|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: The man in the St. Louis shooting, 23, had taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store, Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters. He said that the man was “acting erratically, walking back and forth, up and down the street.”
The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.”
He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet. NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops.
I'm interested, does it mean that you could foresee yourself killing someone if needed ? Have you ever been in such situation before ?
|
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear.
|
On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear.
Welcome to the 2nd amendment. Yes it is a fucked up thing but America doesnt know any better sadly.
|
On August 20 2014 07:15 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: The man in the St. Louis shooting, 23, had taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store, Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters. He said that the man was “acting erratically, walking back and forth, up and down the street.”
The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.”
He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet. NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Shoot to his leg?
Have you seen the statistics on how shitty the accuracy is of cops who have to fire their weapons under duress?
|
On August 20 2014 07:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear. Welcome to the 2nd amendment. Yes it is a fucked up thing but America doesnt know any better sadly.
The second amendment has nothing to do with Jonny-crackhead stealing from a liquour store while high on drugs and then assaulting police officers.
|
On August 20 2014 07:21 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: The man in the St. Louis shooting, 23, had taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store, Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters. He said that the man was “acting erratically, walking back and forth, up and down the street.”
The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.”
He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet. NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. I'm interested, does it mean that you could foresee yourself killing someone if needed ? Have you ever been in such situation before ?
No, I have not been in the situation before. However, I know for a fact that I could and would do it if needed.
|
On August 20 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:27 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear. Welcome to the 2nd amendment. Yes it is a fucked up thing but America doesnt know any better sadly. The second amendment has nothing to do with Jonny-crackhead stealing from a liquour store while high on drugs and then assaulting police officers.
Try reading the quote i was replying to.
Thanks.
|
On August 20 2014 06:58 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: The man in the St. Louis shooting, 23, had taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store, Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters. He said that the man was “acting erratically, walking back and forth, up and down the street.”
The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.”
He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet. NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Then what the hell do we train cops for?
To police society? Why exactly should we expect cops to needlessly endanger themselves when some thug assaults them?
|
On August 20 2014 07:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Talking about police offers shooting people in the legs instead of the head isn't really the important point. The root of the problem is that people in the US seem to get into these situations so frequently that it simply seems to be normal part of everyday life. I don't even know how to use a gun and never in my life was I in any situation in which I would have needed one. The situation in some parts of the US seems completely crazy, and I think until systematic discrimination of minorities does not stop these problems won't disappear.
We have societal problems with certain populations here that you don't have in Europe.
|
United States43611 Posts
On August 20 2014 07:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 06:58 aksfjh wrote:On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: The man in the St. Louis shooting, 23, had taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store, Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters. He said that the man was “acting erratically, walking back and forth, up and down the street.”
The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.”
He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet. NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Then what the hell do we train cops for? To police society? Why exactly should we expect cops to needlessly endanger themselves when some thug assaults them?
Because the guy standing in front of them is a member of society too. He's someone's son, someone's brother. The obligation of the police isn't just to protect you and I, it's to protect everyone, even the people we don't like. An execution by the police is a failure of policing, even in self defence. That it may sometimes be necessary does not change that. Dealing with that issue is exactly what we train police for. What we pay police for.
|
It is so bizarre reading about the distrust of police and minorities coming from a culture that is so similar that I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the situations that you guys have to deal with.
|
On August 20 2014 07:15 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: The man in the St. Louis shooting, 23, had taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store, Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters. He said that the man was “acting erratically, walking back and forth, up and down the street.”
The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.”
He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet. NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Shoot to his leg?
Not very easy to hit, doesn't guarantee that the danger is over and may very well kill them anyway due to blood loss. If you shoot, aim for center mass.
|
On August 20 2014 07:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:58 aksfjh wrote:On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: The man in the St. Louis shooting, 23, had taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store, Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters. He said that the man was “acting erratically, walking back and forth, up and down the street.”
The chief said that the officers repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife and drew their weapons after he did not drop it. The chief said the man told the police: “Shoot me now. Kill me now.”
