Data on Police Shootings this year so far

[cclaxton]

For the Forum's consideration, some interesting data on police-related shootings in 2015 so far. What I found interesting is the number of whites is almost twice the number of blacks.:

GENDER
Male
438
Female
23
Unknown
0

WEAPON
Deadly weapon
387
Toy weapon
16
Unarmed
51
Unknown
7
RACE
White
226
Black
121
Hispanic
78
Asian
7
Unknown
29
SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS
Yes
123
No or unknown
338
AGE
Under 18
11
18 to 24
69
25 to 34
137
35 to 44
111
45 to 54
79
55 and up
47
Unknown
7
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/?hpid=z1
Cody

[KeeFus]

For the Forum's consideration, some interesting data on police-related shootings in 2015 so far. What I found interesting is the number of whites is almost twice the number of blacks.:

GENDER
Male
438
Female
23
Unknown
0

WEAPON
Deadly weapon
387
Toy weapon
16
Unarmed
51
Unknown
7
RACE
White
226
Black
121
Hispanic
78
Asian
7
Unknown
29
SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS
Yes
123
No or unknown
338
AGE
Under 18
11
18 to 24
69
25 to 34
137
35 to 44
111
45 to 54
79
55 and up
47
Unknown
7
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/?hpid=z1
Cody


Why are you surprised? There has been data available for quite awhile suggesting that this has been the case...but the race-baiting mouth pieces and media want everyone to think differently.

[cclaxton]

Why are you surprised? There has been data available for quite awhile suggesting that this has been the case...but the race-baiting mouth pieces and media want everyone to think differently.
I didn't say I was surprised...I said it was "interesting...." kinda like saying "notable."
Cody

[Peally]

They're just racist against middle aged white men.

[voodoo_man]

Ummm, yeah, thats like, standard for the last 20 or so years, statistically.

Whites are killed by police at almost 2x the rate.

Dont drink the media koolaid.

[Hambo]

Wow, imagine that, armed suspects shot outnumber unarmed suspects shot nearly 8:1.

[Tiffany Johnson]

Wow, imagine that, armed suspects shot outnumber unarmed suspects shot nearly 8:1.
Hambo, I think numbers like these are far more effective at dispelling myths about law enforcement. The race numbers are trickier (potentially)...

First, most of the serious people on the other side (exclude the racial rabble-rousers) have never claimed that cops kill more blacks than whites. Instead they're arguing that blacks are killed disproportionately. And if blacks are 13% of the population and 50% of the deaths by police, then yes, technically that is disproportionate. However, I hate the "proportionality argument," because it's a huge straw man. Freakish anomalies aside, there's no direct correlation between racial proportions in general and the case-by-case legality of force. When I find myself in debates with well-meaning, rational folks (the rest I just ignore), I try to focus on the bounds of justifiable force instead of race. That's not to say that race is irrelevant, but as a strategy matter it's not the easiest way to bridge the divide. On the other hand, when I explain the Tueller study, for example, often times folks who were screaming "but all he had was a knife" tend to simmer down.

Second, it's not a contest to see which race gets killed the least. If ten thousand people die justifiably, then we have no problem (regardless of race). If one person dies without justification, then we do have a problem (regardless of race). Focusing too much on tick marks in the dead column I think gives the other side room to argue that police are willing to accept a certain number of deaths without question, just by virtue of some kind of quota system. So I'd caution everybody about presuming the debate is won just because more whites are killed than blacks. It could be perceived as a red herring, IMHO.

This is not to take away from Cody's post at all. Those numbers are crucial, and we should all understand them and be ready to educate people if it comes up. Just playing devil's advocate and throwing out a few more things to consider. Thanks, Cody, for the link. Great stuff.

[GJM]

Tiffany, good post.

Shifting gears, speaking of shot people, we have an autopsy showing the NY prison escapee one was shot three times in the head, because he didn't comply quickly enough, and escapee two got shot twice in the back. I got no problem with the outcome, but just sayin', if there was body cam video, I bet it would be interesting to watch.

