Fatal Police Shootings Through July 29, 2020

[j-mac]

First Nonsense. Let me put your statistics into context. Let's say that you are a cop and you are writing tickets to speeders. You have a stretch of road, a down hill stretch of road that you are on every day. Pretty much everyone is speeding. You don't like Red Cars, and you pull over more of them than any other color. In fact, half the cars you pull over are red. Perhaps the color attracts the eye easier, whatever. In a few months, the statistics say that Red Cars are more likely to be speeding than any other color car. So now, you have a Statistical proof that Red Cars are driven dangerously, and you can focus on the Red Cars even more, because statistically it is more likely that they are speeding than other cars. When the truth is that everyone is driving about the same speed, and it is merely your choice that makes the Red Cars the targets.

You have to go to a larger subset of statistics. Let's take Traffic Stops.

The Stanford Open Policing Project

We are collecting, releasing, and analyzing data on millions of traffic stops across the United States.

openpolicing.stanford.edu

Now, what did we learn looking at over 200 million traffic stops? We learned that Blacks were pulled over more often than whites, statistically speaking. So obviously Black Drivers were more likely to be speeding and driving recklessly right? Yet, those same Black Drivers were pulled over less often at night, when the color or identity of the driver was harder to discern. So wait a minute, if Black Drivers were in fact more likely to be speeding, than that would continue through to the darkness wouldn't it? Yet, in the dark, when you could not tell the car was driven by a Black, they were less likely to be pulled over. Odd isn't it? Seeing Red Cars yet?

SO let's go with Searches. Blacks were more likely to have their cars searched, yet they were less likely statistically speaking to have actionable contraband. By that I mean enough drugs to warrant an arrest, or weapons, or other illegal items in the car. So wait a minute. If Whites were more likely statistically speaking, to have that contraband, why were they not searched more often than their Black counterparts? Red cars anyone?

But let's look at the arrest and conviction rates. Blacks being generally poorer than the Whites were often unable to afford quality Legal Council. Back to cars. A $15,000 hatchback is not going to be as good as a $150,000 sedan right? So quality cost money, and quality delivers better results.

What happened when a Black man was able to afford that quality legal representation? OJ Simpson anyone? Even now people are outraged that he got off. Several on this board will probably reply that it was because of his race, but it really wasn't. IT was because his lawyers were the best in the nation, and cost several million dollars to defend him. When the legal representation is that expensive, like the quality car we mentioned above, it usually gets much better results.

Then we have the Police. A survey of Judges, and Lawyers, indicated that they believed that police lied in about one case out of five. In other words, twenty percent of the court cases involving police have a lie in there somewhere. How they got the evidence, how they got something. Now, we know these lies are exposed when you have the high priced lawyers who have the money, time, and resources to check and double check every single assertion by the Police. They have investigators, junior lawyers, and others who go blind practically as they examine every thing the cop asserts. The statement of Mark Furman in the OJ Trial that he had never used the N word to describe a Black, and then the audio tape of him saying the word is a good example. At that point, everything that Mark Furman said was now suspect, and the Jury would doubt his assertions on the facts.

It wasn't that OJ was black, it was that OJ was represented by the finest Criminal Defense Lawyers in the Country. People who were legends before they took the case like F. Lee Baily. No public defenders office would have found that recording. No public Defender would have been able to attack the evidence piece by piece, and create the doubt that existed. Only a very skilled, and thus very expensive lawyer could.

Look at the Innocence Project. In nearly every single exoneration, we find that the Convicted Felon was represented by either a very cheap and thus not very good lawyer, or a Public Defender, who has fifty cases that he can't afford to spend the time, or resources to prove the defendant innocent. In every case, we find Police and Proprietorial Misconduct was rampant.

Now, lets step away from Statistics for a minute. We have shown I think that statistics can be made to show whatever you want, when you just look at the surface. Hence the old saying Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Let's talk about the Constitution. Every single citizen is entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. It is the basis of the idea, which has sadly never actually become reality, that no one is above the law. If we are to give the police a pass in their mistreatment of Blacks based upon demonstrably flawed statistics, we would be denying an entire group of people their rights under the Constitution. We would be driving one of the last, if not the last, nail in the coffin of our nation. We should demand that people, citizens, of this nation are treated fairly and equally. We should be voting anyone who makes such an argument out of office. And we should demand that any Judge who allows such nonsense to guide his actions be impeached and disbarred from ever working in the legal field ever again.

So the Statistics are at best questionable. The Actions of the police are certainly questionable, and the justification for those actions, the questionable statistics, is a weak reed to grasp.

Do you see the Red Cars yet? Because the red cars are right in front of you.

