PDA

View Full Version : Article: Are "Too Many" People Dying from Police Use of Force?



John Hearne
05-13-2015, 02:34 PM
From PATC - http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/2015_johnson_useofforce.pdf

Are "Too Many" People Dying from Police Use of Force?
Community reactions to a few recent deaths from police use of force have raised public concerns about the prevalence of police use of deadly force generally, and police use of deadly force against African-American men specifically. Activists and media outlets have suggested a national epidemic of deaths from police use of force currently exists, with thousands of citizens being killed annually by the police. This article will attempt to estimate how many deaths from police use of force we should expect annually in the U.S. based on officers' lawful and legitimate uses of force in response to serious attacks. After determining the benchmark for how many lethal force incidents we should expect, the article will then use death certificate records from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to determine exactly how many persons actually die from police use of force in the U.S. each year.

Developing a Lethal Force Benchmark
The FBI annually publishes a Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) report that details the Uniform Crime Report data on the number of law enforcement officers assaulted and killed across the nation's 18,000+ law enforcement agencies. These reports are publicly accessible at:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications. According to these reports, for the 10-year period of 2003 through 2012 there were 576,925 reported felonious assaults against police officers. Of these assaults on officers, 191,225 (33.1%) involved some sort of weapon, such as a gun, knife, club, vehicle, baseball bat, table leg, beer bottle, hammer, etc. Of the assaults with a weapon, 32,767 involved an edged weapon or a firearm, for an average of 3,277 deadly weapon assaults on officers annually. We could use this figure (3,277) as a conservative estimate of the number of justified deadly force incidents we could expect each year from law enforcement officers.

This is a very conservative estimate for several reasons. First, not every law enforcement agency reports Uniform Crime Report data to the FBI every year, suggesting this figure undercounts the actual number of knife and gun assaults against police officers annually. Second, this figure also fails to count assaults against officers involving other deadly weapons, such as automobiles, since knives and guns are the only type of deadly weapon specifically measured by the FBI data. Third, not every instance justifying the use of lethal force involves a weapon as sometimes assailants overpower officers without weapons, or are engaged in taking control of the officer's own weapon. Nevertheless, in spite of these weaknesses, let us proceed with this conservative benchmark of anticipating about 3,277 lethal force incidents per year.

While the FBI data does not report the racial characteristics of the assailants in all of these assaults, the FBI does indicate the races of those who have feloniously killed police officers. According to these same reports from 2003-2012, of those assailants who murdered police officers, 44.3% were African-American males in spite of the fact African-American males make up only 6% of the U.S. population. Assuming that attacks by African-American males are no more or less lethal than attacks by persons of other races and sexes, we can assume that 44.3% of all knife and gun assaults on officers are committed by black males. This would mean we should anticipate about 1,452 legally justified lethal force incidents against African-American men each year.

Based on knife and gun assaults on police, each year we can reasonably expect:
• 3,277 justifiable lethal force incidents expected annually
• 1,452 justifiable lethal force incidents involving African-American men expected annually

So How Many Use of Force Deaths Actually Occur?
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) collects data from death certificates annually to track the various rate of many causes of death in the U.S. One category of death they track is death by "legal interventions" which includes deaths resulting from "injuries inflicted by police or other law-enforcing agents in the course of arresting or attempting to arrest lawbreakers, suppressing disturbances, maintaining order, and other legal action." The CDC publishes their mortality data annually and this information is publicly available online at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html.

During the 10-year period of 2003 through 2012, the CDC recorded 4,285 deaths from "legal interventions," of which 3,627 (84.6%) were due to firearms and the remaining 658 were due to vehicles, impact weapons, electronic weapons, and officer's unarmed use of force. Of the 4,285 deaths from "legal interventions," 1,127 (26.3%) were of African-American men. These data, reported by medical doctors on death certificates, suggest that from 2003 through 2012 only an average of 429 individuals died each year from police use of force in the U.S. These data also suggest that, on average, only 113 African-American men die annually from police use of force.

So, from nation-wide death certificate data, we know that with over 800,000 peace officers policing a national population of over 320 million people:
• An average of 429 deaths from police use of force actually occur annually
• An average of 112 deaths of African-American men from police use of force actually occur annually

Comparing the Benchmark with the Actual Outcomes
Based on the number of knife and gun assaults police officers experience annually, we conservatively estimated that there should be about 3,277 justifiable lethal uses of force by law enforcement officers each year. In reality, however, morgues only see about 429 deaths from all forms of police action. This reveals that the numbers of deaths that occur annually from police use of force are actually only 13% of the situations in which law enforcement officers could legally and justifiably take a life. In other words, only about 1 in 8 knife and gun assaults on law enforcement officers results in a death of the assailant.