[runcible]

Tiffany, good post.

Shifting gears, speaking of shot people, we have an autopsy showing the NY prison escapee one was shot three times in the head, because he didn't comply quickly enough, and escapee two got shot twice in the back. I got no problem with the outcome, but just sayin', if there was body cam video, I bet it would be interesting to watch.

I don't quite follow - could you elaborate on what you're implying might be shown with such?

[Hambo]

Hambo, I think numbers like these are far more effective at dispelling myths about law enforcement. The race numbers are trickier (potentially)...

First, most of the serious people on the other side (exclude the racial rabble-rousers) have never claimed that cops kill more blacks than whites. Instead they're arguing that blacks are killed disproportionately. And if blacks are 13% of the population and 50% of the deaths by police, then yes, technically that is disproportionate. However, I hate the "proportionality argument," because it's a huge straw man. Freakish anomalies aside, there's no direct correlation between racial proportions in general and the case-by-case legality of force. When I find myself in debates with well-meaning, rational folks (the rest I just ignore), I try to focus on the bounds of justifiable force instead of race. That's not to say that race is irrelevant, but as a strategy matter it's not the easiest way to bridge the divide. On the other hand, when I explain the Tueller study, for example, often times folks who were screaming "but all he had was a knife" tend to simmer down.

Second, it's not a contest to see which race gets killed the least. If ten thousand people die justifiably, then we have no problem (regardless of race). If one person dies without justification, then we do have a problem (regardless of race). Focusing too much on tick marks in the dead column I think gives the other side room to argue that police are willing to accept a certain number of deaths without question, just by virtue of some kind of quota system. So I'd caution everybody about presuming the debate is won just because more whites are killed than blacks. It could be perceived as a red herring, IMHO.

This is not to take away from Cody's post at all. Those numbers are crucial, and we should all understand them and be ready to educate people if it comes up. Just playing devil's advocate and throwing out a few more things to consider. Thanks, Cody, for the link. Great stuff.

Great post, Tiffany. Raw numbers are...raw numbers. My post was sarcastic in that the media portrays cops as shooting lots of unarmed suspects when they really don't.

As you say, proportionality is a bad way of measuring anything, especially at the national level. It might have some meaning in cities or counties, but even then you would have to dig deeper than the numbers to really understand what's going on.

[cclaxton]

Wow, imagine that, armed suspects shot outnumber unarmed suspects shot nearly 8:1.
I am pretty sure neither you nor I want to be the 1 in 8.
The other thing is that there is no way to judge whether the "unarmed" individuals were presenting a physical threat without a weapon. If someone has a hostage held in a death-choke, then lethal force would have still been justified, for instance. Or, if a large crazed individual was charging/battering a smaller sized police officer for instance.

Where my concerns lie is with those who were clearly "bad shoots" because of poor training, police misconduct or policeman/woman stress/issues, or inappropriate use of SWAT. It is those cases that IMHO, can be avoided through better training, selective use of special ops/SWAT, better tactics, better intelligence, and better supervision.
Cody

[Tiffany Johnson]

Great post, Tiffany. Raw numbers are...raw numbers. My post was sarcastic in that the media portrays cops as shooting lots of unarmed suspects...

Oh sure, I caught the sarcasm. I second it. :-) I was just heartened to see that particular stat highlighted...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[TGS]

I am pretty sure neither you nor I want to be the 1 in 8.
The other thing is that there is no way to judge whether the "unarmed" individuals were presenting a physical threat without a weapon. If someone has a hostage held in a death-choke, then lethal force would have still been justified, for instance. Or, if a large crazed individual was charging/battering a smaller sized police officer for instance.

Where my concerns lie is with those who were clearly "bad shoots" because of poor training, police misconduct or policeman/woman stress/issues, or inappropriate use of SWAT. It is those cases that IMHO, can be avoided through better training, selective use of special ops/SWAT, better tactics, better intelligence, and better supervision.
Cody

A "death-choke".

