These People are Retarded

[Aimless]

That is an interesting statistic. Where is it from?

[Loki]

Cops are being paid for the danger they face. It's their job. Young black men do not. What a weird attempt to compare the two.

[Enoch the Red]

That's just not true. This one involved someone being aggressive to an officer inside a shop, the last one involved an officer shooting someone after 9/11 had been called for someone kicking at a front door.

Not being killed is a pretty big incentive that you gloss over.

Does kicking at a front door now warrant a death sentence? If I remember correctly, there were multiple officers on scene, and the suspect was unarmed. At what point does that even begin to make sense as a case where deadly force is required?

[Aimless]

To be fair to the police, the suspect had at least two arms that we know of

[RandBlade]

That is an interesting statistic. Where is it from?

We established the statistic in another thread and nobody disputed it. I can go and dig it back up if you want, was quite recent.

Cops are being paid for the danger they face. It's their job. Young black men do not. What a weird attempt to compare the two.

Cops are paid to enforce the law, not to die.

Does kicking at a front door now warrant a death sentence? If I remember correctly, there were multiple officers on scene, and the suspect was unarmed. At what point does that even begin to make sense as a case where deadly force is required?

I never said that deserved a death sentence, I said Loki's claim that it was a car-related incident was false.

[Khendraja'aro]

It's still comparing apples to oranges. Next up: We're comparing the k/d ratio of a soldier in Afghanistan to an Inuit in Greenland.

[RandBlade]

These are cops not fucking soldiers.

The acceptable number of police officers being murdered in the line of duty is zero. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

[Aimless]

I strongly disagree.

[Enoch the Red]

These are cops not fucking soldiers.

The acceptable number of police officers being murdered in the line of duty is zero. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

You realize that being a police officer isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs a person can be in, right? It is slightly more dangerous than being a painter or in construction and maintenance, and less dangerous than being a grounds worker.

[Khendraja'aro]

These are cops not fucking soldiers.

Nice that you're seeing that your comparisons don't make sense

The acceptable number of police officers being murdered in the line of duty is zero. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

These guys have more power than the average citizen. This also gives them more responsibility to use this power in a safe manner. And, by the way, the acceptable number of people being murdered by police officers is also a zero. Cuts both ways, your argument.

I'd also suggest that US police training seems to be sub-par. Over here it's two years, in contrast to mere single-digits months, if even that much.

[Loki]

Like I said, the training isn't the main issue (though it probably contributes to the problem). The main issue are the incentives police officers face. If you never get punished for killing people, why not shoot first and worry about whether there really was a threat later? In a way, it's not even the cops' fault. It's the fault of the lawmakers, prosecutors, and juries who have allowed the current conditions to exist.

[LittleFuzzy]

We established the statistic in another thread and nobody disputed it. I can go and dig it back up if you want, was quite recent.

I remember the thread. And I remember all sorts of dispute for the sort of claim you're making. For instance, I seem to recall it being pointed out that your "murdered" number is simply all police officers who had died period, whether they were on duty or not, whether anyone was trying to kill them or it was from things like traffic accidents.

[Lewkowski]

Like I said, the training isn't the main issue (though it probably contributes to the problem). The main issue are the incentives police officers face. If you never get punished for killing people, why not shoot first and worry about whether there really was a threat later? In a way, it's not even the cops' fault. It's the fault of the lawmakers, prosecutors, and juries who have allowed the current conditions to exist.

Actually police officers have been brought up on charges, had their careers ruined and have had their name drug through the mud.

The issue you and liberals don't see is that police work isn't an exact science.

If a crazy guy with an ax charges you, you're going to shoot him. Could you have taken him down non-lethally? Well possibly but the crazy ax murder's life is inherently worth less than the police officer (or any other non-criminal citizen). Many altercations occur at night where guess what - MISTAKES CAN HAPPEN. So does kicking on a door and being an aggressive moron deserve a death sentence? Well no but neither does playing golf in a lightning storm. But doing so can certainly lead to a death sentence and the fault isn't the lightning storm or the police officer but the person engaging in risky behavior.

[Loki]

No, they really haven't. From the thousand plus people that cops kill each year, a handful of officers get charged, and perhaps one gets convicted.

[LittleFuzzy]

Actually police officers have been brought up on charges, had their careers ruined and have had their name drug through the mud.

The issue you and liberals don't see is that police work isn't an exact science.

If a crazy guy with an ax charges you, you're going to shoot him. Could you have taken him down non-lethally? Well possibly but the crazy ax murder's life is inherently worth less than the police officer (or any other non-criminal citizen). Many altercations occur at night where guess what - MISTAKES CAN HAPPEN. So does kicking on a door and being an aggressive moron deserve a death sentence? Well no but neither does playing golf in a lightning storm. But doing so can certainly lead to a death sentence and the fault isn't the lightning storm or the police officer but the person engaging in risky behavior.

