Law enforcement agencies across the country are failing to provide us with even basic information about the lives they take.
We know they killed at least 1,232 in 2022. Were all of those necessary? How many could have been avoided? Does law enforcement in any other countries/regions kill thousands of their citizens every year when not in a civil war situation?
The first step is always getting data, a surprisingly difficult goal when it comes to this topic, but there are people working on it.
Almost all occurred while the deceased was committing a felony. The handful of accidents that occur notwithstanding, criminal activity is the #1 precursor to being killed by police. It is conceivable that of the 1232, better than 1225 would be alive had they not been committing some form, often a violent variety, of felony. Of little consolation, nearly all of the 1232, if alive, would probably still be in prison. So again, this is a reflection on criminal "culture" and not on law enforcement, which is reactive. Unlike crime, which is a proactive violation on the rule of law. If people stopped committing violent crime, that number would drop significantly.
The assertion regarding felonies came from police without much (if any) scrutiny. According to the police report, George Floyd died because of a drug overdose, not because his airway was cut off by a knee to the neck for almost ten minutes. Had there been no video, I wager most white folks would have believed the police report over the testimony of eyewitnesses, assuming it even went to court.
If you have HBO, I highly recommend watching the series "We Own This City", which is about the Baltimore Police Department's Gun Trace Task Force.
Is this indicative of all cops in all departments? Of course not. But the falsification of the police report is quite common and even if discovered almost never results in disciplinary action despite itself being a felony.
And EVEN IF they were all likely guilty of felonies, that doesn't automatically mean that lethal force is warranted. And EVEN IF lethal force is warranted, that doesn't mean aid should not be rendered to try to save their life.
How often have you seen video where the suspect is already on the ground and cuffed behind their back when an officer knees the subject repeatedly in the side or strikes them on the head? When multiple officers do so?
Yes, crime is an issue. That should include excessive force on an already subdued subject. That's where qualified immunity comes in. In a sane world, once the person is on the ground, immobile, and in cuffs, the blows should have already ended.
"George Floyd died because of a drug overdose not because his airway was cut off by a knee to the neck for almost ten minutes."
The M.E. found 4x the lethal limit of fentanyl in his blood, and he had a habit of swallowing his stash whenever he made contact with police.
Have you ever taken EMT, CPR or life-saving class? One concept learned was ABC as Airway - Breathing - Circulation
If your airway is cut off, you can't breath.
And if you can't breathe, you can't draw or expel, rather, move air. This is why there is an international sign for choking.
If you can't move air, you can't make your vocal cords vibrate.
So how can you say, "I can't breath" and yell at the top of your lungs if your airway is cut off?
That simply doesn't compute for anyone who has medical training. It is an insult to intelligence. Anybody who has been through any medical training at all knows that an obstructed airway makes little to no sound, let along screaming on top of your lungs saying "I can't breath."
Also, your windpipe is not on the back of your neck so a knee there cannot block it off; of course, if you're making sounds, your windpipe isn't cut off or kinked.
What's more likely is that Floyd was experiencing shortness of breath as his pulmonary system was being depressed and in collapse by the 4x lethal dose he ingested.
That's not to say police didn't act inappropriately. The overdose was obvious to me immediately and they should have taken lifesaving measures, but I have watched too many people overdose not to see through the bullshit.
And we'll apparently just skip right over the part where he was cuffed and already in the police cruiser when they hauled him out and put a knee on his neck?
Sure, racial disparities in police shootings is a problem. But if you look at specific incidents, you'll find that virtually every person shot by cops had a weapon, was a fugutive, had a violent past, was on drugs, etc., etc..
This website is framing the issue as a policing problem, not a crime problem. I don't think that is wise.
It's not like when somebody gets shot by cops, there's immediately a huge cover-up operation. Just because departments don't spoonfeed people this information doesn't mean it's completely unknowable.
FYI: The OP link is cited as a reference to the Wikipedia article you linked.
Ask yourself how often you've seen a video where police shoot someone, cuff them, remove all weapons from reach, and then stand by without immediately rendering emergency aid. The threat is over. They were shot. They were bleeding out.
As a nation I think we should probably be a lot less comfortable with the notion that police can selectively choose who is worthy of the death penalty on the spot.
Reminder: the police report for George Floyd stated that he died of complications of cocaine use, not a knee on his airway for almost ten minutes AFTER he had been cuffed and put in the back of the police cruiser. Had there been no video, would there have even been an indictment let alone a trial or murder conviction? How many times are the cameras not recording?
Would it be a bad idea to train cops more first aid skills? Hell no, I would absolutely support that. But I am of the opinion that the George Floyd video shows that Chauvin did nothing wrong, and I think it's disgraceful how bystanders were being douchebags by harrassing the cops. I was a Minneapolis resident at the time and I am dismayed by the way that case played out legally and how influential people in the community encouraged this behavior. I think it was a blatant kangaroo court.
The abysmal state of attitudes towards police is a much more important issue. People in the ghetto oppose the police even when crime is rampant and lives are being destroyed. It makes no sense.