Yeah.

[GJM]

I don't quite follow - could you elaborate on what you're implying might be shown with such?

I have no idea what the video would show, but as a general rule I wouldn't imagine someone "failing to comply quickly enough" would lead to three shots in the head. Here is where the video would be interesting. Was the shotgun slung, being held in a threatening manner, and how did it go down in terms of time. Again, I got no problem with the outcome, but something doesn't sound completely kosher.

[Kevin B.]

Again, I got no problem with the outcome, but something doesn't sound completely kosher.

Is your trepidation based the fact that deadly force was used on an escape, violent felon in armed with a shotgun, that three shots were fired to the "head" or something else?

[GJM]

Is your trepidation based the fact that deadly force was used on an escape, violent felon in armed with a shotgun, that three shots were fired to the "head" or something else?

As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with the outcome.

My common sense meter, though, says something about "he didn't immediately comply," and three shots to the head being inconsistent. If they said "he was armed, and we shot him the first chance we had," I would think that is probably closer to what happened.

Again, no problem with the outcome.

[Kevin B.]

As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with the outcome...

Again, no problem with the outcome.

I get that. I was not trying to iimply otherwise, just identify the source of your misgivings.

[HCM]

As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with the outcome.

My common sense meter, though, says something about "he didn't immediately comply," and three shots to the head being inconsistent. If they said "he was armed, and we shot him the first chance we had," I would think that is probably closer to what happened.

Again, no problem with the outcome.

George, you are out of your lane on this.

First of all, Matt was a very dangerous individual serving 25 years to life for torturing, killing and dismembering his former boss and literally had nothing to lose. This was known to the officers searching for the escapees and given the situation and the known facts about the individual they were searching for, a suspect who fails to comply IMMEDIATELY is getting shot. Add to these facts Matt was armed with a stolen 20 gauge shotgun when encountered. Exactly how many chances do you think he should've been given? How many times should the command to drop his weapon be repeated, given that it is only legally required "if feasible ". Don't forget in a situation like this it is also reasonable to shoot to prevent flight / escape.

Second, there is evidence that Matt was ill, dehydrated, and likely intoxicated at the time he was confronted. Could that have caused confusion and a delay in Matt compliance? Maybe, but that was Matt's problem, he should not have escaped from prison. As the judges say, " while unfortunate ...."

Finally, the border patrol agent who shot Matt is a member of the border patrols national level tactical team, BORTAC. You've been to the Rodgers school and I'll bet you've been to a Pat Roger carbine course or an equivilent. How long do you think it takes a shooter from tier one unit, the best out of a 20,000 plus LEO organization who trains full time, to fire a three round NSR?

[GJM]

George, you are out of your lane on this.

For about the fourth, I have NO PROBLEM with the outcome. I don't think he should have been given any chances, and considering he was an armed felon, convicted of murder, I think he should have been shot on sight, at the first instance LE had a shot. I think the "failure to comply" description, along with reported autopsy results of three shots to the head seems inconsistent.

[Hambo]

For about the fourth, I have NO PROBLEM with the outcome. I don't think he should have been given any chances, and considering he was an armed felon, convicted of murder, I think he should have been shot on sight, at the first instance LE had a shot. I think the "failure to comply" description, along with reported autopsy results of three shots to the head seems inconsistent.

First, I get that you have no problem with the result. I don't know where the "failure to comply" line came from but if it's from the news, consider the source. From what you post here you shoot very well. How many rounds can you put in a target while it moves or starts to drop?

[GJM]

"Failure to comply" came out of the mouth of Cuomo, the head of the NYSP, or both. I watched the news conference, but it has been a few days.

[JHC]

"Failure to comply" came out of the mouth of Cuomo, the head of the NYSP, or both. I watched the news conference, but it has been a few days.

