Unit2SucksI agree with a lot of what you say.
What I find ridiculous is some of the statements of posters here who state that we should fear death at the hands of cops. :Lets take your statistics at face value and consider the position of those who say they fear the police. There are 300,000,000 in the US population. You state that there are 1000 civilian deaths per year at the hands of police - ie 1 out of 300,000 people are killed by police each year-(both justifiably and without justification).
Police say they fear for their lives and 1500 cops out of a total of 900,000 are killed each year in the line of duty - ie.1 out of 6000. So, a cop's fear of death on the job is 50 times more justifiable than civilians' fear of cops killing them. Doesn't a cops fear of death seem more reasonable than a civilian's fear being killed by cops? I would say yes by a wide margin.
I have said I think cop's fear of death is over-rated, I think a civilian's fear of death at the hands of a cop is absurd.
Yet, the Black Lives Matter group is promoting this ridiculous notion - it as absurd as was their characterization of the Missouri incident with Mr. Michael Brown - "Hands Up Don't shoot"was a sheer fantasy. Brown was a strong armed robber who tried to take a cop's gun away - a good formula for death at the hands of a cop.

150 cops killed - not 1500 My mistake in the post.

CAL6371 said:

---

You seem to hold the police and police unions to a higher standard than any other organization or people.
Yes, I do. This was what I (not so articulately) was trying to say earlier-- a group that is acting as agents of the state, and are authorized to use violence on behalf of the state, should be held to the highest standard

You say tell "your" union - if you are referring to me, you are wrong - I was never a cop. I wouldn't put up with the abuse and jerks they have to tolerate on the street daily.
Sorry, I used "you" colloquially, as "one". My understanding is that you were/are a prosecutor, not a police officer. It wasn't directed personally

Get rid of the blue wall of silence - but not the movie industry's wall of silence, the wall street wall of silence, the Congressional wall of silence and how about the insurance industry's wall of silence etc. etc. Every large business and government agency or bureaucracy has a similar wall of silence. We have seen the movie industry and the new media's wall of silence temporarily punctured, but that's it.
Again, the police are specifically tasked with identifying and gathering evidence of crimes. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed, it shouldn't matter who committed it, be they average Joes or other cops. That's kind of the point of integrity, that one applies the same set of rules to everyone

Speaking, as you have of my motivation, why are you so concerned only about the cops wall of silence? Because they have the same rights to self defense that everyone in the nation has? Their job makes it more likely that they have to avail themselves of their right to self defense and defense of others than any other profession. Do you resent that?
No, not at all. However, I feel very strongly that if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it should not be covered up or swept under the rug. The "good cops" you talked about earlier should feel the same way, otherwise I question if they're good cops

Please recite you fights for piercing other walls of silence - or will you simply never admit you have done nothing in that area as well.
I've reported colleagues for suspected illicit drug use, which in my line of work is a major no-no

---

I've responded inline to your points. I re-emphasize that what I really want from cops is transparency and accountability. I'm not asking for a lynch mob or summary judgment. However, when evidence of a crime is present (e.g. unjustified use of force, falsification of evidence, lying on a sworn police report, etc.), I expect that police should be zealous in pursuing those crimes, because if they're not it impugns their honesty and integrity

CAL6371 said:

---

Did any of the posters who criticized cops for not blasting each other in the press take into account that police officers often have to rely on other officers in their department for backup. In other words, they have to place their life in the hands of a fellow worker and he has to place his life in theirs. It is like combat at times - rapid life threatening dependence on each other. If you (officer #1) blast officer#2 in the press, the guy you rely on to back you up may be the officer you criticized or his best friend. Not a good situation to be in - is it?
Anybody want to continue to support sketchy9's proposal that officers should criticize each other in the press?

