall, violent crime in the US has been steadily declining for decades, yet the proportion committed by gangs and drug cartels -- both extremely violent & dangerous groups -- has risen sharply. We're also experiencing a huge increase in crimes committed by perps under the influence of drugs, who are typically violence-prone and, most importantly, erratic.
It really shouldn't be that hard for a motivated person or group to sift through the 500-odd OIS p/a in the US, review the details of each incident, make an assessment -- however biased or not -- as to whether lethal force was appropriate, and perform simple division to arrive at a rate. (No Bayesian or regression analysis required.) Until that is done, your assertions remain unsubstantiated and your proposed solution, that LEO willingly place their lives in greater peril, unsupportable.
As a point of comparison, in the UK there is the following list of police officers killed in the line of duty:Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Your chart shows the US has 2-3x the number of violent criminals than European countries. The number of criminals in the US armed with guns is also much, much higher. Overall, violent crime in the US has been steadily declining for decades, yet the proportion committed by gangs and drug cartels -- both extremely violent & dangerous groups -- has risen sharply. We're also experiencing a huge increase in crimes committed by perps under the influence of drugs, who are typically violence-prone and, most importantly, erratic.
It really shouldn't be that hard for a motivated person or group to sift through the 500-odd OIS p/a in the US, review the details of each incident, make an assessment -- however biased or not -- as to whether lethal force was appropriate, and perform simple division to arrive at a rate. (No Bayesian or regression analysis required.) Until that is done, your assertions remain unsubstantiated and your proposed solution, that LEO willingly place their lives in greater peril, unsupportable.
We've already established that things in the US and UK are not the same. Hunt says it's cuz cops in the US are afforded the same 'reasonable fear' standard for self-defense as civilians, I say it's cuz perps in the US are more dangerous.fafnir wrote: ↑As a point of comparison, in the UK there is the following list of police officers killed in the line of duty:Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Your chart shows the US has 2-3x the number of violent criminals than European countries. The number of criminals in the US armed with guns is also much, much higher. Overall, violent crime in the US has been steadily declining for decades, yet the proportion committed by gangs and drug cartels -- both extremely violent & dangerous groups -- has risen sharply. We're also experiencing a huge increase in crimes committed by perps under the influence of drugs, who are typically violence-prone and, most importantly, erratic.
It really shouldn't be that hard for a motivated person or group to sift through the 500-odd OIS p/a in the US, review the details of each incident, make an assessment -- however biased or not -- as to whether lethal force was appropriate, and perform simple division to arrive at a rate. (No Bayesian or regression analysis required.) Until that is done, your assertions remain unsubstantiated and your proposed solution, that LEO willingly place their lives in greater peril, unsupportable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... ne_of_duty
In many years, the number is zero. From Jan 1st 2000 to 31st Dec 2018 I make it 28 deaths, or an average of just under 1.5 per year. I count 6 shot over that period, so an average of about 1 every 3 years.
I'm not going to add it up for the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... tates#2018
but you have 47 deaths in the US in 2018, 29 of them were shot.
So, if 2018 is anything to go by, there are 31x more deaths in the line of duty and about 90x more police shot in the US compared to the UK based on a 5x greater population and about 6x as many police.
Presumably if you looked at the most dangerous US cities vs the most dangerous UK cities, the difference would be even greater.
I say that it's because you've got a fucked up culture that believes in its wild west creation myth and the divine right of corporations to rule, as revealed to the masses by profits such as the NRA.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑
We've already established that things in the US and UK are not the same. Hunt says it's cuz cops in the US are afforded the same 'reasonable fear' standard for self-defense as civilians, I say it's cuz perps in the US are more dangerous.
From the Canadian perspective, I witnessed really unprofessional conduct from customs people as well as municipal cops in the US that surprised me.We've already established that things in the US and UK are not the same. Hunt says it's cuz cops in the US are afforded the same 'reasonable fear' standard for self-defense as civilians, I say it's cuz perps in the US are more dangerous.
It should be clear by now that I'm open to other remedies as well.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ We've already established that things in the US and UK are not the same. Hunt says it's cuz cops in the US are afforded the same 'reasonable fear' standard for self-defense as civilians, I say it's cuz perps in the US are more dangerous.