The choice of word parsing on the part of spokespeople who take the mike at these briefings sometimes leaves me scratching my head. I sometimes think that under pressure they just reach for official sounding "boiler plate" language.

No vids yet but there is a graphic still here. http://kron4.com/2015/06/30/warning-graphic-content-richard-matts-body-after-shooting-2/

[GJM]

In my musings about "failure to comply" being inconsistent with three head shots, I did not intend to suggest the BORTAC officer did anything wrong. Reading my posts, I could see how others might not share that view, and if so I apologize. I actually think the BORTAC officer did good.

[LSP552]

Being a convicted, escaped, probably armed murderer will get you shot in most places at the slightest failure to comply. That's if you are lucky to even be asked to comply.

[HCM]

The last federal LE shooting we had locally with an AR involved a murder suspect confronted as he exited a barn gun in hand, who failed to comply with a command to drop his weapon and instead raised it towards officers. The officer fired a 6 round NSR. The officer in this instance is also a former 18B (SF weapons SGT) and a member of his agency's tactical team. I mention this because as you know a highly proficient shooter can easily fire a 5-7 round NSR in 1-1.5 seconds i.e. faster than a suspect can fall so the NY situation is not a unique occurrence.

[runcible]

In my musings about "failure to comply" being inconsistent with three head shots, I did not intend to suggest the BORTAC officer did anything wrong. Reading my posts, I could see how others might not share that view, and if so I apologize. I actually think the BORTAC officer did good.

To imply that the subject was shot on sight or that the LEOS were operating with a predetermined intent to slay the subject; and that this would be preferable or more morally defensible then events as described secondhand by an uninvolved individual; would be considered a soft form of prejudice to many. That you see a logic chain unsupported by UOF policy and case law as making more sense or being more desirable then the current dialogue; does not make it any less unkind an opinion in practice, even if well intended.

[pablo]

There are also valid explanations where Richard Matt getting shot in the head was incidental. It's a fact that he was shot head three times, the circumstances and whether it was the officers intent are entirely unknown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys5NjmTAFME

Here's a police body cam shooting from Palestine, Texas. Pretty typical police shooting, everything happened fast, the officers fired shots until the subject was down and the threat ended, somewhere around 12 shots in a little over 2 seconds. Had the bad guy turned around completely when the shooting started, there's a good chance he would have fallen towards the officers. In that case it would have been very possible for the bad guy to get shot in the head multiple times, not because the officers were aiming for his head, but as the suspect fell his head would have been in front of his "center mass" area. That would be incidental, the head just got in the way of where the officers were intending to hit.

If a bad guy in a prone position and facing an officer, he's putting his noggin in front of "center mass". He may get shot in the head, not because the officer was taking a deliberately aimed head shot, but that the head got in the way of the "center mass" where the officer was aiming.

[Peally]

Yep. People move, watch any video in the "shootings in the news" thread and it's pretty amazing that people hit anything at all with all the movement.

[MVS]

Being a convicted, escaped, probably armed murderer will get you shot in most places at the slightest failure to comply. That's if you are lucky to even be asked to comply.

Many moons ago when I was interviewing for a job at the state prison, I was asked if I would shoot an escaping prisoner. Fearing that it was some kind of trick question, I replied that I didn't know what the policy was so I wasn't sure. It turns out it wasn't a trick question, what they really wanted to know was COULD I shoot someone. Of course you shoot someone trying to escape I found out.

[GJM]

This was in a WSJ article today:


http://www.wsj.com/articles/life-on-the-lam-for-the-prison-escapees-1435881782

I am not sure why they didn't say this at the initial news conference, as pointing a long gun at LE makes a lot more sense than suggesting he was shot three times in the head for not raising his hands.




Meanwhile, a driver towing a camper reported a bullet hole in the back of the vehicle, and police went to the area where they thought it had been shot. There had been other reports of shots fired. Heavily armed agents with the U.S. Border Patrol swooped in on two helicopters.