---

It's really not about going to the press. It is using discretion in statements of support of colleagues who are under suspicion of using excessive force. You, or others, might think that a non-statement or silence is equivalent to a denunciation, but that attitude really needs to change. The way to change it is from the good cops. The default (from the union, not individual officers) should be "we look forward to the full airing of the facts and have no comment at this time". That's really not a high bar to clear.

sketchy9 - Rather than prolong this argument let me state two situations in which I spoke out
1. In the 80s I had a big drug bust case done by the LASO in Ventura County. An LASO deputy lied to me on an important point in case. Both I and my investigators were certain he had lied. The case was later tried and lost by another prosecutor and the papers made a big deal of it. The office ordered me to speak to the press about the case. I told the press, and they printed it, that one of the problems was an LASO deputy. I said that I had never been lied to by an officer like he had lied to me. The guy threatened to sue etc. He never did. The only thing that happened was that later I had to testify in Federal Court in LA against the officer.Incidentally, the defense attorney who had me testify was Johnnie Cochran - an incredibly charming guy.
2. Before I retired, I did many police shooting reports (our office did this and gave it to the Press in every case of a police shooting). The local agency was pressing us hard to exonerate the officer. I refused to do so and the office backed me. Later the widow of the deceased filed a civil suit and won millions. The officer should never have been sent on the raid due to illness and vision problems - which the agency had never disclosed to me.

Some here may regard me as a person who excuses police misconduct. I don't think that is accurate.

tequila4kapp said:

---

I provided the data which proves the 25% of 33% number is wrong and misleading. If you are relying on some other data to support your position provide the cite. Otherwise it is dishonest to continue claiming that rate of police killings.

It is disengenuous to include police killings with the other random murders (your 25% category). Police have have virtually no criminal intent. Police interactions are not random. Stay out of trouble and follow police instructions and our risk of being killed by the police effectively 0% not 25% of 33%.

---

Actually, you provided data that showed the 1/3 of 25% (~8%) is absolutely correct. It is known that many law enforcement homicides are not reported therefore it is known that the FBI statistics are incomplete. Private group analysis is the only way to make an assessment and both your source and mine came up with 8%.

I provided the context of why it is important to view that in the context of 1/3 of 25% that is relevant to most of us.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I provided the data which proves the 25% of 33% number is wrong and misleading. If you are relying on some other data to support your position provide the cite. Otherwise it is dishonest to continue claiming that rate of police killings.

It is disengenuous to include police killings with the other random murders (your 25% category). Police have have virtually no criminal intent. Police interactions are not random. Stay out of trouble and follow police instructions and our risk of being killed by the police effectively 0% not 25% of 33%.

---

Actually, you provided data that showed the 1/3 of 25% (~8%) is absolutely correct. It is known that many law enforcement homicides are not reported therefore it is known that the FBI statistics are incomplete. Private group analysis is the only way to make an assessment and both your source and mine came up with 8%.

I provided the context of why it is important to view that in the context of 1/3 of 25% that is relevant to most of us.

---

If you go to the web site of the one source that results in the numbers which support your position you see that they consider ALL deaths which involve a police interaction as a "killing."

Police chase where the criminal driving at a high rate of speed hits a pedestrian and kills an innocent person? "Police killing."

Police respond to an incident and the suspect turns the gun on himself and commits suicide? "Police killing."

Bad guy shoots at police and a policeman returns fire in self defense? "Police killing."

The numbers are patently and obviously unreliable.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I provided the data which proves the 25% of 33% number is wrong and misleading. If you are relying on some other data to support your position provide the cite. Otherwise it is dishonest to continue claiming that rate of police killings.

It is disengenuous to include police killings with the other random murders (your 25% category). Police have have virtually no criminal intent. Police interactions are not random. Stay out of trouble and follow police instructions and our risk of being killed by the police effectively 0% not 25% of 33%.

---

Actually, you provided data that showed the 1/3 of 25% (~8%) is absolutely correct. It is known that many law enforcement homicides are not reported therefore it is known that the FBI statistics are incomplete. Private group analysis is the only way to make an assessment and both your source and mine came up with 8%.