He said the two officers fired after the man moved toward one of them and came within 3 to 4 feet. NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Then what the hell do we train cops for? To police society? Why exactly should we expect cops to needlessly endanger themselves when some thug assaults them? Because the guy standing in front of them is a member of society too. He's someone's son, someone's brother. The obligation of the police isn't just to protect you and I, it's to protect everyone, even the people we don't like. An execution by the police is a failure of policing, even in self defence. That it may sometimes be necessary does not change that. Dealing with that issue is exactly what we train police for. What we pay police for.
The police have no obligation to protect anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
|
On August 20 2014 08:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:37 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2014 07:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:58 aksfjh wrote:On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: [quote] NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Then what the hell do we train cops for? To police society? Why exactly should we expect cops to needlessly endanger themselves when some thug assaults them? Because the guy standing in front of them is a member of society too. He's someone's son, someone's brother. The obligation of the police isn't just to protect you and I, it's to protect everyone, even the people we don't like. An execution by the police is a failure of policing, even in self defence. That it may sometimes be necessary does not change that. Dealing with that issue is exactly what we train police for. What we pay police for. The police have no obligation to protect anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Okay someone has to explain that one to me because after reading everything on that page the courts ruling seems like the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. I just cant believe that 4 judges honestly made that ruling so I have to be missing something.
|
On August 20 2014 08:44 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 08:38 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 07:37 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2014 07:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:58 aksfjh wrote:On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do.
If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Then what the hell do we train cops for? To police society? Why exactly should we expect cops to needlessly endanger themselves when some thug assaults them? Because the guy standing in front of them is a member of society too. He's someone's son, someone's brother. The obligation of the police isn't just to protect you and I, it's to protect everyone, even the people we don't like. An execution by the police is a failure of policing, even in self defence. That it may sometimes be necessary does not change that. Dealing with that issue is exactly what we train police for. What we pay police for. The police have no obligation to protect anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia Okay someone has to explain that one to me because after reading everything on that page the courts ruling seems like the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. I just cant believe that 4 judges honestly made that ruling so I have to be missing something.
HAHA that is really funny. The twisted legacy of popular sovereignty! "I serve the People... who the hell are you??"
If this were seminar I would say something really sententious about The Body Politic and the Political Body and everyone would think I was so smart
|
United States43611 Posts
On August 20 2014 08:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 07:37 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2014 07:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:58 aksfjh wrote:On August 20 2014 06:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 06:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2014 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2014 05:45 Millitron wrote:On August 20 2014 05:40 radiatoren wrote:Another man killed in St. Louis. I am a bit surprised by the police again mentioning theft as if it has any effect on the murder: [quote] NBC newsNot as problematic as the other murder, but usually the first shots are taken to disarm the attacker in such situations. Shoot to kill is a last resort. We've been over this. Shooting-to-wound is not a thing smart people do. If someone is worth shooting, they're worth shooting center of mass. If you don't need to stop him at all costs, you don't need to shoot him, period. So your telling me the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife is death? And you wonder why the police is hated so much lol. It is if he charges someone with a gun. I'd shoot, too. Are you a trained and qualified policeman with a variaty of tools at your disposal? No your not. And I stand by my question. Is the only answer the US police has to a man with a knife to kill him? No, but that's besides the point. I'm licensed to carry firearms. I'm allowed to shoot someone that is threatening me with the risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If some guy with a knife charges me, I'm shooting him with the intent of making him stop -- which probably means killing him. The rule is basically the same for cops. Then what the hell do we train cops for? To police society? Why exactly should we expect cops to needlessly endanger themselves when some thug assaults them? Because the guy standing in front of them is a member of society too. He's someone's son, someone's brother. The obligation of the police isn't just to protect you and I, it's to protect everyone, even the people we don't like. An execution by the police is a failure of policing, even in self defence. That it may sometimes be necessary does not change that. Dealing with that issue is exactly what we train police for. What we pay police for. The police have no obligation to protect anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
The fact that you have strayed from the true path does not disprove the existence of the path.
|
So piggy backing on an earlier conversation about Police Homicide data I present this article.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/
Nobody Knows How Many Americans The Police Kill Each Year
...Some reporting has put forward one of the only figures available: the approximately 400 “justifiable police homicides” each year since 2008, according to the FBI’s annual Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That data point has appeared with heavy caveats in a string of media reports, including in USA Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Washington Post.