I'm not sure how easy this would be since there is no central database. I think the number is closer to 1200 and since there are 18,000 different police dept. in the US, this would probably require many hundreds of individual FOIA requests, waiting for each to respond, dealing with prosecutors who stonewall, etc. You'd think that in 2019 you would be able to get on the internet and google all this up in a matter of minutes, but no.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ It really shouldn't be that hard for a motivated person or group to sift through the 500-odd OIS p/a in the US, review the details of each incident, make an assessment -- however biased or not -- as to whether lethal force was appropriate, and perform simple division to arrive at a rate.
And your proposed remedy for that is what, exactly?free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Meanwhile, in the US people like store owners will likely have a piece under the cash register to deal with the robber. The armed thug in the US knows this and is more likely to shoot the cashier if they get all twitchy and thinks they were reaching for the heater.
It becomes a feedback loop.
Making it easier to get drugs will only make things worse. The recent rise in crime in my area is a direct result of the legalization of pot growing and the increased access to meth and opioids. Most crimes are either committed to get money for drugs, or while the perp is high. Even at 'legal' prices, an addict can't hold down a job, so will eventually resort to crime to pay for their habit. Knowing there's an even greater chance the driver they pull over is whacked out will make the cops all the more wary and 'itchy''.Hunt wrote: ↑ It should be clear by now that I'm open to other remedies as well.
Ending the disastrous War on Drugs. It creates the lucrative illegal drug markets that cause crime and reciprocally, police use of force. It should go without saying that I'm not expressing sympathy for drug runners, rather for us dumb fucks, the citizens who have to deal with jacked up cops responding to the threat.
Criminals with guns is the problem. I'm in favor of controlling criminal proliferation, but am open to suggestions on how to keep criminals in their native habitat only take their guns away.Controlling gun proliferation.
I'm not sure why anyone would condone vagrancy or laud California's atrocious failure to address its growing homelessness epidemic.The last time I was in CA I was amazed, amazed to see a guy parking in a library lot and sleeping in his car overnight. In the past this NEVER would have happened. Police have backed off, thank fuck.
I don't know anyone personally who hates the cops or feels they're being overly harassed. Maybe it's a rural thing. Or maybe you run with a different crowd. Or maybe you've swallowed the MSM/BLM agitprop. AFAICT, aside from leftist elites who rarely interact with police, the only 'communities' that feel so are black ones, cuz they've been told it's the Systemic Racism™ and not the fact that their neighborhoods are crime-ridden, that they commit crimes at 3x the rate of whites and 35x of asians, are themselves the victims of nearly all that crime, yet nearly always become belligerent when interacting with police and usually resist arrest, and declare it "genocide" when 200-300 career criminals a year are permanently prevented from victimizing them.... I think much of America is over-policed and harassed by police....
... It seems that (some) cops have finally gotten the message that the public was beginning to hate them....
... When you lose the public trust, it's very very hard to get it back....
... Lowered public trust raises the tension in cop/civilian interaction....
I'd say that sweeping societal changes like the ones you propose would merit somewhat more research effort than has been expended so far.Hunt wrote: ↑I'm not sure how easy this would be since there is no central database. I think the number is closer to 1200 and since there are 18,000 different police dept. in the US, this would probably require many hundreds of individual FOIA requests, waiting for each to respond, dealing with prosecutors who stonewall, etc. You'd think that in 2019 you would be able to get on the internet and google all this up in a matter of minutes, but no.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ It really shouldn't be that hard for a motivated person or group to sift through the 500-odd OIS p/a in the US, review the details of each incident, make an assessment -- however biased or not -- as to whether lethal force was appropriate, and perform simple division to arrive at a rate.
I don't have a proposal, just an observation.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑And your proposed remedy for that is what, exactly?free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Meanwhile, in the US people like store owners will likely have a piece under the cash register to deal with the robber. The armed thug in the US knows this and is more likely to shoot the cashier if they get all twitchy and thinks they were reaching for the heater.
It becomes a feedback loop.
Nuke the US from orbit. It's the only way.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑And your proposed remedy for that is what, exactly?free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Meanwhile, in the US people like store owners will likely have a piece under the cash register to deal with the robber. The armed thug in the US knows this and is more likely to shoot the cashier if they get all twitchy and thinks they were reaching for the heater.
It becomes a feedback loop.