I provided the context of why it is important to view that in the context of 1/3 of 25% that is relevant to most of us.

---

If you go to the web site of the one source that results in the numbers which support your position you see that they consider ALL deaths which involve a police interaction as a "killing."

Police chase where the criminal driving at a high rate of speed hits a pedestrian and kills an innocent person? "Police killing."

Police respond to an incident and the suspect turns the gun on himself and commits suicide? "Police killing."

Bad guy shoots at police and a policeman returns fire in self defense? "Police killing."

The numbers are patently and obviously unreliable.

---

I think the government should require tracking of these kinds of statistics. The government purposefully does NOT do this because they do not want this kind of analysis to be properly done. Why do you think that is?

CAL6371 said:

---

sketchy9 - Rather than prolong this argument let me state two situations in which I spoke out
1. In the 80s I had a big drug bust case done by the LASO in Ventura County. An LASO deputy lied to me on an important point in case. Both I and my investigators were certain he had lied. The case was later tried and lost by another prosecutor and the papers made a big deal of it. The office ordered me to speak to the press about the case. I told the press, and they printed it, that one of the problems was an LASO deputy. I said that I had never been lied to by an officer like he had lied to me. The guy threatened to sue etc. He never did. The only thing that happened was that later I had to testify in Federal Court in LA against the officer.Incidentally, the defense attorney who had me testify was Johnnie Cochran - an incredibly charming guy.
2. Before I retired, I did many police shooting reports (our office did this and gave it to the Press in every case of a police shooting). The local agency was pressing us hard to exonerate the officer. I refused to do so and the office backed me. Later the widow of the deceased filed a civil suit and won millions. The officer should never have been sent on the raid due to illness and vision problems - which the agency had never disclosed to me.

Some here may regard me as a person who excuses police misconduct. I don't think that is accurate.

---

Here's what I will say on behalf of the police in this case: from what I can tell, it looks like the officer who did the shooting was fired from the force, fairly quickly and without much objection from anyone. I'm not sure that would have happened just a few years ago, so I think this kind of swift action (drumming out the bad apple) does reflect a change in attitudes.

It might take more time before juries are ready to convict a cop, but IMO it looks like society is moving in that direction. It's much harder now to make the "cops can do no wrong" argument because we've all seen the videos.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

CAL6371 - about 150 police officers are killed each year (out of approx 900,000 on duty). 1,000 civilians were killed by police last year. Police officers assume some risk and have training to reduce their risk, but that doesn't support transferring that risk to innocent people like Daniel Shavers. I don't care why officers support each other even when they are committing heinous criminal acts, it causes the public to lose faith in the people sworn to protect them, and at this point can you really blame them? Since the advent of body cameras we have seen some truly horrendous images of rogue officers expecting people. There are a lot of good police officers who are being stained by the actions of a few and it's largely up to police departments and fellow officers to police themselves because juries don't seem to be doing so.

---

I think to better understand the statistics, we would also need to understand how many innocent lives (if any) wouldn't otherwise be protected if additional barriers are implemented to reduce the 1,000 number. I don't think just a comparison of 150 versus 1,000 is a complete analysis.

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I provided the data which proves the 25% of 33% number is wrong and misleading. If you are relying on some other data to support your position provide the cite. Otherwise it is dishonest to continue claiming that rate of police killings.

It is disengenuous to include police killings with the other random murders (your 25% category). Police have have virtually no criminal intent. Police interactions are not random. Stay out of trouble and follow police instructions and our risk of being killed by the police effectively 0% not 25% of 33%.

---

Actually, you provided data that showed the 1/3 of 25% (~8%) is absolutely correct. It is known that many law enforcement homicides are not reported therefore it is known that the FBI statistics are incomplete. Private group analysis is the only way to make an assessment and both your source and mine came up with 8%.

I provided the context of why it is important to view that in the context of 1/3 of 25% that is relevant to most of us.

---

If you go to the web site of the one source that results in the numbers which support your position you see that they consider ALL deaths which involve a police interaction as a "killing."

