another police shooting - a therapist helping a man with autism

[Miss Peregrine]

Here's an article that I found very interesting:

 

The Myth Of The Good Cop

 

I think he brings out some very good points and really underscores how the problem of police aggression is more than just "bad apples."

Just his opinion and he won't even put his name on the article. Grain of salt.

[Sneezyone]

Just his opinion and he won't even put his name on the article. Grain of salt.

 

I've heard this from family in LE as well. If I were in his/her shoes, I wouldn't put m y name on it either. Some of them really do feel it's us vs. them and anyone who expresses legitimate criticism is a traitor.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Sneezyone

[8circles]

I don't understand how it's so obvious that the police might be at heightened stress/anxiety levels at the moment but not see how the same could happen in certain neighborhoods or groups of people.  

[Sneezyone]

I bolded and italicized and underlined that part, because I think that it's that important.  SOME police forces.  There are tens of thousands of police forces across the country, with something like a million officers.  They are in all levels of government.  And...they are NOT all the same.  They train differently.  They have different laws they enforce.  And I really really hate the idea of painting all one million cops with the same brush.  Especially if that brush is based on a few hundred instances, over the brush of all the other instances that DON'T involve excessive use of force. 

 

Isn't that happening with the citizen groups though? Aren't all of those raising issues of police brutality being painted with a broad brush? I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying BOTH are unhelpful.

[zoobie]

I assume that the reference is the idea that the guy that shot 5 cops in Dallas is representive of BLM or black people as a whole.  Which, IMO, ignores that many people DO think the guy that shot the cops in Dallas was not representive of BLM.  Just like the Orlando shooter is not representitive of Muslims. 

 

That's what I was wondering. The murderer in Dallas was anti-BLM and anti-police. He's not an apple in BLM at all. He's black, but that doesn't make him a member of the group. (It's also an open group vs closed group of police, so we are talking about apples and oranges if we want to continue a fruit analogy.)

 

I thought the "bad apple" police analogy was proffered by people who want to argue there isn't a pervasive problem with policing in the United States. I don't think that most of these shootings are carried out by someone who became an officer for the purpose of executing citizens. 

[goldberry]

 

It's going to be awfully hard to victim-blame on this one, I hope.

 

But see, we have this subjective thing going, that the shooter only has to "feel" that he is being threatened.  Isn't that why the Trayvon Martin shooter got off?  And other police shooters have been acquitted?

 

They don't have to actually "be" threatened, they only have to "feel" threatened.  That is mind boggling to me.  How can the standard of acquittal be based on a subjective view of what someone feels rather than what actually occurs?   

 

In this environment, there could be many reasons to feel threatened.  And yet a police officer should be trained to assess the actual situation and not just their feelings.

[Stacia]

I mentioned this on the locked BLM thread, but a white male with Down syndrome was murdered by police last year in a movie theater.

I personally witnessed an episode last year where an uneducated and paranoid mother called police when a young adult male with Down syndrome talked to her children at the park.

 

At a time when society is said to be more embracing and accepting of people with special needs, as a parent of a child with special needs, things like this terrify me. I do not think police are well trained in how to interact with special needs patients. I do not think society (in general) can identify or put the clues together to recognize special needs children/adults.

In the incident I witnessed at the park, the young man with Down syndrome had low muscle tone and was riding an adapted bike. I wouldn't expect most to realize low muscle tone, but the adapted bike was a big giveaway.

 

Not to derail from the original post, but yes, yes, & yes to this.

 

I think it's not just police but our overall society embracing & hyping an "us vs. other" mindset (whether that is based on skin color, religion, mental/physical development, etc...). I think there's a trend toward a "combat" mindset among many police departments, as well as among the populace in general (part of the reason why armed civilians worries me).

 

I have an adult cousin with developmental disabilities. I also know an adult woman with similar disabilities who often patronizes my place of work (a public location). In both cases, these are adult white females, yet I sometimes see people physically cringe away from them (esp. because they sometimes randomly say "hi" to strangers or try to talk to a stranger), give them nasty looks, etc.... People are suspicious of them. Part of that may be natural suspicion in an "uncomfortable" (i.e., out of the norm) situation, but I think part also comes from societal norms that create & reinforce division (FB posts anyone?), histrionic news reporting (supporting the mindset that you can't step outside of your house w/out worrying about being attacked; it's even to the point that some people routinely expect home invasion & so on), etc....