As for use of force deaths involving African-American men, based on knife and gun assaults on officers, it was estimated that officers could lawfully and justifiably use lethal force against African-American men an average of 1,452 times per year. In actuality, only about 112 African-American men die annually from the actions of law enforcement officers, or 8% of the situations in which officers were legally justified in using lethal force. Only 1 in 13 knife and gun assaults on officers by African-American men resulted in the death of the assailant. Also note that while African-American men make up 44.3% of assailants against the police, they only make up 26.3% of the deaths from legal interventions.

• Only 13% of the situations in which officers are legally justified in using lethal force results in a citizen death
• Only 8% of the situations in which officers were legally justified in using lethal force against an African-American male results in a death
• While African-American men make up 44.3% of assailants against the police, they only make up 26.3% of the deaths from legal interventions

Putting Things in Context
Deaths for any reason are regrettable, and deaths in the hundreds can easily raise public concerns, but one also must remember that there are approximately 320,206,000 persons in the U.S., of which approximately 19,212,360 are African-American men. CDC death certificate data indicates that many other forms of unnatural death are far more prevalent among Americans:
• 575 people die annually from firearms accidents
• 2,603 persons die annually from medical errors during surgery
• 16,491 persons are murdered annually
• 35,817 die in motor vehicle accidents annually
• 38,863 die from suicide annually

It is clear that people are far more likely to die at the hands of a criminal, an inattentive driver, their doctor, or themselves than they are to be killed by use of force from a law enforcement officer.

In fact, according to the National Weather Service, an average of 363 persons are hit by lightning annually in the U.S., revealing that one's likelihood of being killed by a law enforcement officer is almost as rare as being struck by lightning.

Conclusions
Official data verified by the FBI and the CDC reveal that deaths from use of force by law enforcement officers are relatively rare. The evidence reveals that circumstances permitting the legal and justifiable use of lethal force by law enforcement officers occur thousands of times annually, yet less than 500 die annually from police use of force. The evidence reveals that while almost half of those who kill police officers are African-American men, only about a quarter of those who die from police use of force are African-American men. Finally, all of this evidence is publicly available online for any agency, news outlet, or community activist group to examine.

The evidence is clear that there is no epidemic of killings of citizens or African-American males by law enforcement officers in the U.S. While there appear to be a few highly-publicized cases of excessive lethal force recently, overall law enforcement officers kill far fewer citizens than they would be legally justified to do in self-defense.

Chuck Haggard
05-13-2015, 02:57 PM
I've been throwing the lightening thing out every chance I get, and that number disregards the fact that the vast majority of people killed by the police were under clearly justified circumstances.

Kukuforguns
05-13-2015, 05:43 PM
The author notes that the number of assaults with deadly weapons against LEOs is based upon UCR and that not all LE agencies submit UCR data to the DOJ. From this the author concludes that the UCR data on assaults with deadly weapons against LEOs likely under-reports the issue. In any event, the author argues that we should expect approximately this many lethal use of force cases annually (identified to be 3,277).

The author then discusses CDC data on people killed by police without ever discussing the likelihood that the CDC data under-reports the number of people killed by police. The author claims a yearly average of 429 deaths. The CDC data appears to significantly under-count the number of people killed by police each year, which appears to be more than twice the CDC data and over 1,000 annually. http://killedbypolice.net/ The author's acknowledgement of the inadequacy of the data from one source and not another creates an impression of bias.

The author observes that since only 429 people die annually as the result of police and because we should expect 3,277 lethal force incidents annually, "the numbers of deaths that occur annually from police use of force are actually only 13% of the situations in which law enforcement officers could legally and justifiably take a life." To his credit, the author did not state that there are fewer incidents of police use of lethal force than expected. Nevertheless, the author should have explicitly noted that not all police use of lethal force results in a death. The real question is how often officers use lethal force and the number of deaths does not really address that issue.

I am not implying that there is an epidemic of police killings. I am simply identifying a couple of weaknesses in the author's article. I don't think the author's conclusions would need to be altered if he addressed the weaknesses I identify.

voodoo_man
05-13-2015, 05:59 PM
It is interesting to me that people with PhD's and other random people on the internet try to find numbers by googling or using "verified" like the UCR or CDC records to justify their positions.

The fact is, it completely depends on where you are in the country.

I know that in my PD (one of the top 5 in the US) we have an OIS every 65 hours (approx.), I know this through our own internal statistics that are unpublished to the general public, this does not differentiate between accidental/negligent discharges, misses, hits, kills/wounds, etc. The same statistics fail to produce a number for "deadly force" usage potential, attempted and successful. As we know deadly force can be anything that meets the "standard" set forth. I also know from the same statistics my PD's use of force clearance rate (meaning justifiable) is something like 98% but does not publish the numbers themselves, per officer, per area, etc.

If you contrast my PD's internal numbers against the UCR you will get two completely different sets of numbers and statistics. This is probably the case in most PD's.