Police chase where the criminal driving at a high rate of speed hits a pedestrian and kills an innocent person? "Police killing."

Police respond to an incident and the suspect turns the gun on himself and commits suicide? "Police killing."

Bad guy shoots at police and a policeman returns fire in self defense? "Police killing."

The numbers are patently and obviously unreliable.

---

I think the government should require tracking of these kinds of statistics. The government purposefully does NOT do this because they do not want this kind of analysis to be properly done. Why do you think that is?

---

Because most people understand that culpability and intent matter. According to Wikipedia, FBI statistics on police officers killed only counts felonious killings; accidental deaths in the line of duty are excluded.

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I think the government should require tracking of these kinds of statistics. The government purposefully does NOT do this because they do not want this kind of analysis to be properly done. Why do you think that is?

---

Because rigorous statistical analysis may expose some shortcomings in law enforcement, According to Wikipedia, FBI statistics on police officers killed only counts felonious killings; accidental deaths in the line of duty are excluded.

---

fify

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I provided the data which proves the 25% of 33% number is wrong and misleading. If you are relying on some other data to support your position provide the cite. Otherwise it is dishonest to continue claiming that rate of police killings.

It is disengenuous to include police killings with the other random murders (your 25% category). Police have have virtually no criminal intent. Police interactions are not random. Stay out of trouble and follow police instructions and our risk of being killed by the police effectively 0% not 25% of 33%.

---

Actually, you provided data that showed the 1/3 of 25% (~8%) is absolutely correct. It is known that many law enforcement homicides are not reported therefore it is known that the FBI statistics are incomplete. Private group analysis is the only way to make an assessment and both your source and mine came up with 8%.

I provided the context of why it is important to view that in the context of 1/3 of 25% that is relevant to most of us.

---

If you go to the web site of the one source that results in the numbers which support your position you see that they consider ALL deaths which involve a police interaction as a "killing."

Police chase where the criminal driving at a high rate of speed hits a pedestrian and kills an innocent person? "Police killing."

Police respond to an incident and the suspect turns the gun on himself and commits suicide? "Police killing."

Bad guy shoots at police and a policeman returns fire in self defense? "Police killing."

The numbers are patently and obviously unreliable.

---

I think the government should require tracking of these kinds of statistics. The government purposefully does NOT do this because they do not want this kind of analysis to be properly done. Why do you think that is?

---

Because most people understand that culpability and intent matter. According to Wikipedia, FBI statistics on police officers killed only counts felonious killings; accidental deaths in the line of duty are excluded.

---

Tequila - you correctly pointed out that the vast majority of the 8% of shootings attributable to the police are people shot because they engaged in criminal activity (i.e., most of the 8% of shootings are justified).

You're missing Dajo9's point. Dajo9, for whatever reason, chooses to put himself in the 8% category of mostly criminals who are at risk of being shot. We don't know why, but that doesn't matter. He's clearly at risk, by his own admission. Unlike most law abiding people, Dajo9 is at risk - and he's justifiably worried about that.

Of course, all of us (including people engaged in high risk behaviors like Dajo9) walk the streets knowing that, rather than being shot by a cop, we are far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver (10 times more likely), the flu/pneumonia (50+ times more likely), drug/opiod overdoses (44 times more likely), or many other causes.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

I'm very confident I won't die of an opioid overdose. I don't worry about that at all.

Also, when I am walking down the street I have no fear of my trip ending in death by flu. None.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

CAL6371 - about 150 police officers are killed each year (out of approx 900,000 on duty). 1,000 civilians were killed by police last year. Police officers assume some risk and have training to reduce their risk, but that doesn't support transferring that risk to innocent people like Daniel Shavers. I don't care why officers support each other even when they are committing heinous criminal acts, it causes the public to lose faith in the people sworn to protect them, and at this point can you really blame them? Since the advent of body cameras we have seen some truly horrendous images of rogue officers expecting people. There are a lot of good police officers who are being stained by the actions of a few and it's largely up to police departments and fellow officers to police themselves because juries don't seem to be doing so.