Sorry but your analogy doesn't work....The reason statistics fail to tell the picture here is that because every situation is different...We must look at these situations as stand alone's, and judge them individually....One thing I am noticing is that in nearly every case, involves the suspect resisting, or fighting against being detained which escalates the the event...

The stand alone does not work when you are examining a systemic problem. You were 101st Airborne. I was 82nd. Let's say that a unit has a roughly five percent injury rate on jumps. It is higher than the average for other units. If you look at the individual cases, you find that minor errors in landings and rigging caused the injuries. If you look at it as a Systemic Problem, the larger picture, you find that there is an issue with how the jumps are planned, and the training for the soldiers. Only by addressing the systemic can you hope to really understand the individual issues.

Another example. Several 737's started to fall out of the sky during the 1980's. These crashes were written off as weather, or pilot error. Experienced pilots causing problems that led to the crashes. Not unheard of but not the answer. It wasn't until the NTSB discovered a problem with the airplane that the crashes stopped. The actuator for the tail rudder was freezing, and causing an uncontrollable roll and turn. The Pilots never had a chance to understand what was happening or what to do to fix it, they were too close to the ground. The problem was not individual, it was systemic. A design flaw, an unintended flaw that nobody had ever considered even being possible.

But let's get back to police shootings. Looking at the individual cases means you examine the one, and find that while regrettable, it was allowable by law. When you examine the larger picture, you find that there were an awful lot of those regrettable but allowable incidents. In Georgia, nearly half of the people shot by police were unarmed, or shot in the back. Each case was regrettable, but allowable. Only when you examine the larger picture do you get the idea that we need to seriously reconsider our training and policies. Because half of the people being killed in such circumstances, is just too many.

OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia

Explore reports and cases from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s year-long examination of police shootings in Georgia.

investigations.ajc.com

When we look at the larger picture, we often learn a great deal. During World War II and Korea, and most of the way through Vietnam, Morphine was readily available to treat injured people with. We were doing the best we could, treating the agonizing pain of the wounded soldier. But it was not until someone took a larger look at the issue, that we discovered the truth. In treating the pain first, we were killing our soldiers. Killing them with good intentions. By shooting them up with Morphine, we were in fact sending them into shock, which killed them. Survivable wounds were killing people, because we did not know what was really happening. When we looked at the larger picture, we saw a problem. We discovered the answer, and adjusted the treatment regime, and restricted Morphine to the Medics, and told them that first you had to stabilize the patient, and treat them for shock, and then treat them for pain. Otherwise, pain was the patients problems. I do not blame the Medics and soldiers for their actions. We did not know. We thought we were doing the right thing. We believed we needed to do that to help our buddies. We learned, and now we know that to help our buddies, we may have to ignore their pain for a bit.

The larger picture, statistical trends is used in every other facet of life. Only when we come to Law Enforcement are the types of statistics we are allowed to talk about limited.

Take anything. Take the AV-8 Harrier that the Marines got. A fantastic plane. One of my favorites to be honest. The British told the Marines that the plane was a widowmaker. It would kill the pilot if he was not sufficiently trained and experienced. The Marines took this to heart, and for the first squadron assigned only experienced pilots to the aircraft. There were no accidents that led to the loss of aircraft. The Marines decided the British were overselling the dangers. Newer less experienced pilots were assigned, and immediately the number of accidents increased. Loss of aircraft, and dead pilots, and the truth was right in front of them. They could have written it off as we are in a dangerous business and accidents happen. Instead they looked at the systemic situation, and determined the truth. The pilots needed more experience before transitioning to the AV-8.

Topgun. The Naval Fighter training program. Started when statistics showed that the pilots were not trained sufficiently well in Dogfighting.

Low level flights. We learned using Statistics that our ideals of safety from anti aircraft weapons by flying low and fast was not true. The enemy could and would engage our aircraft. We suffered fewer lost aircraft by flying higher, because it gave the pilot time to react to the incoming fire.

We use statistics at work to maximize worker safety. Statistically workplaces with a heavy emphasis on safety suffer fewer injuries, and lost time accidents. Statistically people who work in industrial areas wearing personal protective gear suffer fewer injuries.

Statistics in this case show clear racism in the traffic stops. Statistics in the case of my State of Georgia show that we need to address the use of force policies and training to reduce the number of people shot by police. We will never be perfect. We can strive to be better. And only by looking at not only the individual incidents, but the systemic situation, can we ever hope to become better. Ignoring one will always keep you in the status quo, which means the mess you are in now.