The statistic might seem solid at first glance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics — independently of the FBI — also estimate the number of police homicides per year at around 400.
But these estimates can be wrong. Efforts to keep track of “justifiable police homicides” are beset by systemic problems. “Nobody that knows anything about the SHR puts credence in the numbers that they call ‘justifiable homicides,’” when used as a proxy for police killings, said David Klinger, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri who specializes in policing and the use of deadly force. And there’s no governmental effort at all to record the number of unjustifiable homicides by police. If Brown’s homicide is found to be unjustifiable, it won’t show up in these statistics....
One reasonably reliable statistic we do have is the number of Americans who die in homicides each year. This data can be found in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) and is based on death certificates.2 The NVSS includes the cause of death classifications “homicide” and homicide by “legal intervention”: the equivalent of the SHR’s “justifiable police homicides” number.
But the “legal intervention” deaths — an average of 406 per year from 1999 to 2011 — are not useful on their own since many police homicides are misclassified simply because the coroner’s report does not mention police involvement. This count, along with the FBI’s estimate and an independent count of “arrest-related homicides” by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2003 to 20093 complete the trio of official-sounding but incomplete police homicide stats.4
Emphasis in bold above. What the hell?
During this span, the NVSS database reported an average of 18,011 homicide deaths per year. The raw SHR data contained an average of 15,024 victims. (The spike in 2001 is due to 2,823 homicides associated with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.) That’s a roughly 3,000-person gap.6
Some of those 3,000 deaths are police homicides, justifiable and unjustifiable — there’s no way of knowing how many. They also include other homicides that are not reported to the SHR but which have nothing to do with police involvement — for example, killings that occur in federal jurisdictions.
So we have a 3,000 person gap of people killed by homicide of which we know nearly nothing about.
Does any of this sound strange and disturbing to anyone else?
Let me add fuel to the fire here for a second. We ALSO don't know how many no knock SWAT raids there are per year, and we have next to no data on what goes on during those SWAT raids because Police are not required to report it.
So I have a question. If the Police are not being required to submit data like this, how the hell is there supposed to be any federal oversight? Who holds the police accountable for any of their activities if they aren't required to ever submit important data to be archived?
|
On August 20 2014 09:19 Vindicare605 wrote:So piggy backing on an earlier conversation about Police Homicide data I present this article. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/Show nested quote + Nobody Knows How Many Americans The Police Kill Each Year
...Some reporting has put forward one of the only figures available: the approximately 400 “justifiable police homicides” each year since 2008, according to the FBI’s annual Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That data point has appeared with heavy caveats in a string of media reports, including in USA Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Washington Post.
The statistic might seem solid at first glance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics — independently of the FBI — also estimate the number of police homicides per year at around 400.
But these estimates can be wrong. Efforts to keep track of “justifiable police homicides” are beset by systemic problems. “Nobody that knows anything about the SHR puts credence in the numbers that they call ‘justifiable homicides,’” when used as a proxy for police killings, said David Klinger, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri who specializes in policing and the use of deadly force. And there’s no governmental effort at all to record the number of unjustifiable homicides by police. If Brown’s homicide is found to be unjustifiable, it won’t show up in these statistics.... Show nested quote +One reasonably reliable statistic we do have is the number of Americans who die in homicides each year. This data can be found in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) and is based on death certificates.2 The NVSS includes the cause of death classifications “homicide” and homicide by “legal intervention”: the equivalent of the SHR’s “justifiable police homicides” number.