Funny, I don't recall any claims of wrongful death being cited here where a crazy guy with an ax charged the police.

[RandBlade]

I strongly disagree.

You strongly think it is acceptable for the Police to be murdered?

You realize that being a police officer isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs a person can be in, right? It is slightly more dangerous than being a painter or in construction and maintenance, and less dangerous than being a grounds worker.

So you want to compare accidents to murder? In those dangerous jobs where accidents are possible we take action to try and reduce the risk, not increase it.

If you look at the second graph down in your own link at murders on the job, only taxi drivers have a higher rate of being murdered on the job.


As your source says "the grim tally for Police might be even higher if they weren't so well trained and equipped."

These guys have more power than the average citizen. This also gives them more responsibility to use this power in a safe manner. And, by the way, the acceptable number of people being murdered by police officers is also a zero. Cuts both ways, your argument.

Murders yes. And I've proposed solutions such as body cams for evidence etc, but not all police kills are murders. That is the argument as to where the line is drawn between justifiable and non-justifiable homicide.

I'd also suggest that US police training seems to be sub-par. Over here it's two years, in contrast to mere single-digits months, if even that much.

I don't see anyone denying sensible proposals to improve things. More training seems like a good proposal.

I remember the thread. And I remember all sorts of dispute for the sort of claim you're making. For instance, I seem to recall it being pointed out that your "murdered" number is simply all police officers who had died period, whether they were on duty or not, whether anyone was trying to kill them or it was from things like traffic accidents.

Originally yes. The final number that I don't think was disputed by anyone was taken from the figure for those unlawfully killed by gunfire. This excluded deliberate homicides by other means, let alone including accidents etc would treble the figure.

It is worth noting that my figures were based on long-term figures averaged over a decade (2013 was an exceptionally low year) but even in the source just provided in the exceptionally quiet year of 2013 the figures for officers murdered is 3.5 per 100k, while black men killed by officers (including traffic accidents) is 3 per million. http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...d-police/19423

Last I checked a million is ten times greater than 100k. Please try and find any source suggesting the Police are killing (justifiably or not) anywhere close to 3 per 100k rather than per million.

[Aimless]

You strongly think it is acceptable for the Police to be murdered?

Yes, I strongly think so. The only way you could have zero police murders in the US is by having zero police officers. Being killed on the job is a risk that comes with being a police officer in the US. It is a risk that comes with being a police officer anywhere, but most other Western countries are fortunate in that the risk is far lower than it is in the US. But the risk of murder is one that comes with the job and if you want that job done you will have to accept a non-zero risk. The risk can certainly be reduced as can the risk of people dying at the hands of police.

If you look at the second graph down in your own link at murders on the job, only taxi drivers have a higher rate of being murdered on the job.

Now that is truly unacceptable

Originally yes. The final number that I don't think was disputed by anyone was taken from the figure for those unlawfully killed by gunfire. This excluded deliberate homicides by other means, let alone including accidents etc would treble the figure.

I asked about the source because there has until recently not been much data of any high quality on the number of people police kill. The data is not gathered and reported reliably and most likely the number of people killed by police is underestimated by official reports that rely on that data.

While it's entirely possible or even probable that police officers are more likely to be killed than are young black men, a police officer's risk of being killed on the job is necessarily greater than what a black man's risk of being killed by a police officer is and I expect that may be true even when demographic and socioeconomic factors are taken into account. A black man's risk of being killed during an encounter with police is probably higher than the general risk. A police officer's risk per encounter may or may not be lower, I don't know and I don't think there is good data available.

[RandBlade]

Yes, I strongly think so. The only way you could have zero police murders in the US is by having zero police officers. Being killed on the job is a risk that comes with being a police officer in the US. It is a risk that comes with being a police officer anywhere, but most other Western countries are fortunate in that the risk is far lower than it is in the US. But the risk of murder is one that comes with the job and if you want that job done you will have to accept a non-zero risk. The risk can certainly be reduced as can the risk of people dying at the hands of police.

We manage to go entire years without any officer murders at all, so I don't think its remotely beyond the writ of plausibility to aim for zero murders in the US either. But even if murders are inevitable that doesn't make it acceptable. There is a difference between what is likely and what is acceptable.

While it's entirely possible or even probable that police officers are more likely to be killed than are young black men, a police officer's risk of being killed on the job is necessarily greater than what a black man's risk of being killed by a police officer is and I expect that may be true even when demographic and socioeconomic factors are taken into account. A black man's risk of being killed during an encounter with police is probably higher than the general risk. A police officer's risk per encounter may or may not be lower, I don't know and I don't think there is good data available.

That cuts both ways. A gangbanger has a necessarily greater risk of being killed by a police officer than the general population too, but they're subsumed within the overall statistics too.