Wow, you really try hard to muddy up a debate don't you? Look, Human's are not robots. Officers bring with them not only their training, and life experience doing the job, but multitude of other issues...What I'd like to see is this systematic racism you speak of within the system, quantified.....IOW, prove it. And not with analogy, after analogy....

For instance, show me where a white man caught with a couple of kilo's of weed, would be treated differently in the system than a black man caught with the same thing...

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

We’re dealing with stats here.
Logic, math and facts are beyond democrats and their fascistic agenda so don’t expect any reasoned response from a democrat.

Joe Biden, at the Iowa State Fair, mystified the crowd when he told them: We choose truth over facts."

Turns out it wasn’t a gaffe. They’re just stupid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We’re dealing with stats here.
Logic, math and facts are beyond democrats and their fascistic agenda so don’t expect any reasoned response from a democrat.

Joe Biden, at the Iowa State Fair, mystified the crowd when he told them: We choose truth over facts."

Turns out it wasn’t a gaffe. They’re just stupid.

yep you can repeat anything enough and make it the truth you want leftists are living proof of that
Even though that truth is a lie with the facts

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Unfamiliar with her, but understand your standards, not just your political leanings and hope you are correct and that she makes it to where she can make a difference.

I think it would be great for Baltimore, a city in terrible shape. But given the political machine that runs
the city the deck is stacked against her.

 

[SavannahMann]

First Nonsense. Let me put your statistics into context. Let's say that you are a cop and you are writing tickets to speeders. You have a stretch of road, a down hill stretch of road that you are on every day. Pretty much everyone is speeding. You don't like Red Cars, and you pull over more of them than any other color. In fact, half the cars you pull over are red. Perhaps the color attracts the eye easier, whatever. In a few months, the statistics say that Red Cars are more likely to be speeding than any other color car. So now, you have a Statistical proof that Red Cars are driven dangerously, and you can focus on the Red Cars even more, because statistically it is more likely that they are speeding than other cars. When the truth is that everyone is driving about the same speed, and it is merely your choice that makes the Red Cars the targets.

You have to go to a larger subset of statistics. Let's take Traffic Stops.

The Stanford Open Policing Project

We are collecting, releasing, and analyzing data on millions of traffic stops across the United States.

openpolicing.stanford.edu

Now, what did we learn looking at over 200 million traffic stops? We learned that Blacks were pulled over more often than whites, statistically speaking. So obviously Black Drivers were more likely to be speeding and driving recklessly right? Yet, those same Black Drivers were pulled over less often at night, when the color or identity of the driver was harder to discern. So wait a minute, if Black Drivers were in fact more likely to be speeding, than that would continue through to the darkness wouldn't it? Yet, in the dark, when you could not tell the car was driven by a Black, they were less likely to be pulled over. Odd isn't it? Seeing Red Cars yet?

SO let's go with Searches. Blacks were more likely to have their cars searched, yet they were less likely statistically speaking to have actionable contraband. By that I mean enough drugs to warrant an arrest, or weapons, or other illegal items in the car. So wait a minute. If Whites were more likely statistically speaking, to have that contraband, why were they not searched more often than their Black counterparts? Red cars anyone?

But let's look at the arrest and conviction rates. Blacks being generally poorer than the Whites were often unable to afford quality Legal Council. Back to cars. A $15,000 hatchback is not going to be as good as a $150,000 sedan right? So quality cost money, and quality delivers better results.

What happened when a Black man was able to afford that quality legal representation? OJ Simpson anyone? Even now people are outraged that he got off. Several on this board will probably reply that it was because of his race, but it really wasn't. IT was because his lawyers were the best in the nation, and cost several million dollars to defend him. When the legal representation is that expensive, like the quality car we mentioned above, it usually gets much better results.

Then we have the Police. A survey of Judges, and Lawyers, indicated that they believed that police lied in about one case out of five. In other words, twenty percent of the court cases involving police have a lie in there somewhere. How they got the evidence, how they got something. Now, we know these lies are exposed when you have the high priced lawyers who have the money, time, and resources to check and double check every single assertion by the Police. They have investigators, junior lawyers, and others who go blind practically as they examine every thing the cop asserts. The statement of Mark Furman in the OJ Trial that he had never used the N word to describe a Black, and then the audio tape of him saying the word is a good example. At that point, everything that Mark Furman said was now suspect, and the Jury would doubt his assertions on the facts.

It wasn't that OJ was black, it was that OJ was represented by the finest Criminal Defense Lawyers in the Country. People who were legends before they took the case like F. Lee Baily. No public defenders office would have found that recording. No public Defender would have been able to attack the evidence piece by piece, and create the doubt that existed. Only a very skilled, and thus very expensive lawyer could.