A cough was heard. An agent spotted Mr. Matt lying on his belly behind a downed tree, Swanton Sector Chief Patrol Agent John Pfeifer said.

Mr. Matt didn’t put his hands up as ordered, and pointed the shotgun at the agent, who was armed with an assault rifle, authorities said.

The agent shot Mr. Matt three times in the head, state police said.

[runcible]

GJM,

Police administrators and politicians often reply as generally as able, until enough details flow in from enough sources to start paring through the parallax and build a more complete image. This isn't necessarily intended to be disingenuous, it being an oft observed issue that LEAs and the local governments that direct them are often behind the IO\Public Affairs initiative; getting something that is defensible in the future but not prejudicial to the investigation-proper out early may save much grief later on.

Replying more to those words we've debated, rather then the questions you had in response to them: is it not technically and factually accurate, as presented, that the subject failed to comply with lawful commands that lead to the justifiable use of force by LEOs in the pursuance of their duties? While the finer details make this more palatable to the many; there still needs to be that forbearance between initial broad statement and follow-on depth, that the mind might still be receptive rather then captive to reaction.

I dislike replying in a word salad, but it's one of those subjects that seems best served by careful wordchoice; my apologies.

[BJXDS]

Interesting. IMHO,the facts has never really mattered to the other side. The whole race issue is being abused by a faction that wants to implement gun control. There has been and will always be racism, but I think there is less today than at any other time in our history. It is possible the liberal minded socialist media is trying to promote civil disorder by any means possible. Divide then conquer mentality. Their efforts may just have the opposite desired effect, at least I hope so. The larger issue for all Americans, any EVERYONE that is a US Citizen should consider themselves AMERICANS is that our 2A RIGHTS Shall Not be infringed upon.

There are bad cops, but I believe 99% are good, just as I believe there are innocent people in jail, but 99% are guilty. Do we have a perfect system in this country, Hell NO, Is it better than any where else on earth, HELL YES!

Be careful with the proportionality stats.

Also, the gender category may be irrelevant sooner than I ever thought possible.

[Pup town]

Where my concerns lie is with those who were clearly "bad shoots" because of poor training, police misconduct or policeman/woman stress/issues, or inappropriate use of SWAT. It is those cases that IMHO, can be avoided through better training, selective use of special ops/SWAT, better tactics, better intelligence, and better supervision.
Cody

I know you have a serious hard on for SWAT teams.

Where's the data that says that using SWAT teams results in more unjustified shootings?

[OnionsAndDragons]

I'm interested in what Cody has to say on the issue of SWAT as well.

I don't have a problem with them, and think they can be a very useful tool. I do think in some departments/regions that SWAT gets utilized unnecessarily. Specifically in cases where no-knock warrants are executed when there is no imminent threat to life.

I generally think that no-knock warrants are a bad idea. They unnecessarily risk both officers and public lives. I can get over that risk as acceptable if there is an imminent threat on someone's life, or reasonable suspicion of such, that the extra element of surprise may thwart.

I don't have access to a real computer, for a couple days but I'd be happy to try and pull up some instances later this week if it's desired.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jnc36rcpd]

Several years ago, NTOA did a valiant effort to track use of force during high risk situations. Granted, the survey was voluntary which may skew results and people will shout that NTOA is biased, but the results indicated that fewer shots were fired and fewer people were hurt or killed if SWAT was on scene. I would like to see that study replicated today. I suspect the results would be similar.

I wonder if there is some misconception about the number of no=knock search warrants. I watched two no-knock entries on the last episode of "Rizzoli and Isles". There were no search warrants involved. I think much of America bases its "knowledge" of law enforcement on television and social media. While no one wants to hang out on the porch when serving a high risk warrant, we are not routinely serving warrants with no announcement in my jurisdiction.

Lastly, I admit I watch "Rizzoli and Isles". Look, hot chicks who are seemingly age appropriate for me and witty dialogue. What's not to like?