The other issue is that it does not serve any top brass to present those numbers to the general public, especially since the justifiable clearance of deadly force used by an officer is so high it will look like the PD is padding its numbers.

Kukuforguns
05-14-2015, 01:49 PM
The other issue is that it does not serve any top brass to present those numbers to the general public, especially since the justifiable clearance of deadly force used by an officer is so high it will look like the PD is padding its numbers.

I think the public has a very different idea of what justifiable use of force means in comparison to the PD. For example, I can see a PD determining that the UOF in the Tamir Rice case was justified (the suspect had an object that looked like a weapon and failed to immediately drop the object upon command). The public may arrive at a very different conclusion: Tamir did not have a deadly weapon and 2 seconds gave him insufficient time to observe, orient, decide and act. There's validity to both viewpoints.

I'm not sure we should expect the eggheads to know about data that PDs compile but do not publish. We (the general public) are forced to use the data available to us if we want to develop a better understanding of the issues. In this regard, I'm impressed with NYPD SOP9 reports. They're pretty much the best evidence I've been able to find with respect to PD use of firearms. It would be interesting to see if your PD would produce the data pursuant to a FOIA request (assuming your state has such a mechanism).

Chuck Haggard
05-14-2015, 02:30 PM
The Rice case was a bit of an aberration, what I saw over decades of police work is coppers doing the opposite, including not shooting people that needed to be shot right then and there.

Kukuforguns
05-14-2015, 03:32 PM
The Rice case was a bit of an aberration, what I saw over decades of police work is coppers doing the opposite, including not shooting people that needed to be shot right then and there.

I suspect that as video evidence becomes more prevalent we will find: (1) there are more aberrations like Tamir Rice's incident than PDs previously acknowledged; and (2) there are fewer inappropriate uses of force than the pants-wetting crowd believes. I suspect how police officers operate is changing and will continue to change in response to the growing prevalence of video evidence. However much we increase training and have access to video evidence will not change the fact that there have always been, and will always be, aberrations. Just part of life. Nor will it change the fact that some segment of society always refuses to operate within the framework of laws we establish and that force will be necessary in dealing with some of these criminals.

Chuck Haggard
05-14-2015, 06:14 PM
What the video evidence will show, if being in a department with near 100% Axon cameras on the street shows any trends that apply nationally, is that the aberrations are very, very uncommon, the number of "why was that bad guy not shot?" head scratchers is actually rather common, and the number of complaints against officers that are directly refuted by video/audio evidence is something in the area of 99.8%, with the ones being upheld being for things like "rude tone of voice" or "he cussed at me".

voodoo_man
05-14-2015, 06:17 PM
My PD will accept FOIA requests but expect them to be heavily redacted to remove possibly sensative (and therefore excludable) info.

The general public is not educated enough in the concept of use of force so in that respect their definition is irrelevant. Not a digg or to disregard general public opinion, but everything is bound for court and is determined there. Sometimes there is a jury sometimes it doesnt make it.

Based on my personal experience I can say that the vast majority of UOF situations ive seen have been very justified and many are under used in terms force. This isnt because LEOs are afraid, quite the opposite, we dont want to hurt people if we dont have to, but if we have to we will.

GardoneVT
05-14-2015, 09:29 PM
The biggest threat to black males....are other black males.

voodoo_man
05-14-2015, 10:38 PM
The biggest threat to black males....are other black males.

*left wing politicans...

okie john
05-14-2015, 10:58 PM
I'm not a law enforcement officer, but the way I read that study, not enough people are dying from police use of force.


Okie John

Luger
05-15-2015, 06:35 AM
The author notes that the number of asThe CDC data appears to significantly under-count the number of people killed by police each year, which appears to be more than twice the CDC data and over 1,000 annually. http://killedbypolice.net/ The author's acknowledgement of the inadequacy of the data from one source and not another creates an impression of bias.

Do this numbers of 1.000 death only include shootings and other killings with purpose? Or do they include every in custody death?

Is every shooting by a police officer claimed to be a use of force, or are there exceptions (e.g. off duty officer murders his wife for personal reasons, accidential discharge kills a suspect, officer mistakenly shoots fellow officer, etc.)?

Was every person who dies after a shooting killed by police? What if a suspect kills himself after being shot?

Facebook isn't really a valid source...

Chuck Haggard
05-15-2015, 07:05 AM
Do this numbers of 1.000 death only include shootings and other killings with purpose? Or do they include every in custody death?

Is every shooting by a police officer claimed to be a use of force, or are there exceptions (e.g. off duty officer murders his wife for personal reasons, accidential discharge kills a suspect, officer mistakenly shoots fellow officer, etc.)?

Was every person who dies after a shooting killed by police? What if a suspect kills himself after being shot?

Facebook isn't really a valid source...