---

I think to better understand the statistics, we would also need to understand how many innocent lives (if any) wouldn't otherwise be protected if additional barriers are implemented to reduce the 1,000 number. I don't think just a comparison of 150 versus 1,000 is a complete analysis.

---

Would also like to see analysis of what things would look like without an armed populace. If the cops didn't have an unnatural fear of Shavers reaching for a gun, he may still be alive today. This is really only an issue in places like the US.

BearGoggles said:

---

You're missing Dajo9's point. Dajo9, for whatever reason, chooses to put himself in the 8% category of mostly criminals who are at risk of being shot. We don't know why, but that doesn't matter. He's clearly at risk, by his own admission. Unlike most law abiding people, Dajo9 is at risk - and he's justifiably worried about that.

Of course, all of us (including people engaged in high risk behaviors like Dajo9) walk the streets knowing that, rather than being shot by a cop, we are far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver (10 times more likely), the flu/pneumonia (50+ times more likely), drug/opiod overdoses (44 times more likely), or many other causes.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

---

Dajo best me to it but pretty sure heroin is a risky behavior.

BearGoggles said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I provided the data which proves the 25% of 33% number is wrong and misleading. If you are relying on some other data to support your position provide the cite. Otherwise it is dishonest to continue claiming that rate of police killings.

It is disengenuous to include police killings with the other random murders (your 25% category). Police have have virtually no criminal intent. Police interactions are not random. Stay out of trouble and follow police instructions and our risk of being killed by the police effectively 0% not 25% of 33%.

---

Actually, you provided data that showed the 1/3 of 25% (~8%) is absolutely correct. It is known that many law enforcement homicides are not reported therefore it is known that the FBI statistics are incomplete. Private group analysis is the only way to make an assessment and both your source and mine came up with 8%.

I provided the context of why it is important to view that in the context of 1/3 of 25% that is relevant to most of us.

---

If you go to the web site of the one source that results in the numbers which support your position you see that they consider ALL deaths which involve a police interaction as a "killing."

Police chase where the criminal driving at a high rate of speed hits a pedestrian and kills an innocent person? "Police killing."

Police respond to an incident and the suspect turns the gun on himself and commits suicide? "Police killing."

Bad guy shoots at police and a policeman returns fire in self defense? "Police killing."

The numbers are patently and obviously unreliable.

---

I think the government should require tracking of these kinds of statistics. The government purposefully does NOT do this because they do not want this kind of analysis to be properly done. Why do you think that is?

---

Because most people understand that culpability and intent matter. According to Wikipedia, FBI statistics on police officers killed only counts felonious killings; accidental deaths in the line of duty are excluded.

---

Tequila - you correctly pointed out that the vast majority of the 8% of shootings attributable to the police are people shot because they engaged in criminal activity (i.e., most of the 8% of shootings are justified).

You're missing Dajo9's point. Dajo9, for whatever reason, chooses to put himself in the 8% category of mostly criminals who are at risk of being shot. We don't know why, but that doesn't matter. He's clearly at risk, by his own admission. Unlike most law abiding people, Dajo9 is at risk - and he's justifiably worried about that.

Of course, all of us (including people engaged in high risk behaviors like Dajo9) walk the streets knowing that, rather than being shot by a cop, we are far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver (10 times more likely), the flu/pneumonia (50+ times more likely), drug/opiod overdoses (44 times more likely), or many other causes.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

---

----->

http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sheriff-brady-list-20171212-story.html

Don't let facts get in the way, here, but CNN botched the story (which is fairly common for CNN). The officer that gave the loud, contradictory commands to the suspect was not the officer who fired his weapon.

The shooter was another officer who had his rifle trained on Shavers while the loud mouth incompetent bully officer gave contradictory commands to a confused, frightened intoxicated man.