[Pup town]

I don't have access to a real computer, for a couple days but I'd be happy to try and pull up some instances later this week if it's desired.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I only speak for myself, but I'm not interested in anecdotes. Too often they will have been (wittingly or unwittingly) cherry picked by the person or the media to support one's bias or belief. I want the data.

[Pup town]

Several years ago, NTOA did a valiant effort to track use of force during high risk situations. Granted, the survey was voluntary which may skew results and people will shout that NTOA is biased, but the results indicated that fewer shots were fired and fewer people were hurt or killed if SWAT was on scene. I would like to see that study replicated today. I suspect the results would be similar.


This is the sort of report I'd be interested in reading (though I'd wish it would come from a more disinterested party than the NTOA is.)

[OnionsAndDragons]

I only speak for myself, but I'm not interested in anecdotes. Too often they will have been (wittingly or unwittingly) cherry picked by the person or the media to support one's bias or belief. I want the data.

Totally understandable, and I would generally agree. I would love to see the stats of no-knock warrants and entries by jurisdiction. I will spend some time over the week looking to see if it is any way available.

I can't speak for others, but I know that I am not biased by TV portrayals of these sorts of things. I have barely watched any tv in the last few years. I am willing to concede that there may be very high percentage of successful no-knock entries vs the publicized ones that turn out to be cock-ups.

I'm also willing to admit I've never been on a SWAT team, so my opinion on these issues is simply based in reason and not the full breadth of experience. It just seems to me that it is a bit squicky as far as a rights issue, and have had multiple officers whom I know voiced concerns about them putting good men in potentially more harmful situations. Their opinions seem to make sense to me: no-knock makes sense when people are in danger, but often don't make as much sense when it is a matter of trying to preserve more evidence from possible destruction like in a drug bust.

But, as noted above, I really only have questions about their use in some very specific situations. I think overall that SWAT options are good to have, and I have seen some reports to the effect of the fewer shooting incidents when SWAT is present, as you mention.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cclaxton]

I know you have a serious hard on for SWAT teams.

Where's the data that says that using SWAT teams results in more unjustified shootings?
First of all, I am admittedly out of my area of expertise here. I posted the link for the forum to consider, not to push any agenda. Secondly, this area of criminal justice is incredibly complex. What I think is missing from the data is all the correlations to: community, LE jurisdiction, illegal drug availability, income levels, threat assessments, gang levels, domestic versus criminal enterprise, mental/emotional illness-related, levels of training, use of force policies, etc. Any general statements are impossible to make for the above reasons.

I do not like the characterization you used about me. In my jurisdiction we have seen multiple problems with use of SWAT. Data is difficult to gather because:
1) There is no requirement to track the details on the use of force by SWAT, nor to compare it to other similar jurisdictions.
2) the information we have comes from police reports, or executive summaries, which are written by the police department or SWAT commanders themselves. Since the police are constantly fighting for budget, reports often exaggerate SWAT value in order to justify the budgets.
3) Fairfax police have refused to provide even police reports until recently. This requires third parties to fill out FOIA'S and then enter the data into a database...not a trivial exercise.

I cannot speak for other jurisdictions, but I know one of the reasons that WaPo is collecting this data is because it is not currently being collected by any available source.

So, all I have is a handful of high-profile cases to offer. They may not be statistically meaningful, but they are meaningful to the family members who lost loved ones and to the LE who were affected by the events. Let's not minimize the lives lost or traumatized by turning this into a statistic.

I will address the use of SWAT and no - knocks in another reply. Working from cell phone now.
Cody

[Pup town]

First of all, I am admittedly out of my area of expertise here. I posted the link for the forum to consider, not to push any agenda. Secondly, this area of criminal justice is incredibly complex. What I think is missing from the data is all the correlations to: community, LE jurisdiction, illegal drug availability, income levels, threat assessments, gang levels, domestic versus criminal enterprise, mental/emotional illness-related, levels of training, use of force policies, etc. Any general statements are impossible to make for the above reasons.