But the “legal intervention” deaths — an average of 406 per year from 1999 to 2011 — are not useful on their own since many police homicides are misclassified simply because the coroner’s report does not mention police involvement. This count, along with the FBI’s estimate and an independent count of “arrest-related homicides” by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2003 to 20093 complete the trio of official-sounding but incomplete police homicide stats.4 Emphasis in bold above. What the hell? Show nested quote +During this span, the NVSS database reported an average of 18,011 homicide deaths per year. The raw SHR data contained an average of 15,024 victims. (The spike in 2001 is due to 2,823 homicides associated with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.) That’s a roughly 3,000-person gap.6
Some of those 3,000 deaths are police homicides, justifiable and unjustifiable — there’s no way of knowing how many. They also include other homicides that are not reported to the SHR but which have nothing to do with police involvement — for example, killings that occur in federal jurisdictions. So we have a 3,000 person gap of people killed by homicide of which we know nearly nothing about. Does any of this sound strange and disturbing to anyone else? Let me add fuel to the fire here for a second. We ALSO don't know how many no knock SWAT raids there are per year, and we have next to no data on what goes on during those SWAT raids because Police are not required to report it. So I have a question. If the Police are not being required to submit data like this, how the hell is there supposed to be any federal oversight? Who holds the police accountable for any of their activities if they aren't required to ever submit important data to be archived?
I think the Federal government only does oversight for certain things and on a limited basis. Policing isn't a Federal thing.
As for the record keeping ... welcome to the government 
|
Not long ago, the top executive at a large American drug company said that her company would be planting its corporate flag in the Netherlands, because the U.S. tax code is just so darn unfair.
Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, told a New York Times columnist that her bid to acquire a smaller Dutch company and move ownership abroad through a controversial tactic known as an inversion was forced by Congress, which has refused to lower corporate tax rates and make U.S. businesses "more competitive."
As a patriot, she resisted until it was clear she had no other choice, she said.
“You know what makes me want to cry?" she said. "I think whoever the next Facebook is, why would you ever start that company here in the United States?”
But a new paper by a leading critic of inversions strongly refutes this narrative, arguing that instead of disadvantaged left-behinds struggling to compete against foreign competitors with lower tax bills, large American companies are gaming international and domestic tax rules better than anyone else.
"U.S.-based multinationals that are pursuing inversion transactions have been quick to wrap themselves in a mantle of simple virtue, forced to take the unpalatable step of inverting into Irish, U.K. or Swiss public companies because their love goes unrequited by a country that cruelly saddles them with both the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and a uniquely punitive worldwide tax base," writes Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California, and a former chief of staff for Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. This argument, he writes, "is almost entirely fact-free." (The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin was first to write about Kleinbard's new paper, in his Tuesday column for the New York Times).
Large American companies are so clever at scoping out loopholes and finding ways to shift earnings to low-tax jurisdictions that most never pay anything close to the top 35 percent U.S. corporate rate that the complain about so loudly, Kleinbard writes.
Source
|
On August 20 2014 10:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Not long ago, the top executive at a large American drug company said that her company would be planting its corporate flag in the Netherlands, because the U.S. tax code is just so darn unfair.
Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, told a New York Times columnist that her bid to acquire a smaller Dutch company and move ownership abroad through a controversial tactic known as an inversion was forced by Congress, which has refused to lower corporate tax rates and make U.S. businesses "more competitive."
As a patriot, she resisted until it was clear she had no other choice, she said.
“You know what makes me want to cry?" she said. "I think whoever the next Facebook is, why would you ever start that company here in the United States?”
But a new paper by a leading critic of inversions strongly refutes this narrative, arguing that instead of disadvantaged left-behinds struggling to compete against foreign competitors with lower tax bills, large American companies are gaming international and domestic tax rules better than anyone else.
"U.S.-based multinationals that are pursuing inversion transactions have been quick to wrap themselves in a mantle of simple virtue, forced to take the unpalatable step of inverting into Irish, U.K. or Swiss public companies because their love goes unrequited by a country that cruelly saddles them with both the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and a uniquely punitive worldwide tax base," writes Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California, and a former chief of staff for Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. This argument, he writes, "is almost entirely fact-free." (The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin was first to write about Kleinbard's new paper, in his Tuesday column for the New York Times).
Large American companies are so clever at scoping out loopholes and finding ways to shift earnings to low-tax jurisdictions that most never pay anything close to the top 35 percent U.S. corporate rate that the complain about so loudly, Kleinbard writes. Source
That's a good point. If your company is adept enough to pull off an inversion, how in the world is your company paying the full 35% corporate tax?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