 

I don't know.... Just my little side ramble. I'm not trying to take away from the gravity of this shooting (which horrifies me on so many levels). Parts of this most recent shooting reminds me of a shooting of a black man in SC a couple of years ago. I am at a loss for words.

 

I think all of us (& I'm including police departments, as well as all individuals) need to work on creating an environment that teaches & supports de-escalation as a first response.

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Stacia

[TravelingChris]

It was horrifying.  ANd I did see the video and nothing justifies the shooting.  I am just happy that this man survived.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Man that's a crazy awful story.  I don't know what the hell to make of that.

 

 

[catz]

I bolded and italicized and underlined that part, because I think that it's that important.  SOME police forces.  There are tens of thousands of police forces across the country, with something like a million officers.  They are in all levels of government.  And...they are NOT all the same.  They train differently.  They have different laws they enforce.  And I really really hate the idea of painting all one million cops with the same brush.  Especially if that brush is based on a few hundred instances, over the brush of all the other instances that DON'T involve excessive use of force. 

 

If there are ways to minimize killings by or OF Police for that matter, we should be looking at them.  Death for someone who is not actually threatening a police officer's (or the public's) life is just not appropriate.  Ever.  I don't see why it isn't a good idea to give police officers more tools to read and evaluate situations instead of less. 

 

Most citizens don't want to hurt a cop or anyone either and too many police seem to evaluate every situation like everyone's a threat.  There are forces doing good work in this regard and have brought down the levels of police killings.  We should look carefully at what these forces are doing right.

Edited July 21, 2016 by WoolySocks

[luuknam]

If there are ways to minimize killings by or OF Police for that matter, we should be looking at them.

 

Agreed. That said, a (black) economics professor at Harvard looked at the numbers:

 

What shocked Mr Fryer was when he looked in detail at reports of police shootings. He got two separate research teams to read, code and analyse over 1,300 shootings between 2000 and 2015 in ten police departments, including Houston and Los Angeles. To his surprise, he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks. This was apparent both in the raw data, and once the characteristics of the suspect and the context of the encounter were accounted for.

 

Mr Fryer dug deeper into the data. He combed through 6,000 incident reports from Houston, including all the shootings, incidents involving Tasers and a sample in which lethal force could have justifiably been used but was not. What he found was even more startling: black suspects appear less likely to be shot than non-black ones, fatally or otherwise.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21702219-are-black-americans-more-likely-be-shot-or-roughed-up-police-quantifying-black-lives

[Guest]

Agreed. That said, a (black) economics professor at Harvard looked at the numbers:

 

What shocked Mr Fryer was when he looked in detail at reports of police shootings. He got two separate research teams to read, code and analyse over 1,300 shootings between 2000 and 2015 in ten police departments, including Houston and Los Angeles. To his surprise, he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks. This was apparent both in the raw data, and once the characteristics of the suspect and the context of the encounter were accounted for.

 

Mr Fryer dug deeper into the data. He combed through 6,000 incident reports from Houston, including all the shootings, incidents involving Tasers and a sample in which lethal force could have justifiably been used but was not. What he found was even more startling: black suspects appear less likely to be shot than non-black ones, fatally or otherwise.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21702219-are-black-americans-more-likely-be-shot-or-roughed-up-police-quantifying-black-lives

I have thought about bringing up that study a number of times and decided not to because it would likely be dismissed coming from me, but it's an engaging and thought provoking read. But the data was thorough and his methods were sound. The full report is worth finding and reading.

 

Thank you for sharing it so I didn't have to :lol:

Edited July 21, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Sneezyone]

Agreed. That said, a (black) economics professor at Harvard looked at the numbers:

 

What shocked Mr Fryer was when he looked in detail at reports of police shootings. He got two separate research teams to read, code and analyse over 1,300 shootings between 2000 and 2015 in ten police departments, including Houston and Los Angeles. To his surprise, he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks. This was apparent both in the raw data, and once the characteristics of the suspect and the context of the encounter were accounted for.