Hence the crux of the issue brother, there is only their criteria for what they include, and almost zero quality control or valid research techniques going into this sort of thing.



Even with the 1000 figure, which IIRC includes in-custody deaths that can be attributed to things like excited delirium (which the vast majority turn out to be some sort of medical or drug induced condition...), we are still talking about millions of citizen contacts amongst a population of 313+ million people

Do we need to be concerned about the rather rare and aberrant cases of misconduct or criminal acts by cops? Yes, very much so.

Do we need a revolution and burning a bunch of shit down to make this right? No, we do not.

I for one would be all over a mandated complete reporting of offender injuries, officer injuries, offender deaths, etc. I'd love to see a LEOKA type report, combined with something like the SOP9 report, to get the real data. This would, IMHO, show the real scope of the problem and squash all of the anti-cop conspiracy bullshit, and would provide VERY useful data to those of us training in firearms, defensive tactics, and subject like in-custody death avoidance/excited delirium, etc.

Besides, I know Claude and John would grab that data and write epic reports on what gunfighters need to be training on to correct deficiencies.

ford.304
05-15-2015, 07:10 AM
I for one would be all over a mandated complete reporting of offender injuries, officer injuries, offender deaths, etc. I'd love to see a LEOKA type report, combined with something like the SOP9 report, to get the real data. This would, IMHO, show the real scope of the problem and squash all of the anti-cop conspiracy bullshit, and would provide VERY useful data to those of us training in firearms, defensive tactics, and subject like in-custody death avoidance/excited delirium, etc.

Besides, I know Claude and John would grab that data and write epic reports on what gunfighters need to be training on to correct deficiencies.

Agreed 100%. I think the best (only?) positive thing that might come out of the current mess is funding to actually track this information. There should be a detailed report, just like the FBI one for officers killed, for every person shot by police. If we have a real problem that should show it, and if we don't it should hopefully improve the public's perception. But it should be something that is documented so it can be studied.

Shellback
05-15-2015, 12:07 PM
Do we need to be concerned about the rather rare and aberrant cases of misconduct or criminal acts by cops? Yes, very much so.

How do you define rare and aberrant? I see the word "rare" used a lot of times but I'm not sure how it's being used. Rare, being the exception to the majority, or rare meaning it hardly ever happens?

I don't think there's an epidemic of cops shooting people and I think the majority are probably good folks.

Chuck Haggard
05-15-2015, 12:15 PM
How do you define rare and aberrant? I see the word "rare" used a lot of times but I'm not sure how it's being used. Rare, being the exception to the majority, or rare meaning it hardly ever happens?

I don't think there's an epidemic of cops shooting people and I think the majority are probably good folks.

Rare as in far fewer people getting wrongfully killed by the po-po than are killed by lightning, that type of rare.

Some people want to act like the cops killing anybody is an issue, like in the Boston case, but that's ridiculous to even talk about, you shoot an officer in the face you should expect his partner to burn you to the ground.

I'd bet on less than a dozens such cases a year in the US. If we expand that to gratuitous ass kickings after things like high speed pursuits, such as the San Bernardino incident, then obviously that expands the number of incidents.

Shellback
05-15-2015, 12:55 PM
Rare as in far fewer people getting wrongfully killed by the po-po than are killed by lightning, that type of rare.

Some people want to act like the cops killing anybody is an issue, like in the Boston case, but that's ridiculous to even talk about, you shoot an officer in the face you should expect his partner to burn you to the ground.

I'd bet on less than a dozens such cases a year in the US. If we expand that to gratuitous ass kickings after things like high speed pursuits, such as the San Bernardino incident, then obviously that expands the number of incidents.
I'm with you on the killings, and shootings, I was just wondering about rare towards the misconduct stuff. Sorry for the derail.

ETA - And I wasn't thinking about ass kickings, I was thinking more like drug smuggling, murder, etc. Common criminal type stuff.

Chuck Haggard
05-15-2015, 02:11 PM
IMHO that would be even more rare than the shootings and such, seriously.

What gets cops into trouble in real life? Not turning in reports, getting caught on duty messing around with someone not your spouse, DUIs off-duty, driving too damn fast and piling up the cruiser, getting drunk off duty and getting into a bar fight.

I know of two cases locally where cops were fired for stupid Facebook posts.

voodoo_man
05-15-2015, 02:42 PM
IMHO that would be even more rare than the shootings and such, seriously.

What gets cops into trouble in real life? Not turning in reports, getting caught on duty messing around with someone not your spouse, DUIs off-duty, driving too damn fast and piling up the cruiser, getting drunk off duty and getting into a bar fight.

I know of two cases locally where cops were fired for stupid Facebook posts.

Yep, all the above are far more likely to occur than what the media wants you to believe happens often.

Rare means that even those who are occused are many times exonerated, like the 6 narc officers in philadelphia, completely exonerated.