PS interesting statistic at the bottom of the link I posted in my prior post. 93% of black killings are done by other black people. 84% of white killings are done by other white people. Conversely only 7% of blacks killed are killed by non-blacks and only 16% of whites killed are killed by non-whites.

[Being]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hig...v?ocid=U218DHP

“If we’re interested in protecting police officers, we need to look at what’s killing them, and it’s guns. We know that 92% of police officers killed in the line of duty are killed by guns, three-quarters of which are handguns,” said David Swedler, lead researcher and an assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health.

Police officers in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are three times as likely to be killed as officers in states with the lowest rates of gun ownership, the researchers found – 0.95 homicides per 10,000 law enforcement officers in the former compared with 0.31 homicides per 10,000 in the latter.

[Enoch the Red]

You strongly think it is acceptable for the Police to be murdered?
So you want to compare accidents to murder? In those dangerous jobs where accidents are possible we take action to try and reduce the risk, not increase it.

If you look at the second graph down in your own link at murders on the job, only taxi drivers have a higher rate of being murdered on the job.

Sure, I think it makes sense that a job that often requires violent interaction with and is diametrically opposed to the criminal element is going to run a higher risk of violent death. I also think the risks are not so great that it justifies shooting first and asking questions later.

[RandBlade]

Sure, I think it makes sense that a job that often requires violent interaction with and is diametrically opposed to the criminal element is going to run a higher risk of violent death. I also think the risks are not so great that it justifies shooting first and asking questions later.

I agree completely. However I do not think that is happening Enoch. If it were happening then I think given that the Police are both trained and heavily equipped then the per capita rate of Police killing people would be considerably higher than the per capita rate of Police getting killed. If they are shooting first asking questions later then they'd have to be shooting with the inaccuracy of a Stormtrooper to be killing comparatively so infrequently. They must be restraining themselves somewhat rather than shooting first as a rule or else the figures would be much higher.

To put it into contrast 2100 Gaza Palestinians were killed during the seven weeks of Israel's Operation Protective Edge in 2014 (116.6 per 100k) and 66 IDF soldiers were killed (0.375 per 100k). On a per capita basis more than 10 US cops are killed per kill by the cops, on a per capita basis 311 Palestinians are killed by IDF forces compared to IDF forces being killed. Feel free to challenge those numbers they were sourced from hits on Google.

Now which is a version of shooting first and asking questions later? Because that's out by a factor of over 3000 but I don't recall Loki screaming 3000 times more about cowards shooting first and asking questions later.

[Lewkowski]

No, they really haven't. From the thousand plus people that cops kill each year, a handful of officers get charged, and perhaps one gets convicted.

That's a meaningless comparison. If 10,000 people are killed by police and 10,000 out of 10,000 cases were appropriate shots then there isn't a problem.

[Loki]

I'm glad you're willing to sacrifice your life and liberty with no recourse on the assumption that all cops are good. I'm not.

[Lewkowski]

I'm glad you're willing to sacrifice your life and liberty with no recourse on the assumption that all cops are good. I'm not.

What assumption? That was clearly an if statement. Each shooting should be investigated and the normal standard of proof should apply. But simply saying x people died but only y are convicted doesn't mean squat.

[Loki]

Except even in cases where the cops clearly acted inappropriately, the general consequence to the cop is nothing. This is true even when the government has to pay out millions to the victim/family of the victim.

[Lewkowski]

Except even in cases where the cops clearly acted inappropriately, the general consequence to the cop is nothing. This is true even when the government has to pay out millions to the victim/family of the victim.

There are different standards for guilt in civil and criminal trials. Are you suggesting we remove the Reasonable Doubt standard for accused police officers?

[RandBlade]

This is a rare instance where Lewk is willing to acknowledge that the standard of proof required to convict is to say that wrong was done beyond all reasonable doubt. Do you want to eliminate that Loki?

In general tragically if a cop has killed someone there will be at least reasonable doubt as to whether he reasonably though that was necessary or not.

[Loki]

You two really need to do some basic research on this topic. This thread is like debating Trump about women's rights. You also need to look up evidentiary standards. The requirement is whether a reasonable person would think an action necessary, not whether the defendant does.

[RandBlade]

That is why I said reasonably thought it. You need to re-read what I wrote.

But it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the action was wrong. The very nature of the action will only normally occur if there is reasonable doubt. Unless you want to eliminate reasonable doubt as a requirement for trials, that is the nature of the problem.

[Aimless]

This is a rare instance where Lewk is willing to acknowledge that the standard of proof required to convict is to say that wrong was done beyond all reasonable doubt. Do you want to eliminate that Loki?

In general tragically if a cop has killed someone there will be at least reasonable doubt as to whether he reasonably though that was necessary or not.

That mostly influences the charge brought and in determining the degree of culpability. It is not necessarily enough to determine whether or not a killing was lawful. In practice, the standard for determining whether or not a killing was lawful is to ask, "Did a cop do it?"

I'm sure you can see how this can lead to problems