 

Mr Fryer dug deeper into the data. He combed through 6,000 incident reports from Houston, including all the shootings, incidents involving Tasers and a sample in which lethal force could have justifiably been used but was not. What he found was even more startling: black suspects appear less likely to be shot than non-black ones, fatally or otherwise.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21702219-are-black-americans-more-likely-be-shot-or-roughed-up-police-quantifying-black-lives

 

You are completely ignoring the part of his data that demonstrated differences in a) the number of violent encounters by race and b) the amount of force used during those encounters by race. To focus solely on the small number of encounters in one city that involved deadly force and ignore the fact that the likelihood of any one black person having a negative/deadly interaction increases due to the targeting of those groups, is disingenuous. Simply put, that article doesn't suggest there are no problems with LEO use of force. Similarly, the professor acknowledged that this the data is incomplete, gathered from self-reported police stats and news reports that are not known to be accurate. There are no accurate stats on these issues in part due to the bans on collecting and analyzing gun deaths in this country.

 

From your link:

"These findings need caveats. Houston is one city; there are no equally detailed data for the rest of the country (though findings in the other districts seem to support the conclusions). The city voluntarily submitted its reports; it may have been confident of its lack of bias. Critics of Mr Fryer’s work have pointed out that his paper does not address any bias in an officer’s decision to stop a black person in the first place—a common criticism of stop and frisk. Mr Fryer acknowledges that blacks are more likely to be stopped, but adds that his findings are consistent with other types of encounter between police and civilians."

Edited July 21, 2016 by Sneezyone

[Ravin]

Just as background info, my husband worked as an occupational therapist to developmentally disabled. He had a laminated card to give to the police in case one of his clients began to act out. He was trained how to address the police because they do encounter police more often than you would think. 

 

The police didn't let this man near enough to them to hand them a card. He was calm, respectful, and obedient the entire time, and repeatedly identified himself, his job, and what was going on with his client.

 

And he still got shot.

[StaceyinLA]

I think it's when it can be shown to be part of a larger trend. The statistics are pretty clear that you're much more likely to be shot by police if you're black. It's a larger trend. <<

 

 

Actually, this is incorrect. A black Harvard professor just did a study in the last two weeks (since the Baton Rouge shooting), and this is not the case. In fact, the professor himself was shocked by his findings. His studies did show that more other types of force are used with blacks overall (more tazing and those types of things), but as far as shooting/killing, no. If I can find the link to his study and figure out how to post it, I will.

 

I think what makes people assume this is the differences in media reporting.

 

ETA - I found it pretty easily searching, but I cannot figure out how to link. It was actually published in the NYT recently.

Edited July 21, 2016 by StaceyinLA

[Guest]

The police didn't let this man near enough to them to hand them a card. He was calm, respectful, and obedient the entire time, and repeatedly identified himself, his job, and what was going on with his client.

 

And he still got shot.

I haven't seen the video - does it look like an accidental discharge or was the cop warning him he would get shot? This whole thing sounds totally bizarre.

[Sneezyone]

I think it's when it can be shown to be part of a larger trend. The statistics are pretty clear that you're much more likely to be shot by police if you're black. It's a larger trend. <<

 

 

Actually, this is incorrect. A black Harvard professor just did a study in the last two weeks (since the Baton Rouge shooting), and a larger percentage of white men are shot/killed by police than blacks (it was a considerably larger number). In fact, the professor himself was shocked by his findings. His studies did show that more other types of force are used with blacks overall (more tazing and those types of things), but as far as shooting/killing, no. If I can find the link to his study and figure out how to post it, I will.

 

I think what makes people assume this is the differences in media reporting.

 

See the above link from the economist regarding the professor's working paper/study.

 

Also this from the NBER Web site (http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf):

"NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. "

 

Science folks.

[JustEm]

I haven't seen the video - does it look like an accidental discharge or was the cop warning him he would get shot? This whole thing sounds totally bizarre.