Gadfly
05-15-2015, 03:03 PM
I saw this report a few months ago, so bear with me if it has an inaccuracy.

My agency currently sits around 6,300.... For 2013 (last year a full report is completed on) we had 7 reported shooting incidents. At least 1 (possibly 2) of those were suicides by Agents off duty. We are Feds, not street cops, so we don't have to deal with drunks and domestics. We deal with kilos, alien smuggling and human trafficking. But we don't have the same threat level that a beat cop has at 2am, while by himself. Street cops are far more likely to have to use force.

The point us, The numbers of shootings are incredibly low for us. But we chase/arm bar/punch/and tackle quite a bit when needed.

We have a report put out annually like the NYPD. Every A/D, every intentional shooting, every shooting of a dog or injured animal must be reported and documented. We also have to document use of OC/Baton/Taser. But those are rarely used.

I will try and find the report on line and see if it is official use only or if I can link it...

RevolverRob
05-15-2015, 08:12 PM
With all due respect to everyone's personal opinion. There are quantifiable ways of statistically validating "rare events" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_events for review).

If you had accurate (or heck even inaccurately) reported numbers for all incidents of interest it wouldn't be difficult to build an algorithm for predicting results. I, personally, would utilize a Bayesian algorithm with incidents of interest used to circumscribe the distributions of my priors. By accounting for the actual data, we would get a small number of statistically probable outcomes. From this, it's relatively easy to determine if an event is "rare". If it is "rare" it will 1) Fall outside the distribution of predictable outcomes. 2) Occur so infrequently that the frequency at which it occurs is no different than the random probability of the same event occuring (in essence these "rare events" are statistically no different than the expectation you would have of hitting a bullseye with a randomly thrown dart at a dart board). All we have to do is then compare the actual numbers to the predicted values. If the actual numbers are higher than predicted values, then the events in question are not "rare". If they are lower than predictions or essentially random, then they would be "rare".

There is really no need to guesstimate what a rare event is, if the given data are available. In genuinely sounds like some of those data might actually be available (per Voodoo_Man's posts). Hmm...I might have to start writing FOIA requests to collect departmental data.

-Rob

Luger
05-16-2015, 02:31 AM
Another idea: How many are too many?

Germany has been gathering national data on the numbers of police shootings since mid of the seventies. In the past years we had about 30 to 40 shootings anually. In a country with a population about 80 million people. I guess this is pretty low, compared to the US. Yet there is still an outcry about police brutality over here...

On the other side: The murder rate in germany is about 0.8 per 100.000 people, while it is about 5 per 100.000 in the US. So you could expect about 6 times more police shootings per million people over there.

(While german police is extremely reluctant in shooting people and I know about several fellow officers who only survived because the were extremly lucky...)

Shellback
05-16-2015, 08:10 AM
With all due respect to everyone's personal opinion. There are quantifiable ways of statistically validating "rare events" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_events for review).

If you had accurate (or heck even inaccurately) reported numbers for all incidents of interest it wouldn't be difficult to build an algorithm for predicting results...

The only thing I've ever seen in the public domain are websites that compile incidents from news articles on the web.

LSP552
05-16-2015, 08:52 AM
There is a national statistical database on fatal vehicle crashes and agencies are required to participate.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS

It's time consuming and every state has a FARS analyst to enter data from crash reports. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has a cooperative agreement with each state to participate in FARs. Law Enforcement agencies send their fatal crash reports to the POC, usually a DOT or State Highway Safety Office.

There are hundreds of data points from every crash but the important thing is they are all entered into a standardized format. Because all of the information is standardized and normalized, fatal crashes are very well understood in the global context.

It would be relatively simple to do the same for law enforcement use of force fatalities because, unlike fatal crashes, they isn't 30,000 a year.

LSP552
05-16-2015, 08:58 AM
Besides, I know Claude and John would grab that data and write epic reports on what gunfighters need to be training on to correct deficiencies.

I'd start with reintroducing the idea of being a gunfighter. That has been lost somewhere along the way in many places. The problem is true change must come from the top and we all know how rare it is for a gunfighter to become a chief administrator in a major agency.

KeeFus
05-16-2015, 09:12 AM
I'd start with reintroducing the idea of being a gunfighter. That has been lost somewhere along the way in many places. The problem is true change must come from the top and we all know how rare it is for a gunfighter to become a chief administrator in a major agency.

I said that in jest last week while on the range...the look from some people was like I had just called someone of importance a dirty name. The politics of being labeled a gunfighter would probably end a career in some agencies.