Teaching cops how to pack bullet wounds and stuff is easy. It would barely make any difference.
What the law actually says is that it is illegal to kill another person unless you believe they are actively threatening your life or somebody else's life (i.e., in self-defense). You are wrong if you think that it's the weapon that determines whether the shooting was justified or not. People are not shot by police for having weapons, being a fugitive, or being on drugs even if those things are illegal. They are shot for being an immediate danger to somebody's life.
Ask yourself, what generally causes a person to act violent?
A mentally healthy person controls their emotions and acts intelligently. Healthy people don't lash out at others like wild animals. It's mental illness and drugs that makes people do that.
And guess what? It's easy to observe that the vast majority of people shot by police are addicts or mentally ill (i.e., criminals.) And you're telling me it's the police that are the ones who introduce violence into the equation?
Consider the UK with some ~ 70 million people, mad scotsmen on raging drunken benders (sorry, stereotype), no shortgae of drug addicts, plenty of mentally ill, etc.
Per capita US police kill members of the US public at a rate 20x that of UK police killing UK members of the public.
US police have little to no training wrt defusing situations, they are trained to always reach for a gun.
It's not a matter of training, it's a matter of doctrine. American police training is a lot more gun-oriented than foreign police training because Americans own more guns. Also, the laws dictating when it is legal to use deadly force are different.
You have to account for the differences in the freedom vs. safety trade-off.
It's entirely due to training and approach to use of force.
Police in the US kill civilians at a rate of 20x that of police in the UK.
It's due to a culture of violence and one arguably made worse since the 1970s when the US NRA became more of a marketing arm of US gun sellers and less of a gun club promoting responsible gun handling and safety.
> the freedom vs. safety trade-off.
< ROFLMAO > Never ceases to amaze hearing seppos spout that one.
> It's entirely due to training and approach to use of force.
Yes, but the law is the reason why the training is what it is. The police don't make the law, so police shootings are not a policing problem. Policing = enforcement of the law.
You can argue America should be a nanny state and the 2A shouldn't exist but you'll be laughed out of the room
The NRA has very little to do with any of this. The NRA never aimed to fix drug problems or mental illness, it's a private organization of responsible gun owners
How is the number unknown if the website is giving us a number?
The truth is that an overwhelming majority of police homicides are justified and lawful uses of force to stop a violent crime.
It can never be zero because some people are violent and will kill you for your shoes, much less to escape arrest and prison.
Police encounters occur about 65,000,000 times a year according to the DOJ.
1232 deaths is 0.001% of encounters. In general only about 7 deaths were unjustified annually. Average of 3 were accidental and four were criminal, where the cop responsible was fired, arrested, tried, and convicted in every case.
Deaths by police in the United States is a reflection on the outcome of crime, not the application of law enforcement.
Anybody telling you differently is selling something.
Giving the best number available because they can't get that info from police departments. They have to report whenever they discharge their firearm but not necessarily when the bullet hits a person? Does that honestly make sense to you?
As for your stats regarding justified/unjustified, a reminder that the police report stated George Floyd died due to cocaine use, not a knee to the neck. And without uninterrupted video evidence, Derek Chauvin et al would not have even been indicted. Are you SURE the official stats coming from police reports are reflective of reality?
What about the Baltimore Police Department's Gun Trace Task Force? What about the fact that just about every major city's DA has a list of officers it can't put on the stand because they've been caught in too many blatant lies (but can't be fired).
Selling something? Or highlighting a serious problem that many folks are turning a blind eye to because it doesn't affect them directly?
20 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 59.2 ms ] threadWe know they killed at least 1,232 in 2022. Were all of those necessary? How many could have been avoided? Does law enforcement in any other countries/regions kill thousands of their citizens every year when not in a civil war situation?
The first step is always getting data, a surprisingly difficult goal when it comes to this topic, but there are people working on it.
If you have HBO, I highly recommend watching the series "We Own This City", which is about the Baltimore Police Department's Gun Trace Task Force.
https://www.hbo.com/we-own-this-city
Is this indicative of all cops in all departments? Of course not. But the falsification of the police report is quite common and even if discovered almost never results in disciplinary action despite itself being a felony.
And EVEN IF they were all likely guilty of felonies, that doesn't automatically mean that lethal force is warranted. And EVEN IF lethal force is warranted, that doesn't mean aid should not be rendered to try to save their life.
How often have you seen video where the suspect is already on the ground and cuffed behind their back when an officer knees the subject repeatedly in the side or strikes them on the head? When multiple officers do so?
Yes, crime is an issue. That should include excessive force on an already subdued subject. That's where qualified immunity comes in. In a sane world, once the person is on the ground, immobile, and in cuffs, the blows should have already ended.
The M.E. found 4x the lethal limit of fentanyl in his blood, and he had a habit of swallowing his stash whenever he made contact with police.
Have you ever taken EMT, CPR or life-saving class? One concept learned was ABC as Airway - Breathing - Circulation
If your airway is cut off, you can't breath.