I do not like the characterization you used about me. In my jurisdiction we have seen multiple problems with use of SWAT. Data is difficult to gather because:
1) There is no requirement to track the details on the use of force by SWAT, nor to compare it to other similar jurisdictions.
2) the information we have comes from police reports, or executive summaries, which are written by the police department or SWAT commanders themselves. Since the police are constantly fighting for budget, reports often exaggerate SWAT value in order to justify the budgets.
3) Fairfax police have refused to provide even police reports until recently. This requires third parties to fill out FOIA'S and then enter the data into a database...not a trivial exercise.

I cannot speak for other jurisdictions, but I know one of the reasons that WaPo is collecting this data is because it is not currently being collected by any available source.

So, all I have is a handful of high-profile cases to offer. They may not be statistically meaningful, but they are meaningful to the family members who lost loved ones and to the LE who were affected by the events. Let's not minimize the lives lost or traumatized by turning this into a statistic.

I will address the use of SWAT and no - knocks in another reply. Working from cell phone now.
Cody

So, to recap, you don't have any data (just a handful of high-profile cases) and this is a subject you readily admit is outside your area of expertise.


You don't like how I've characterized you. Well, boo hoo. You created a post with DATA from police shootings and managed to get in yet another a jab at SWAT teams, and when I asked if you had any data on unjustifiable shooting from SWAT teams, you kindly ask me to avoid 'turning [your anecdotal cases] into a statistic.'

[Tiffany Johnson]

You don't like how I've characterized you. Well, boo hoo.

Yikes.

[cclaxton]

So, to recap, you don't have any data (just a handful of high-profile cases) and this is a subject you readily admit is outside your area of expertise.


You don't like how I've characterized you. Well, boo hoo. You created a post with DATA from police shootings and managed to get in yet another a jab at SWAT teams, and when I asked if you had any data on unjustifiable shooting from SWAT teams, you kindly ask me to avoid 'turning [your anecdotal cases] into a statistic.'

Please keep this professional and not personal.

I do have some data, just not much.

I explained why WE currently don't have adequate data to answer your question.

I did not create any data...I posted a link of data collected by others.

SWAT is a necessary and good team to have available when needed. I am not opposed to their use. My issues are around how they are trained and when they are used.

Please keep this on a professional level.
Cody

[Erick Gelhaus]

Where my concerns lie is with those who were clearly "bad shoots" because of poor training, police misconduct or policeman/woman stress/issues, or inappropriate use of SWAT. It is those cases that IMHO, can be avoided through better training, selective use of special ops/SWAT, better tactics, better intelligence, and better supervision.


A few questions for you ... how do you define a 'clearly bad shoot'? Is it media consensus, community feeling, personal opinion? Or are you looking at them through the lens of Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor, Scott, Plakas, Plumhoff?

When you are talking about addressing officer stress, training, supervision, et al are you factoring in that the people the officers are dealing have a say in how the encounter ultimately plays out?

The NTOA study was mentioned, have you tracked it down and read it to see if its methodology would be appropriate in your area?

[cclaxton]

Interesting commentary about why homicides are so high in black communities, written by a black Washington Post Commentator:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/institutional-racism-isnt-killing-blacks-by-itself-it-is-the-enemy-within/2015/08/25/4b9f1d98-4b50-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html?hpid=z3
Cody

[cclaxton]

A few questions for you ... how do you define a 'clearly bad shoot'? Is it media consensus, community feeling, personal opinion? Or are you looking at them through the lens of Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor, Scott, Plakas, Plumhoff?

When you are talking about addressing officer stress, training, supervision, et al are you factoring in that the people the officers are dealing have a say in how the encounter ultimately plays out?