The only video I've seen isn't of the actual shooting, is that out? It is of before and after. In the before video the only cop I see is pretty far away.

Edited July 21, 2016 by hjffkj

[zoobie]

Even ignoring the caveats of that study, the BLM movement supports increasing police training and accountability to reduce ALL unnecessary shootings. Whether this cop was aiming for the autistic man or the black therapist, the point is that neither should have been in police crosshairs.

[Ravin]

I think it's when it can be shown to be part of a larger trend. The statistics are pretty clear that you're much more likely to be shot by police if you're black. It's a larger trend. <<

 

 

Actually, this is incorrect. A black Harvard professor just did a study in the last two weeks (since the Baton Rouge shooting), and a larger percentage of white men are shot/killed by police than blacks (it was a considerably larger number). In fact, the professor himself was shocked by his findings. His studies did show that more other types of force are used with blacks overall (more tazing and those types of things), but as far as shooting/killing, no. If I can find the link to his study and figure out how to post it, I will.

 

I think what makes people assume this is the differences in media reporting.

 

So, we can compare this studies to the other statistics that are out there. It does not all by itself debunk the reality that stuff like this keeps happening.

 

Just to be clear: cops should not be shooting and killing anyone except in the VERY rare instances where it is immediately necessary for public safety (like taking down a mass shooter). 

 

In the present case, as soon as it was clear (by using their eyes and seeing what was actually in front of them--if we can see it on camera, the officers could see it with their naked eyes!) that the "suspicious person" had a toy truck, and not a weapon, they should have put their own weapons away.

 

There was NEVER any REASONABLE reason to handcuff the man they shot, let alone shoot him.

[luuknam]

You are completely ignoring the part of his data that demonstrated differences in a) the number of violent encounters by race and b) the amount of force used during those encounters by race. To focus solely on the small number of encounters in one city that involved deadly force and ignore the fact that the likelihood of any one black person having a negative/deadly interaction increases due to the targeting of those groups, is disingenuous.

 

For one, I didn't only post the part about Houston, I also posted the part about the 10 police departments including (yes, Houston) and Los Angeles. And, people were talking about police shootings, so I posted the part about police shootings, not about other things police does. Also, I cannot quote the entire article because of copyright issues.

 

The point was that the data seem to indicate that the police don't go about shooting black people all over the place just because, so let's not talk like they do. Which doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, and obviously this shooting was completely unwarranted.

[Guest]

The only video seen isn't of the actual shooting, is that out? It is of before and after. In the before video the only cop I see is pretty far away.

I have no idea, this is the first I've heard of the story. In my mind it makes more sense as an accident unles it was clear the whole thing was aggressive. But nobody knows except the people who were there if there is no video. I'm just glad nobody died!

[ktgrok]

Im' praying that Miami stays calm with this all over the news. Miami can be a bit of a rough place, at least in parts. 

[Sneezyone]

I just love how a single working paper, which flies in the face of all other existing data re: disproportionate LEO use of force, has become dogma in the course of a month.

[Ravin]

I haven't seen the video - does it look like an accidental discharge or was the cop warning him he would get shot? This whole thing sounds totally bizarre.

 

An "accidental discharge" of multiple shots should not happen.

 

An accidental discharge of even one shot by a trained professional also should not happen. My daddy and my Navy drill instructor taught me that you NEVER put your finger on the trigger unless/until you intend to shoot. Surely they teach that in the police academy as well.

[ktgrok]

My best guess, and it is only a guess, is that the autistic man got up and started moving towards police, and that's when the shooting happened. We don't have video though, so I'm just grasping at straws as to why they might shoot. I'd like to think police officers don't accidentally shoot! (not justifying it all, just trying to figure out what might have happened)

[Sneezyone]

For one, I didn't only post the part about Houston, I also posted the part about the 10 police departments including (yes, Houston) and Los Angeles. And, people were talking about police shootings, so I posted the part about police shootings, not about other things police does. Also, I cannot quote the entire article because of copyright issues.

 

The point was that the data seem to indicate that the police don't go about shooting black people all over the place just because, so let's not talk like they do. Which doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, and obviously this shooting was completely unwarranted.

