3 ms·

I think we mostly agree. I'd need much more information to decide whether I think US law enforcement is more bloodthirsty. The fact is our cops are much more h

by iak8god 12y ago

I think we mostly agree. I'd need much more information to decide whether I think US law enforcement is more bloodthirsty. The fact is our cops are much more heavily armed. They have to be because our criminals are too.

logfromblammo 12y ago
Assume all you like. The written police reports all say "officer safety" and "feared for their lives", but it has become more common these past few years, with the rise of camera-equipped mobile phones and retail establishment surveillance cameras, for a video to surface after the report has been filed that completely contradicts the police perspective. For instance, the report says "suspect reached for my gun" while the video shows "suspect attempting to flee". The report says "aggressive posture", "belligerent", or "combative stance", and the video shows "police employee suddenly attacks someone for no apparent reason". This is exactly why Wisconsin took away the ability for police to investigate their own public mistakes and clear themselves of all wrongdoing. So we cannot assume anything. We know that it is at least theoretically possible to employ people as professional police with a lower annual body count by examining other countries (and also that it is possible to kill more per year). Without an open process to examine and investigate the police-involved deaths, we cannot say with certainty that any percentage of them, from 0% to 100%, is due to intentional malicious acts. It is certain that a positive percentage of all police reports involving use of force are falsified and later contradicted by bystander video recordings. And that is exactly why Colorado is implementing a "right to record" law, with a $15k penalty every time police interfere with people recording them doing their jobs. And I dispute your later assumption that police are more heavily armed because they need to be to counteract criminals that are more heavily armed. They are more heavily armed because they can use civil forfeiture seizure proceeds to buy decommissioned or surplus military equipment. These "toys" are then used to conduct no-knock raids on people not known to be armed with anything at all. If you stop assuming things about the police that tend to paint them in a more positive light, and look at only the facts that you can prove, the naked numbers are frightening.
- iak8god 12y ago
  Let's assume for the sake of argument that all killings by police in 2014 were completely random and 100% malicious. Then my chances of being killed by police in the US during that year were about double my chances of getting hit by lightning in the US that year. It wouldn't even place on the list of things I'm frightened about. Maybe we can agree on this: more transparency is needed. Resistance to transparency is very suspicious. My point about US/UK police was not about police militarization. That is a different issue. Regular cops out on patrol every day in the US carry guns. Their counterparts in the UK do not. I believe US cops should carry guns because it's so easy for everyone else in the US to get guns, including the criminals they will encounter. A consequence of everyone (cops & crooks) having guns is that there will be more exchanges between them that involve lethal force. Another consequence of cops having guns is that they will use them whenever they believe at the time that lethal force is justified. Sometimes they will be mistaken.

by iak8god 12y ago

logfromblammo 12y ago

Assume all you like. The written police reports all say "officer safety" and "feared for their lives", but it has become more common these past few years, with the rise of camera-equipped mobile phones and retail establishment surveillance cameras, for a video to surface after the report has been filed that completely contradicts the police perspective. For instance, the report says "suspect reached for my gun" while the video shows "suspect attempting to flee". The report says "aggressive posture", "belligerent", or "combative stance", and the video shows "police employee suddenly attacks someone for no apparent reason". This is exactly why Wisconsin took away the ability for police to investigate their own public mistakes and clear themselves of all wrongdoing. So we cannot assume anything. We know that it is at least theoretically possible to employ people as professional police with a lower annual body count by examining other countries (and also that it is possible to kill more per year). Without an open process to examine and investigate the police-involved deaths, we cannot say with certainty that any percentage of them, from 0% to 100%, is due to intentional malicious acts. It is certain that a positive percentage of all police reports involving use of force are falsified and later contradicted by bystander video recordings. And that is exactly why Colorado is implementing a "right to record" law, with a $15k penalty every time police interfere with people recording them doing their jobs. And I dispute your later assumption that police are more heavily armed because they need to be to counteract criminals that are more heavily armed. They are more heavily armed because they can use civil forfeiture seizure proceeds to buy decommissioned or surplus military equipment. These "toys" are then used to conduct no-knock raids on people not known to be armed with anything at all. If you stop assuming things about the police that tend to paint them in a more positive light, and look at only the facts that you can prove, the naked numbers are frightening.

iak8god 12y ago
Let's assume for the sake of argument that all killings by police in 2014 were completely random and 100% malicious. Then my chances of being killed by police in the US during that year were about double my chances of getting hit by lightning in the US that year. It wouldn't even place on the list of things I'm frightened about. Maybe we can agree on this: more transparency is needed. Resistance to transparency is very suspicious. My point about US/UK police was not about police militarization. That is a different issue. Regular cops out on patrol every day in the US carry guns. Their counterparts in the UK do not. I believe US cops should carry guns because it's so easy for everyone else in the US to get guns, including the criminals they will encounter. A consequence of everyone (cops & crooks) having guns is that there will be more exchanges between them that involve lethal force. Another consequence of cops having guns is that they will use them whenever they believe at the time that lethal force is justified. Sometimes they will be mistaken.