The NTOA study was mentioned, have you tracked it down and read it to see if its methodology would be appropriate in your area?
I define a "clearly bad shoot" in one of the following:
- The officer admitted it was a mistake (See Sal Culosi shooting);
- The person shot was not armed, presented no threatening behavior, and was not a target of the search/incident;
- The person shot was not armed, presented no threatening behavior, and was undergoing mental/emotional breakdown (such as John Geer);
- The officer shot without first identifying the target was a threat and the person turned out to be unarmed and innocent (such as woman shot under door knocked down by SWAT);
- The officer became emotionally upset and shot the person because they decided to run, turned too quickly, didn't show their hands when ordered to do so, and the target was not armed or exhibiting a threat.

When I refer to officer stress and training, I am specifically referring to the kind of stress officer Torres was under when he shot John Geer: sleep deprived, wife cheated on him and had just left him, and he had told his supervisors. A person under serious personal stress or physiological impairment should not be attending a stressful event such as the standoff with John Geer.
Cody

[John Hearne]

I define a "clearly bad shoot" in one of the following:
- The officer became emotionally upset and shot the person because they decided to run, turned too quickly, didn't show their hands when ordered to do so, and the target was not armed or exhibiting a threat.


So its a good shoot if the officer isn't emotionally upset?

This is contrary to all current case law on use of force in which the courts no longer look at intentions. The FACTS either support the use of force or they don't - the officer's state of mind is fairly irrelevant.

[cclaxton]

So its a good shoot if the officer isn't emotionally upset?

This is contrary to all current case law on use of force in which the courts no longer look at intentions. The FACTS either support the use of force or they don't - the officer's state of mind is fairly irrelevant.
That is strange. When a suspect/criminal is convicted his/her state of mind is relevant. Why the disconnect?

Also, it seems that in some cases officers lose their temper and thus become more likely to use force when inappropriate to the behavior of the subject. In other words, the officers lose their objectivity and react differently. Every person has their own patience breaking point, and that will depend a lot on other stresses in their personal or work life. Or do you see this differently?
Thanks,
Cody

[BaiHu]

I'm not a professional, but I'm going to guess it is that way, because one actor chooses to step into danger for the sake of the greater good, while the other actor creates the danger that endangers the community and the nation as a whole.

[John Hearne]

That is strange. When a suspect/criminal is convicted his/her state of mind is relevant. Why the disconnect? Also, it seems that in some cases officers lose their temper and thus become more likely to use force when inappropriate to the behavior of the subject. In other words, the officers lose their objectivity and react differently. Every person has their own patience breaking point, and that will depend a lot on other stresses in their personal or work life. Or do you see this differently?

My personal views are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The only considerations that matter are the U.S. Constitution and subsequent case law. The case that clarified the subjective versus objective assessment of use of force is Graham v. Connor. If you listen to the oral arguments in this case, it sheds a lot of light on the reasoning involved. This might be useful: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_6571

If an officer is at their "breaking point" and use force that is unreasonable based on the facts present then that is an unlawful use of force. The officer's mindset might be used in the criminal prosecution for mitigation purposes but it doesn't make the force reasonable.

[Kukuforguns]

That is strange. When a suspect/criminal is convicted his/her state of mind is relevant. Why the disconnect?

Also, it seems that in some cases officers lose their temper and thus become more likely to use force when inappropriate to the behavior of the subject. In other words, the officers lose their objectivity and react differently. Every person has their own patience breaking point, and that will depend a lot on other stresses in their personal or work life. Or do you see this differently?
Thanks,
Cody

Many police shootings qualify as self-defense. The standards for establishing self-defense are similar with respect to both LEOs and non LEOs. Did the shooter reasonably believe the other person presented an imminent threat of death/great bodily injury and did the shooter use a reasonable amount of force to address the perceived threat. If the trier of fact determines the perception/response was not reasonable, then intent would be relevant to determining what crime was committed.

Of course, if the shooter says "I shot the subject because he was a jerk," this would undermine a claim of self-defense. This would be true with respect to both LEO and non-LEO. This is why lawyers don't want clients talking about the incident.