Yes, I've noticed.
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.)
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). Plus there are no complete statistics! No government agency, from the FBI on down, has rigorously collected data on police use of force! Congress has requested it, and it has been ignored. Within the past decade private groups and now some agencies are just beginning to get disciplined about it.
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.
In the article (and in the comments) Hirschfield explains that comparison to European counties is not so "apples to oranges" as one might think, even accounting for disparity of crime rate, US cops are still way more lethal.
My question is, if we're not going to shed light on the subject, given the lack of data collected by US agencies, by comparison to other countries, how do you propose we do it? Do we just...not do it, according to you?
Hirschfield addresses the "apples to oranges" issue in the comments:
(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.
https://online.wlu.ca/news/2017/01/03/p ... licing-usa
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?