 

The data are also preliminary, not peer-reviewed,  not complete and not final. The author has openly admitted as much. To cite it as fact is not cool.

[Stacia]

Even ignoring the caveats of that study, the BLM movement supports increasing police training and accountability to reduce ALL unnecessary shootings. Whether this cop was aiming for the autistic man or the black therapist, the point is that neither should have been in police crosshairs.

 

I agree.

 

I think some news reports have stated that the initial call that came in described someone threatening suicide w/ a gun.

 

I always thought that police &/or police negotiators worked to help prevent suicides? So why would you be aiming a gun at someone threatening suicide? (Just asking for the sake of discussion in case it was the autistic man who was in the crosshairs & not the counselor?) To me, it shows just further example of things being escalated vs. de-escalated.

 

Regardless, the entire situation is just mind-boggling.

[8circles]

From the economist article.

"Mr Fryer adds that blacks who were reported by cops as being perfectly compliant with police instructions during their interactions were still 21.1% more likely than whites to have some force used against them. This points to racial prejudice."

 

I wonder if the increase in awareness that the above is a problem has had (is having, will have) any affect on the number of actual shootings.

[zoobie]

I have no idea, this is the first I've heard of the story. In my mind it makes more sense as an accident unles it was clear the whole thing was aggressive. But nobody knows except the people who were there if there is no video. I'm just glad nobody died!

 

They accidentally shot a man then decided to handcuff him, face down and bleeding on the pavement? Oops.

[luuknam]

The data are also preliminary, not peer-reviewed,  not complete and not final. The author has openly admitted as much. To cite it as fact is not cool.

 

The article said it was a paper that was published July 11. It did not say it was a working paper or w/e. So blame The Economist for that, not me.

[Sneezyone]

From the economist article.

"Mr Fryer adds that blacks who were reported by cops as being perfectly compliant with police instructions during their interactions were still 21.1% more likely than whites to have some force used against them. This points to racial prejudice."

 

I wonder if the increase in awareness that the above is a problem has had (is having, will have) any affect on the number of actual shootings.

 

That could very well be the case. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants tho? Maybe increasing public awareness is actually increasing sensitivity/changing behavior?

[SKL]

It was cited as "a study."  A piece of information.  Intelligent people can process it intelligently.  Censorship is not cool.

[Sneezyone]

The article said it was a paper that was published July 11. It did not say it was a working paper or w/e. So blame The Economist for that, not me.

 

I don't lay blame for not knowing it was a working paper. I do lay blame for not reading the article through to its caveats (which are too often buried) and the making of very broad statements on the basis of just one study. We are homeschoolers, no? We.do.school. It took me 5 min. to google and link to the working paper.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Sneezyone

[Laurie4b]

Not disagreeing, but based on what I know about my state....I don't see them moving towards that.   It's going to take a major culture shift.  I hope I'm wrong, though.  Plus, the training they are getting is often the complete opposite.  http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/486150716/are-police-being-taught-to-pull-the-trigger-too-fast

 

"

"One of the cultural changes that has gone along with what we call the militarization of policing is a type of training that specifically comes from military-trained people that emphasizes that the police need to have a warrior mindset," Kraska says.

By that he means certain training companies, which, over the past couple of decades, have become very influential in the police world. What he doesn't like about these companies, Kraska says, is the way they rely on videos from dashboard cameras and body cams that show officers being surprised or ambushed by suspects, sometimes with fatal results. He says emphasizing these moments in training can make officers paranoid."

 

Wish Mrs. Mungo was still around. She is a military wife and  I recall her posting that military are required to use de-escalation strategies unless directly engaged in combat with enemies and there was very strict criteria for any escalation. My recollection was that this was true when they were patrolling a city in Iraq for instance, even though they were aware there were pockets of guerilla groups who might attack. And to disobey the de-escalation protocol resulted in court-martial. I hope someone military is here who can better spell this out as I am relying on memory. 

 

But this would be an area in which actual military training of police could help. 

