PDA

View Full Version : WashPost Ran Comprehensive Investigation of Police Shootings, Ran Sunday



cclaxton
04-13-2015, 10:21 AM
This comprehensive investigation has a lot of good information. I don't agree with their sensationalism of the issue, but it does make a strong case that police prosecutions only happen when cops get caught on video or when the facts are so overwhelming that the officer can't explain his/her way out of it. My opinion is that it is natural to try and protect our policemen/women because they do put their lives on the line everyday, and they expose themselves to the psychological affects of policing as well. I am uncertain if this is a pervasive practice.

1) Is this pattern of protecting police from prosecution statistically insignificant (It's going to happen sometimes), or is it enough to justify changing the system in those jurisdictions where it is more prevalent?
2) If true, are we okay with a system that has one standard for police and another for ordinary citizens, based on the difficulty and risk associated with the jobs?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/04/11/thousands-dead-few-prosecuted/?hpid=z5

Cody

voodoo_man
04-13-2015, 11:13 AM
I can tell you that from personal experience that is not the case. Video is nice, but not the end all, be all for prosecution.

I would say that because video of a situation exists is a reason why media grabs hold of it and runs for the hills at every chance.

Chuck Haggard
04-13-2015, 11:16 AM
I know for a fact that cops get prosecuted for UOF cases, even if there is no probable cause for the action. Several here locally have been pure politics.

SecondsCount
04-13-2015, 12:11 PM
This comprehensive investigation has a lot of good information. I don't agree with their sensationalism of the issue, but it does make a strong case that police prosecutions only happen when cops get caught on video or when the facts are so overwhelming that the officer can't explain his/her way out of it. My opinion is that it is natural to try and protect our policemen/women because they do put their lives on the line everyday, and they expose themselves to the psychological affects of policing as well. I am uncertain if this is a pervasive practice.

1) Is this pattern of protecting police from prosecution statistically insignificant (It's going to happen sometimes), or is it enough to justify changing the system in those jurisdictions where it is more prevalent?
2) If true, are we okay with a system that has one standard for police and another for ordinary citizens, based on the difficulty and risk associated with the jobs?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/04/11/thousands-dead-few-prosecuted/?hpid=z5

Cody

So government control is not always a good thing or is the utopia not all it is cracked up to be?

There are corrupt cops and organizations, and they lower the trust of the public, but the good cops have a tough job and even a video won't always tell the real story.

Chuck Whitlock
04-13-2015, 02:59 PM
This comprehensive investigation has a lot of good information. I don't agree with their sensationalism of the issue, but it does make a strong case that police prosecutions only happen when cops get caught on video or when the facts are so overwhelming that the officer can't explain his/her way out of it.

Cody

Or maybe it's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Which is supposed to apply to everyone equally.

Hambo
04-13-2015, 03:13 PM
when the facts are so overwhelming that the officer can't explain his/her way out of it.


Change 'officer' to 'suspect' and that's generally how all criminal prosecutions start.

RevolverRob
04-13-2015, 03:37 PM
I know for a fact that cops get prosecuted for UOF cases, even if there is no probable cause for the action. Several here locally have been pure politics.

Not all stats are made equally, right? Use of Force vs. Fatal Shootings. So, to be fair the actual discussion the Post article had is about the number of officers charged after fatal shootings since 2005, not use of force incidents. But if they have included charges and prosecutions for use of force incidents, would the actual statistics be better? Meaning, if we tallied up the total number of uses of force (and we would have to limit it, say only to those where the UOF was investigated by the agency after the fact) and then compared them to when officers were found not in compliance with policy and then compared the number of officers not in compliance with policy with the number of criminal prosecutions - Do we think those numbers would make law enforcement look better or worse?

I mean that honestly, I am not sure how the stats will look. What I do know is police have PR problem and police administrators don't seem to be doing themselves in favor in that realm. I'm not saying we need witch hunts and more prosecutions and I know the media isn't helping. I am positive we need better statistics and reporting. It could only help reveal genuine trends and problems or put to rest some of the disingenuous attempts by people to muckrake.


So government control is not always a good thing or is the utopia not all it is cracked up to be?

There are corrupt cops and organizations, and they lower the trust of the public, but the good cops have a tough job and even a video won't always tell the real story.

I'm sorry - but I can't find a bigger strawman in this place than what you just threw out here. What does governmental control and/or utopia have to do with the news story at hand? I can make a hand-waving gesture to get there, but I'm afraid it might be a bit obscene. I really don't mean to be rude, but this total dismissal of the report is backed by what?


Change 'officer' to 'suspect' and that's generally how all criminal prosecutions start.

And that's pretty interesting, because we're pretty much at a point in this country where shooting someone as a citizen invokes a long investigation and usually a trip to the grand jury. Even in places where self-defense is a bonafide human right, people are regularly seeing the grand jury after a shooting. To my mind the real question is - Do the statistics for number of fatal police shootings and resulting prosecutions match the statistics for number of fatal self-defense shootings and resulting prosecutions? Because those two are really the closest Apples to Apples comparisons. And if they do not, why?

__

Note: I genuinely believe cops are the good guys, trying to do a tough job and do it well. There are some bad apples out there. But there are three problems as I see it - First, the lack of solid data hurts police more than it could hurt if people had those data. Second, police have a real PR problem and need to start looking for a way to solve it, seriously. Third, the old standby of "There are corrupt jerkwards in every agency" is no longer a valid excuse - without hard data in a data-driven world people just don't believe you, even if it is true. I know it may not be what police want to hear, but realistically, it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better, unless agencies start keeping really great track of their statistics and willingly turn them over for researchers to investigate. Also transparency in investigations is really going to matter a lot in the future, a lot.

-Rob

Chuck Haggard
04-13-2015, 09:02 PM
Not all stats are made equally, right? Use of Force vs. Fatal Shootings.

-Rob

Yes, I am aware that is a difference, but we are not talking apples and oranges here, we are talking small oranges and bigger oranges.

Do you think it's easier to make a case for killing someone, or for just punching them in the face? A UOF is either reasonable or it is not, degree of force doesn't matter.

Shootings are actually rather rare, compared to all other UOF cases, and ANy use of force is rare considering police-citizen contacts.

BTW, some of those cases I spoke towards were in fact shootings.

Shellback
04-13-2015, 09:15 PM
Or maybe it's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Which is supposed to apply to everyone equally.

Equally? Surely you jest.

RoyGBiv
04-13-2015, 09:43 PM
"Comprehensive" is to WaPo as;

A. Jumbo is to Shrimp
B. One-sided is to Whole
C. White is to Rice
D. A and B
E. None of the above

LittleLebowski
04-14-2015, 04:13 PM
LE, tell me if this needs to be moved.