And if you can't breathe, you can't draw or expel, rather, move air. This is why there is an international sign for choking.
If you can't move air, you can't make your vocal cords vibrate.
So how can you say, "I can't breath" and yell at the top of your lungs if your airway is cut off?
That simply doesn't compute for anyone who has medical training. It is an insult to intelligence. Anybody who has been through any medical training at all knows that an obstructed airway makes little to no sound, let along screaming on top of your lungs saying "I can't breath."
Also, your windpipe is not on the back of your neck so a knee there cannot block it off; of course, if you're making sounds, your windpipe isn't cut off or kinked.
What's more likely is that Floyd was experiencing shortness of breath as his pulmonary system was being depressed and in collapse by the 4x lethal dose he ingested.
That's not to say police didn't act inappropriately. The overdose was obvious to me immediately and they should have taken lifesaving measures, but I have watched too many people overdose not to see through the bullshit.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-george-floyd-overd...
And we'll apparently just skip right over the part where he was cuffed and already in the police cruiser when they hauled him out and put a knee on his neck?
"Don't believe your lying eyes."
This website is framing the issue as a policing problem, not a crime problem. I don't think that is wise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enfor...
It's not like when somebody gets shot by cops, there's immediately a huge cover-up operation. Just because departments don't spoonfeed people this information doesn't mean it's completely unknowable.
Ask yourself how often you've seen a video where police shoot someone, cuff them, remove all weapons from reach, and then stand by without immediately rendering emergency aid. The threat is over. They were shot. They were bleeding out.
As a nation I think we should probably be a lot less comfortable with the notion that police can selectively choose who is worthy of the death penalty on the spot.
Reminder: the police report for George Floyd stated that he died of complications of cocaine use, not a knee on his airway for almost ten minutes AFTER he had been cuffed and put in the back of the police cruiser. Had there been no video, would there have even been an indictment let alone a trial or murder conviction? How many times are the cameras not recording?
The abysmal state of attitudes towards police is a much more important issue. People in the ghetto oppose the police even when crime is rampant and lives are being destroyed. It makes no sense.
Teaching cops how to pack bullet wounds and stuff is easy. It would barely make any difference.
There is clearly nothing more to say.
Are there "ands" or "ors" in between those descriptors?
If "or", the only ones that may be justifiable without much further exploration is "had a weapon". The rest should not be overlooked so quickly.
Ask yourself, what generally causes a person to act violent?
A mentally healthy person controls their emotions and acts intelligently. Healthy people don't lash out at others like wild animals. It's mental illness and drugs that makes people do that.
And guess what? It's easy to observe that the vast majority of people shot by police are addicts or mentally ill (i.e., criminals.) And you're telling me it's the police that are the ones who introduce violence into the equation?
Consider the UK with some ~ 70 million people, mad scotsmen on raging drunken benders (sorry, stereotype), no shortgae of drug addicts, plenty of mentally ill, etc.
Per capita US police kill members of the US public at a rate 20x that of UK police killing UK members of the public.
US police have little to no training wrt defusing situations, they are trained to always reach for a gun.
You have to account for the differences in the freedom vs. safety trade-off.
Police in the US kill civilians at a rate of 20x that of police in the UK.
It's due to a culture of violence and one arguably made worse since the 1970s when the US NRA became more of a marketing arm of US gun sellers and less of a gun club promoting responsible gun handling and safety.
> the freedom vs. safety trade-off.
< ROFLMAO > Never ceases to amaze hearing seppos spout that one.
Yes, but the law is the reason why the training is what it is. The police don't make the law, so police shootings are not a policing problem. Policing = enforcement of the law.
You can argue America should be a nanny state and the 2A shouldn't exist but you'll be laughed out of the room
The NRA has very little to do with any of this. The NRA never aimed to fix drug problems or mental illness, it's a private organization of responsible gun owners
The truth is that an overwhelming majority of police homicides are justified and lawful uses of force to stop a violent crime.
It can never be zero because some people are violent and will kill you for your shoes, much less to escape arrest and prison.
Police encounters occur about 65,000,000 times a year according to the DOJ.
1232 deaths is 0.001% of encounters. In general only about 7 deaths were unjustified annually. Average of 3 were accidental and four were criminal, where the cop responsible was fired, arrested, tried, and convicted in every case.
Deaths by police in the United States is a reflection on the outcome of crime, not the application of law enforcement.
Anybody telling you differently is selling something.
As for your stats regarding justified/unjustified, a reminder that the police report stated George Floyd died due to cocaine use, not a knee to the neck. And without uninterrupted video evidence, Derek Chauvin et al would not have even been indicted. Are you SURE the official stats coming from police reports are reflective of reality?
What about the Baltimore Police Department's Gun Trace Task Force? What about the fact that just about every major city's DA has a list of officers it can't put on the stand because they've been caught in too many blatant lies (but can't be fired).
Selling something? Or highlighting a serious problem that many folks are turning a blind eye to because it doesn't affect them directly?