[Ravin]

Not disagreeing, but based on what I know about my state....I don't see them moving towards that.   It's going to take a major culture shift.  I hope I'm wrong, though.  Plus, the training they are getting is often the complete opposite.  http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/486150716/are-police-being-taught-to-pull-the-trigger-too-fast

 

"

"One of the cultural changes that has gone along with what we call the militarization of policing is a type of training that specifically comes from military-trained people that emphasizes that the police need to have a warrior mindset," Kraska says.

By that he means certain training companies, which, over the past couple of decades, have become very influential in the police world. What he doesn't like about these companies, Kraska says, is the way they rely on videos from dashboard cameras and body cams that show officers being surprised or ambushed by suspects, sometimes with fatal results. He says emphasizing these moments in training can make officers paranoid."

 

A major culture shift is exactly what BLM is pushing for.

 

We need decriminalization of addiction and better care for the mentally ill, and a totally different mindset for police--they should be peace officers first, law enforcement second. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way towards ending the #1 excuse for the war on African-American and other minority communities. Fixing our immigration system would help a lot, too.

[JustEm]

My best guess, and it is only a guess, is that the autistic man got up and started moving towards police, and that's when the shooting happened. We don't have video though, so I'm just grasping at straws as to why they might shoot. I'd like to think police officers don't accidentally shoot! (not justifying it all, just trying to figure out what might have happened)

This is my best guess as well.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You are completely ignoring the part of his data that demonstrated differences in a) the number of violent encounters by race and b) the amount of force used during those encounters by race. To focus solely on the small number of encounters in one city that involved deadly force and ignore the fact that the likelihood of any one black person having a negative/deadly interaction increases due to the targeting of those groups, is disingenuous. Simply put, that article doesn't suggest there are no problems with LEO use of force. Similarly, the professor acknowledged that this the data is incomplete, gathered from self-reported police stats and news reports that are not known to be accurate. There are no accurate stats on these issues in part due to the bans on collecting and analyzing gun deaths in this country.

 

From your link:

"These findings need caveats. Houston is one city; there are no equally detailed data for the rest of the country (though findings in the other districts seem to support the conclusions). The city voluntarily submitted its reports; it may have been confident of its lack of bias. Critics of Mr Fryer’s work have pointed out that his paper does not address any bias in an officer’s decision to stop a black person in the first place—a common criticism of stop and frisk. Mr Fryer acknowledges that blacks are more likely to be stopped, but adds that his findings are consistent with other types of encounter between police and civilians."

I want to note that the Congressional ban on collecting gun death data does not preclude the DOJ from requiring that police departments provide information on officer involved shootings. It simply has never been required and should be.

[goldberry]

From the economist article.

"Mr Fryer adds that blacks who were reported by cops as being perfectly compliant with police instructions during their interactions were still 21.1% more likely than whites to have some force used against them. This points to racial prejudice."

 

.

 

That is a significant percentage!  Wow. And that's even when reported by the cops themselves as compliant.  Obviously there would be additional cases where the suspect claimed compliance but the cops disputed it.

[Sneezyone]

I want to note that the Congressional ban on collecting gun death data does not preclude the DOJ from requiring that police departments provide information on officer involved shootings. It simply has never been required and should be.

 

This is true. That is also because Congresspeople, like my dear Senator Cotton, have threatened DOJ and CDC funding if they even attempt mandatory collection/reporting.

[luuknam]

I don't lay blame for not knowing it was a working paper. I do lay blame for not reading the article through to its caveats (which are too often buried) and the making of very broad statements on the basis of just one study. We are homeschoolers, no? We.do.school. It took me 5 min. to google and link to the working paper.

 

I read the entire article. I did not feel the need to link the caveats because 1) I was concerned that copying any more of the article would run into serious copyright concerns, and 2) anybody with half a brain can figure out that 10 police departments and then 1 police department in detail is going to have some caveats in a country with I'm guessing thousands of police departments.

 

No, I did not search for the actual study, because I thought The Economist is a reputable source. It's not like I cited an article in a tabloid.

