Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Mike, Jul 17, 2017.
Totally crazy case.
I think it’s safe to say that the reason this story has no legs in the US is that the cop is brown skinned. Normally something like this comes up, and the blue lives matter people get all up in arms about how the victim brought it on themselves, etc. But he’s a Somali immigrant, and there seems to be very little “he was justified” defense coming out. Mind you, this isn’t my idea - I’ve been seeing a lot of speculation about it on the internet. But, just as the NRA didn’t defend Philando Castile’s right to carry, the blue lives matter folks are not defending Noor. You can’t help but wonder if there isn’t some racist undercurrents to these.
I've been pretty upset about both the Justine Damond and the Philando Castile incidents, as well as a few other recent brutal events that simply had no justification. The NRA did make some comments about the Philando Castile incident, but they were far too little and way too late...
The entire point of the Police Department is to protect people and keep the peace. I think a few bad apples in the major cities are really ruining the entire system at its premise.
Yeah, I know a number of police officers, and they actually do want to be good people and help. But there's no question there are some people on the force that have no business being there. The fact that there is virtually no training or qualifications to be a police officer is disturbing enough, but the culture of not letting good officers speak out against the bad ones is really bad. I think mostly what offends the general public is that there are these egregious violations of the "I feared for my life" rationale, and yet the officers rarely get fired or prosecuted. If they were found guilty, stripped of their badge, etc., then the general public would at least feel that there was some justice.
I have no idea how it would affect the economy of the whole situation, but on the face of it, the pay-the-lawsuits-out-of-the-officer-pension-fund sounds like a good idea. As it is, the officers have zero repercussions if they are found guilty, in terms of paying the claim. The taxpayers have to. They could even make it like a doctor, where each officer has to have "malpractice" insurance. If he fucks up, his rates go up, and he may not be able to get coverage. But what other profession can screw up royally with no worries? Doctors get sued all the time for TRYING to save a life, and failing. Not only do cops not get sued for trying and failing to stop a criminal, they don't get sued when they kill innocent people. I can pretty much guarantee that if a doc did a liver transplant on a patient that was not in the hospital for it, and the patient died, the doc would be in a world of hurt. No, "He followed his training. It's unfortunate he broke into the wrong house and shot an innocent grandpa," sort of storyline we get from police departments.
Also long as I'm on a rant here lol I think it's interesting that cops think it has to do with the job. But in literally no other country on the planet are their anywhere near the deaths by cop as there are here. In almost every other country, the annual kill rate by cops is zero. Yet ours is in the hundreds. It's 100% an American police problem. Yet the police aren't embarrassed enough about such an overt failure to try to improve. Instead it's just more crap excuses.
I agree 100%. I just want to stress, though, that exactly zero cases of "he broke into the wrong house and shot an innocent grandpa" are acceptable. I know plenty of law enforcement officers, and probably 90% of them are good people. I think the number of bad people in powerful positions is way too high, but I also think that the fact is merely one small aspect of the much bigger problem of dysfunctional culture.
Legit question: Is that really true, or is this an assumption?
Police shot and killed a man in Sydney Central railway station just yesterday.
The info in this link isn't currently up to date, but certainly paints a different picture than Holloway's comment suggests:
It's definitely not zero, but in most developed countries it's lower.
Why that is, of course, is open to debate; I'd be inclined to think it has a lot more to do with the fact that as either the highest or second highest gun owning country in the world per capita (I think Somalia may edge us out, but I don't remember for sure), American cops are both much more heavily armed than most police forces, and much more worried that even a simple speeding ticket could escalate into a life or death situation if the driver pulls a gun. That said, we also have a lot more racial history in this country than many others, which certainly adds a layer of complexity.
is there a cops/law enforcement list of those killed on the job?
i think it happens a lot too...unfortunately
A quick google search came up with this: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ome..69i57.17727j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The numbers are truly horrific.
People in the news media are now saying it is unlikely that Noor will ever face any charges, but I don't see where there is any factual information to suggest that we know anything more than we did a week ago.
As far as police brutality in the USA, there is way too much. In terms of the danger of being a police officer in the USA, I also think there is way too much. The main difference is that you choose to be a police officer and face danger, but no one chooses to be an innocent bystander and get shot by police, or be mistaken for another suspect and shot by police, or to be shot by the police for simply pointing out the fact that you have a weapon on you legally, etc. etc.
I'll play devil's advocate here and say that generally when a cop bothers to draw their weapon and shoot a person, there was a damn good reason. Sadly in this case and the case of philando castile that doesn't ring true. There are a fair amount of shootings in north minneapolis (which is a predominantly lower class black area) though most of them are black on black violence, not police on civilian. The majority of the police shootings here have been justified from what I've read and from what my cop friends told me. No cop wants to possibly lose their job/end up in jail over a bad split second decision. The choice to pull the trigger is often a split second decision, which I don't know how many of you have done reactive fire drills or scenario drills to mimic that split second decision making but it's not easy, even with practice. Also those numbers for deaths by cop in the USA are UNOFFICIAL numbers, meaning they weren't compiled from government or independent data gathering groups like those hired by the BLS or such for statistical analysis. As such I wouldn't rely on them as an accurate indicator of total people killed by cops.