Tiffany Johnson
05-17-2015, 11:36 AM
John’s a great researcher and a great voice for correcting the misconceptions about what LEOs face out there. This sort of information has value, even despite the current imperfections in data availability. However, as a non-LEO civilian whose heart breaks every time a suspect needlessly dies AND every time people wrongfully accuse good cops of being “trigger happy,” I have one tiny suggestion for my LEO friends. If there’s any interest in closing the trust gap that has sadly emerged between the public and police, please be careful about appearing too hastily defensive when that one-in-a-million aberration does regrettably occur. By all means, sing the praises of those thousands and thousands of officers who do their jobs admirably and protect lives even at their own expense. Educate the public and the media about the statistical rarity of “bad shoots.” But be careful not to look as if you’re excusing the missteps, however rare they might be. Otherwise, it’s like saying, “well, my kid has gotten an A in every class he’s ever taken all his life, so this one F in math is meaningless.” I bet the math teacher disagrees.

I try to thank LEOs and military for their service as often as I can, so I'll do that here too. Thank you, all of you, for risking your lives to keep us safe.

cclaxton
05-17-2015, 11:49 AM
John,
You did a fantastic job in pulling together this data and researching this topic. Great work!

Is there any way to break out this data based on geographic location or by urban areas? While these national statistics are valuable, most crimes are local, and my guess is that we will see a lot of variance in use of force rates depending on jurisdiction. It would really be interesting to see that matched up against conviction rates and overall crime rates as well.

I know that is a complicated and monumental task, but just thought I would ask....:)

Thanks,
Cody

GardoneVT
05-17-2015, 07:16 PM
If there’s any interest in closing the trust gap that has sadly emerged between the public and police, please be careful about appearing too hastily defensive when that one-in-a-million aberration does regrettably occur....(snip).


I understand your position .That being stated....the core problem is that the news media is a business. If viewers watch Channel A because they've aired an unsubstantiated narrarative that the police have screwed up ,versus Channel B who accurately reports that investgations on use of force incidents take time, Channel B loses. The days of Walter Cronkite are long gone.

So, everyone with a camera dogpiles on the idea that anytime the police OR a citizen shoots a person of color, its a racist event. The police become reactionary-because the media hurls accusations of malfesance before the spent brass cools , and LE /supervision is legally and morally obligated to say "we don't know yet what happened " it leaves an information vaccum. By the time the facts emerge one way or the other, the riot gear is being unlocked and #blacklivessometimesmatter are on the streets .

Bad shoot? Loot and burn the city.
Justified shooting? Loot and burn the city.

Police say it was a justified shooting? "COVERUP!!!"
Police say it was unjustified and condemn the former officer ? "ALL YALL COPS ARE JUST AS BAD AS HE/SHE IS!!!"

No win scenario either way. So I understand why most LE agencies just clam up and unlock the CS launchers.A message is useless if the recipient is uninterested.

Tiffany Johnson
05-18-2015, 08:42 PM
That being stated....the core problem is that the news media is a business.

True. Point taken, GardoneVT. Still, I hate to think it's literally no-win. If that's true, then it means the community and the police are just destined to forever be "enemies," content to think the worst of each other. That makes me depressed. :-(

P.S. - I've found a few unlikely recipients to be more interested in the message than I expected, once I took the time to explain things to them. It does take time though. Time, effort, patience...

Chuck Haggard
05-18-2015, 09:04 PM
I've made amazing headway with some really pissed off people over the years, by listening, and explaining.

Too many people take a "fuck those guys" attitude, on both side of the divide.

Chance
05-18-2015, 09:51 PM
Grapevine PD released a video (http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/tarrant-county-grand-jury-declined-to-indict-in-grapevine-police-involved-shooting-of-mexican-immigrant.html/)describing an officer involved shooting. In it, the Chief patiently walks the viewer through the dash cam video, and explains everything that happens in detail. I haven't listened to his narration in total, but it seemed like an interesting approach at increasing understanding of what happened.

Edit: I just watched the entire video. Very well composed, and concisely explained.

voodoo_man
05-19-2015, 06:09 AM
The hand-holding approach may be what is required but then you have some of the most vocal of certain anti-LE communities who refuse to listen.

Ive sat explained my actions to people many yimes because they were upset and I wanted to take the situation down a few notches, some listen and understand. There is always a segment that refused to listen or understand in anyway. There is no getting through to some people so the eventual stance becomes "screw them."

The media refuses to listen to LE or shine anything but a negative light on LE. Hell, msnbc and cnn are so seriously anti-LE they refuse to report on anything positive. Thats just sad.

Hambo
05-19-2015, 07:09 AM
True. Point taken, GardoneVT. Still, I hate to think it's literally no-win. If that's true, then it means the community and the police are just destined to forever be "enemies," content to think the worst of each other. That makes me depressed. :-(


It's not a no-win. Yes, people have right to know what's going on with LE and believe that criminal elements in LE will face charges. But those that don't trust the police need to admit that there are some really bad people out there who deservedly get shot by LE. Starting from those two positions there can be dialogue.