 

Anyway, I'm done. I just felt a need to throw in the article as a data point since people were saying black people get shot more often (without giving any citations - somehow people are more upset with me for providing a citation than with other people who are not providing any citations - sorry, but that doesn't make any sense).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is true. That is also because Congresspeople, like my dear Senator Cotton, have threatened DOJ and CDC funding if they even attempt mandatory collection/reporting.

He could try but the DOJ would be on fairly safe ground collecting those statistics.

[goldberry]

I want to note that the Congressional ban on collecting gun death data does not preclude the DOJ from requiring that police departments provide information on officer involved shootings. It simply has never been required and should be.

 

Yeah, why in the world would that not be tracked?  The article also pointed out that the departments who would voluntarily hand over data would likely be confident of what the data would reveal.  If it's not required, would any department that knew it had a problem hand over data?  The results would be necessarily skewed.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I just wonder what kind of training do police officers get and how much.  It must be difficult because back in the day adults with issues were kept mostly locked away in institutions.  Now they are out in the community.  Yet do police officers, for example, get educated about this sort of thing?  You see an adult doing something kinda off the wall, I can imagine not knowing how to interpret that.  I'm not in any way defending the police officer or anyone...just I wonder if maybe the training isn't enough.

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah, why in the world would that not be tracked?  The article also pointed out that the departments who would voluntarily hand over data would likely be confident of what the data would reveal.  If it's not required, would any department that knew it had a problem hand over data?  The results would be necessarily skewed.

 

Because the truth is too damning?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I read the entire article. I did not feel the need to link the caveats because 1) I was concerned that copying any more of the article would run into serious copyright concerns, and 2) anybody with half a brain can figure out that 10 police departments and then 1 police department in detail is going to have some caveats in a country with I'm guessing thousands of police departments.

 

No, I did not search for the actual study, because I thought The Economist is a reputable source. It's not like I cited an article in a tabloid.

 

Anyway, I'm done. I just felt a need to throw in the article as a data point since people were saying black people get shot more often (without giving any citations - somehow people are more upset with me for providing a citation than with other people who are not providing any citations - sorry, but that doesn't make any sense).

In fairness the statistics on the number of blacks killed by the police has been widely reported over the past two years, and those raw numbers are not in dispute. Repeatedly citing those same numbers doesn't add much to the discussion.

[goldberry]

 

No, I did not search for the actual study, because I thought The Economist is a reputable source. It's not like I cited an article in a tabloid.

 

 

 

I also think of the Economist as reputable.  The weak point to me is pointed out here:

 

The city voluntarily submitted its reports; it may have been confident of its lack of bias.

 

As I mentioned, without reports being required, no department with a problem is going to voluntarily submit reports.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

I was in Starbucks with a friend when a family came out of the restroom with their approximately 10 year old son being carried out in a pillow case. That was a sight. He was obviously upset. His head was out, but it was obvious they were making an effort not to touch him. I'm thinking Autism, my friend is thinking kidnapping. They came back into the store with the boy calm and out of the pillowcase after about 20 minutes. We all need to be trained to identify and hopefully help those in need, not just the police. 

 

Although there was a situation in my own family where a family member flipped out (mental illness).  The police were called and they were very very calm and nice about it.  They treated that person kindly and didn't get rough or threatening.  They could have easily done that because hey it did appear to be a pretty intense situation.  And that was about 30 years ago.

 

So yeah you really have to wonder what in hell is going on with some people.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I also think of the Economist as reputable. The weak point to me is pointed out here:

 

The city voluntarily submitted its reports; it may have been confident of its lack of bias.

 

As I mentioned, without reports being required, no department with a problem is going to voluntarily submit reports.

Back in the 2000s there was a study that supposedly proved the superiority of homeschooling by comparing standardized test scores. I saw it cited time and time again on various boards and would get a backlash when I would point out how flawed it was. The results were derived by comparing the public school averages to the scores of homeschoolers who voluntarily agreed to provide their scores. No matter how I tried to explain how that would bias the results, the same people would cite that study as the Ultimate Proof over and over.

 

Statistics don't lie...but you can often torture the numbers until they give you the answer you want.

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

Statistics don't lie...but you can often torture the numbers until they give you the answer you want.

 

aint that the truth