But that's the problem. The cop who shot Philando Castille didn't face any jail time nor was he "fired." He instead was offered a nice cushy severance package and asked to resign. And that's not at all atypical. A vast majority of police officers who kill people never face jail time nor get fired.
That wasn't my point. My point was that the numbers are not reliable and after looking at some other sites, they become even more unreliable.
From the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30339943
"Comprehensive nationwide numbers of how many police officers kill individuals while on duty do not exist.
The FBI does record "justifiable homicides" by police officers. There were 461 such homicides in 2013, but by definition, this doesn't include the number of police charged with a crime for on-duty actions.
And reporting these statistics to the FBI is voluntary. In addition, even police agencies who report their overall crime numbers are not required to submit additional data on homicides, justified or not.
Mr Stinson's own research found 41 police officers were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005 and 2011. In the same time period, the FBI recorded several thousand justifiable homicides."
There's a lot of issues with the numbers here since 1. it's self reported (which essentially makes it super easy to skew data, thus throwing off all statistical models) 2. The lack of consistent data gathering makes it hard to show any real trends or account for outliers. If we go based on a purely anecdotal level, it would seem that there is an upward trend of non-justified shootings over the last few years. The biggest problem I have is the lack of hard numbers to either prove or disprove that upward trend. IF the vast majority of shootings actually are justified then that would support the reason they aren't convicted/fired, that they were correct in their use of deadly force. Like I said earlier, the problem I have is the overall lack of data, so we can't really accurately compare conviction rate/firing rate to rate of non-justified shootings.
Yanez was fired, and 50k is not exactly a "cushy severance package". That's less than a year's wages for him based off how much he was making with overtime as a cop. https://patch.com/minnesota/saintpaul/jeronimo-yanez-be-paid-48-500-buyout A severance/separation is basically a slightly more amicable firing.
Let's look at that last paragraph again:
If $50k cash is not a cushy severance package....
Fired means no severance package. Any other job in the universe, except CEO or LEO, if you fuck up so bad someone dies, you get fired, meaning dismissed with no severance package at all.
The fact that we don't even track a statistic when it means life and death, literally, of our own people, it says right there something is wrong.
I'll play devil's advocate too, then.
No one in ANY profession wants to lose their job over any decision they make, split second or otherwise. However, there are many professions, policing included, where people's lives are at stake, and a bad split second decision (or a bad decision over a longer time period) can result in the loss of human life. We expect the people in these positions to be exceptionally highly trained since their choices can kill, and when they choose wrong, we expect them to bear the repercussions of their decisions. So, what makes a police officer different than an 18 wheeler who swerved into another driver and killed them? Or a surgeon who, when a surgery unexpectedly goes wrong, makes the wrong choice despite extensive training and the patient dies? Or an airplane pilot who miscalculates during a mechanical failure? In all of these situations we hold the guilty parties responsible for their actions. Why should we give cops greater leeway?
Also, the reason these are UNOFFICIAL numbers is there ARE no official numbers - there's no government body tasked with monitoring the use of force by police departments and tracking official statistics about police shooting civilians, nor is there any independent government body responsible for investigating situations where police may have wrongly used lethal force. The police report to no one, and self-police their actions.
I addressed my issue with the statistics in my previous post. I agree that cops should have more rigorous firearms training (especially deputies in sheriff departments, they seem to consistently have the least amount of training ime). Hell I had 8 cops pointing shotguns and pistols at me a few years ago and you could see the adrenaline pumping through them enough to make their hands shake. I trust suburban and rural cops the least since they tend to deal with nasty situations less than the city cops (at least from what I've seen). I don't think cops should have greater leeway, but I think it's difficult for people to really understand what it's like to make those kind of decisions. I've done a fair amount of reactive shooting drills/scenario drills and they really underline the difficulty to make those decisions. Basically I'm all for more rigorous training/oversight, but I also understand that it's a difficult decision to decide to pull your weapon/shoot someone. I don't condone what Noor did, since there's really no good explanation for him shooting damond (same with yanez shooting castile), but I understand the mindset of being on edge all the time, with your job only making it worse if you're already a twitchy person (which I am, and is the main reason I switched to working in a hospital instead of working as a medic).
But, that's kind of my point - if in literally any other profession if you fuck up and someone dies you expect to experience significant repercussions if it turns out your judgement was faulty or you violated some part of your training or protocol, then why should it be any different for police?
If you're already a twitchy person, on the edge all the time... Then you shouldn't be given the authority to pull a gun and fire at any suspected provocation. Full stop. End of story.
I wonder how many people would be OK with a member of their family being gunned down by a cop who panicked or acted without provocation? We all know it's a hard job. That doesn't excuse making mistakes of this magnitude. Someone died. Accountability is required.
And, at present, we have zero accountability. Obama was trying to move in that direction, but Trump and Sessions reversed a lot of his review policies, and now Trump is on record encouraging police to rough up prisoners a bit.
The fact that when a cop shoots a citizen, it's his own department and his local prosecution, most of whom have close relations with the department, who oversee the investigaiton, is a HUGE conflict of interest. This is part of why we have no good statistics on the police use of force.
Police officers are heroes, but the reason they're heroes is because they DO risk their lives in the every day course of their jobs, and not because when they get a little nervous they shoot first and ask questions later.