Shellback
05-19-2015, 07:31 AM
I've made amazing headway with some really pissed off people over the years, by listening, and explaining.

Too many people take a "fuck those guys" attitude, on both side of the divide.

That, in my opinion, is the absolute key to "winning hearts and minds" and converting people from being skeptical of the police to being ardent supporters.

cclaxton
05-19-2015, 09:44 AM
I think a big part of the problem is not policing, but statutory and policy-making problems. The police are the public face of enforcement, and are a more visible target. But the media and the public have to look at what is causing the confrontations. Whether it's Baltimore, Ferguson, Waco, or Springfield, VA, each area has it's own community problems, laws, policies, policing culture, and solutions (or lack of solutions).

Some communities give police near total autonomy, others have stricter policies. By lobbying for policy changes or statutory or legislative changes or budgetary changes, I think we can improve the enforcement priorities and set better policies on use of force. That, and promoting all the good things police do in our community, can help improve the image of policing.
Cody

Chuck Haggard
05-19-2015, 11:27 AM
I think a big part of the problem is not policing, but statutory and policy-making problems. The police are the public face of enforcement, and are a more visible target. But the media and the public have to look at what is causing the confrontations. Whether it's Baltimore, Ferguson, Waco, or Springfield, VA, each area has it's own community problems, laws, policies, policing culture, and solutions (or lack of solutions).

Some communities give police near total autonomy, others have stricter policies. By lobbying for policy changes or statutory or legislative changes or budgetary changes, I think we can improve the enforcement priorities and set better policies on use of force. That, and promoting all the good things police do in our community, can help improve the image of policing.
Cody

Which is why I have said repeatedly that people get the police they vote for, via voting in the folks that make policy, set budgets, and sign checks.

The Po-po do none of those things.

voodoo_man
05-19-2015, 05:16 PM
I think a big part of the problem is not policing, but statutory and policy-making problems. The police are the public face of enforcement, and are a more visible target. But the media and the public have to look at what is causing the confrontations. Whether it's Baltimore, Ferguson, Waco, or Springfield, VA, each area has it's own community problems, laws, policies, policing culture, and solutions (or lack of solutions).

Some communities give police near total autonomy, others have stricter policies. By lobbying for policy changes or statutory or legislative changes or budgetary changes, I think we can improve the enforcement priorities and set better policies on use of force. That, and promoting all the good things police do in our community, can help improve the image of policing.
Cody

As Chuck stated, essentially, you get the police you vote for.

If you keep voting in left-leaning politicians your are going to get what does not work (think any large city) if you vote in right-leaning politicians you get what you see in the counties and suburbs (hard on smallest crime).

cclaxton
05-19-2015, 06:54 PM
As Chuck stated, essentially, you get the police you vote for.

If you keep voting in left-leaning politicians your are going to get what does not work (think any large city) if you vote in right-leaning politicians you get what you see in the counties and suburbs (hard on smallest crime).
Voodoo,
Engaging in a blame game does not help the conversation. Both parties are guilty of screwing things up. Republicans have been pushing a law and order agenda for decades and pushing police to crack down harder on crime. Where do you think mandatory minimums came from?... They didn't come from Democrats. on the other hand the Democrats have been afraid to appear soft on crime and go along with sometimes stupid legislation. As citizens we need to have a conversation about making the smartest decisions based on facts and tested results, experience and solid analysis instead of demagoguery and partisanship.

We need to take off our party hats and get serious rather than blindly repeat a party position constructed to win voters and win elections.

One of the big problems is the political demagoguery is designed to win elections, not actually run government.

Cody

voodoo_man
05-19-2015, 07:42 PM
Voodoo,
Engaging in a blame game does not help the conversation. Both parties are guilty of screwing things up. Republicans have been pushing a law and order agenda for decades and pushing police to crack down harder on crime. Where do you think mandatory minimums came from?... They didn't come from Democrats. on the other hand the Democrats have been afraid to appear soft on crime and go along with sometimes stupid legislation. As citizens we need to have a conversation about making the smartest decisions based on facts and tested results, experience and solid analysis instead of demagoguery and partisanship.

We need to take off our party hats and get serious rather than blindly repeat a party position constructed to win voters and win elections.

One of the big problems is the political demagoguery is designed to win elections, not actually run government.

Cody

I would beg to differ, and our experiences may literally differ in this.

The only thing the right messed up in terms of LE is the non exemption for LE and other first responders from right to work. Other than that I fail to see how concepts like mandatory minimums are bad. You get arrested a lot and you get automatic minimums that cannot be worked around. Hell, sometimes they do not even work since ive ran into numerous persons with 6+ DUIs, Narc possession in terms of PWID and VUFAs that should be in jail, and then some, but are not for some reason. Though its not the best outcome, its better than nothing.

Notice I am saying left and right, not republican or democratic. Parties mean nothing, its the way a politican leans thats important.

Warren Wilson
05-19-2015, 11:18 PM
Which is why I have said repeatedly that people get the police they vote for, via voting in the folks that make policy, set budgets, and sign checks.

The Po-po do none of those things.

I would go a step further and say you get the policing that your community as a whole deserves. As stated above, if you vote for buffoonery and receive same. you deserve that. If you don't support officers aggressively doing bad things to bad people (in this case, I speak of incarceration), you will soon have those bad folks on your own door step. If you don't support cops doing things to protect good folks...well, you get the direction. A law enforcement agency is a direct reflection of its community's level of support.

Chuck Haggard
05-20-2015, 06:17 AM
Voodoo,
Engaging in a blame game does not help the conversation. Both parties are guilty of screwing things up. Republicans have been pushing a law and order agenda for decades and pushing police to crack down harder on crime. Where do you think mandatory minimums came from?... They didn't come from Democrats. on the other hand the Democrats have been afraid to appear soft on crime and go along with sometimes stupid legislation. As citizens we need to have a conversation about making the smartest decisions based on facts and tested results, experience and solid analysis instead of demagoguery and partisanship.

We need to take off our party hats and get serious rather than blindly repeat a party position constructed to win voters and win elections.

One of the big problems is the political demagoguery is designed to win elections, not actually run government.

Cody

While I can agree with much of what you wrote here, jumping on minimum sentencing as though it were a huge part of the current problem, equal to many of the other massive and systemic issues, is a bit of misplaced emphasis.

cclaxton
05-20-2015, 07:02 AM
While I can agree with much of what you wrote here, jumping on minimum sentencing as though it were a huge part of the current problem, equal to many of the other massive and systemic issues, is a bit of misplaced emphasis.
Oh, I agree. There are other factors as well. My main point wasn't mandatory minimums.

My main point is that turning the discussion into left vs right politics interferes with our ability to discuss facts, substance and solutions. Voting all right leaning politicians won't solve anything, and can make things worse. That is not the solution. Neither is voting all left leaning politicians.

Right and left need to set aside their partisan philosophies and beliefs and take a hard, businesslike analysis of what the facts are, what is the sunstantive discussion that has to occur (keeping politics and demagoguery out), and put forward solutions that both left and right can accept because they are good solutions.

In my view, the reason things are so screwed up are because we allow political partisanship to drive politically based solutions, rather than using political power to drive businesslike solutions.

Cody

cclaxton
05-20-2015, 07:17 AM
I would go a step further and say you get the policing that your community as a whole deserves. As stated above, if you vote for buffoonery and receive same. you deserve that. If you don't support officers aggressively doing bad things to bad people (in this case, I speak of incarceration), you will soon have those bad folks on your own door step. If you don't support cops doing things to protect good folks...well, you get the direction. A law enforcement agency is a direct reflection of its community's level of support.
I generally agree. But that doesn't mean that we write law enforcement and prosecutors a blank check on how to get that done, either. I don't think the public has an issue with the use of law enforcement to enforce public safety, but HOW they achieve that is an issue in some jurisdictions and some circumstances.

At the oversight xsubcommittee meeting last night someone said this: While 98% of the time police and prosecutors do a great job, that is when it is easy to support the enforcement. It is the 2% that asks us to asks us to step up and prove our integrity.

Cody

voodoo_man
05-20-2015, 07:50 AM
I generally agree. But that doesn't mean that we write law enforcement and prosecutors a blank check on how to get that done, either. I don't think the public has an issue with the use of law enforcement to enforce public safety, but HOW they achieve that is an issue in some jurisdictions and some circumstances.

At the oversight xsubcommittee meeting last night someone said this: While 98% of the time police and prosecutors do a great job, that is when it is easy to support the enforcement. It is the 2% that asks us to asks us to step up and prove our integrity.

Cody

No one said there should be a blank check of any sort, but when the left-leaning media constantly attacks LE as a whole, the lowest common denominator start to believe them. Even the "intellectuals" start to believe them.

What does LE have to prove and to whom?

Chuck Haggard
05-20-2015, 07:50 AM
Oh, I agree. There are other factors as well. My main point wasn't mandatory minimums.

My main point is that turning the discussion into left vs right politics interferes with our ability to discuss facts, substance and solutions. Voting all right leaning politicians won't solve anything, and can make things worse. That is not the solution. Neither is voting all left leaning politicians.

Right and left need to set aside their partisan philosophies and beliefs and take a hard, businesslike analysis of what the facts are, what is the sunstantive discussion that has to occur (keeping politics and demagoguery out), and put forward solutions that both left and right can accept because they are good solutions.

In my view, the reason things are so screwed up are because we allow political partisanship to drive politically based solutions, rather than using political power to drive businesslike solutions.

Cody

Concur