Look at the Innocence Project. In nearly every single exoneration, we find that the Convicted Felon was represented by either a very cheap and thus not very good lawyer, or a Public Defender, who has fifty cases that he can't afford to spend the time, or resources to prove the defendant innocent. In every case, we find Police and Proprietorial Misconduct was rampant.

Now, lets step away from Statistics for a minute. We have shown I think that statistics can be made to show whatever you want, when you just look at the surface. Hence the old saying Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Let's talk about the Constitution. Every single citizen is entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. It is the basis of the idea, which has sadly never actually become reality, that no one is above the law. If we are to give the police a pass in their mistreatment of Blacks based upon demonstrably flawed statistics, we would be denying an entire group of people their rights under the Constitution. We would be driving one of the last, if not the last, nail in the coffin of our nation. We should demand that people, citizens, of this nation are treated fairly and equally. We should be voting anyone who makes such an argument out of office. And we should demand that any Judge who allows such nonsense to guide his actions be impeached and disbarred from ever working in the legal field ever again.

So the Statistics are at best questionable. The Actions of the police are certainly questionable, and the justification for those actions, the questionable statistics, is a weak reed to grasp.

Do you see the Red Cars yet? Because the red cars are right in front of you.

Sorry but your analogy doesn't work....The reason statistics fail to tell the picture here is that because every situation is different...We must look at these situations as stand alone's, and judge them individually....One thing I am noticing is that in nearly every case, involves the suspect resisting, or fighting against being detained which escalates the the event...

The stand alone does not work when you are examining a systemic problem. You were 101st Airborne. I was 82nd. Let's say that a unit has a roughly five percent injury rate on jumps. It is higher than the average for other units. If you look at the individual cases, you find that minor errors in landings and rigging caused the injuries. If you look at it as a Systemic Problem, the larger picture, you find that there is an issue with how the jumps are planned, and the training for the soldiers. Only by addressing the systemic can you hope to really understand the individual issues.

Another example. Several 737's started to fall out of the sky during the 1980's. These crashes were written off as weather, or pilot error. Experienced pilots causing problems that led to the crashes. Not unheard of but not the answer. It wasn't until the NTSB discovered a problem with the airplane that the crashes stopped. The actuator for the tail rudder was freezing, and causing an uncontrollable roll and turn. The Pilots never had a chance to understand what was happening or what to do to fix it, they were too close to the ground. The problem was not individual, it was systemic. A design flaw, an unintended flaw that nobody had ever considered even being possible.

But let's get back to police shootings. Looking at the individual cases means you examine the one, and find that while regrettable, it was allowable by law. When you examine the larger picture, you find that there were an awful lot of those regrettable but allowable incidents. In Georgia, nearly half of the people shot by police were unarmed, or shot in the back. Each case was regrettable, but allowable. Only when you examine the larger picture do you get the idea that we need to seriously reconsider our training and policies. Because half of the people being killed in such circumstances, is just too many.

OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia

Explore reports and cases from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s year-long examination of police shootings in Georgia.

investigations.ajc.com

When we look at the larger picture, we often learn a great deal. During World War II and Korea, and most of the way through Vietnam, Morphine was readily available to treat injured people with. We were doing the best we could, treating the agonizing pain of the wounded soldier. But it was not until someone took a larger look at the issue, that we discovered the truth. In treating the pain first, we were killing our soldiers. Killing them with good intentions. By shooting them up with Morphine, we were in fact sending them into shock, which killed them. Survivable wounds were killing people, because we did not know what was really happening. When we looked at the larger picture, we saw a problem. We discovered the answer, and adjusted the treatment regime, and restricted Morphine to the Medics, and told them that first you had to stabilize the patient, and treat them for shock, and then treat them for pain. Otherwise, pain was the patients problems. I do not blame the Medics and soldiers for their actions. We did not know. We thought we were doing the right thing. We believed we needed to do that to help our buddies. We learned, and now we know that to help our buddies, we may have to ignore their pain for a bit.

The larger picture, statistical trends is used in every other facet of life. Only when we come to Law Enforcement are the types of statistics we are allowed to talk about limited.

Take anything. Take the AV-8 Harrier that the Marines got. A fantastic plane. One of my favorites to be honest. The British told the Marines that the plane was a widowmaker. It would kill the pilot if he was not sufficiently trained and experienced. The Marines took this to heart, and for the first squadron assigned only experienced pilots to the aircraft. There were no accidents that led to the loss of aircraft. The Marines decided the British were overselling the dangers. Newer less experienced pilots were assigned, and immediately the number of accidents increased. Loss of aircraft, and dead pilots, and the truth was right in front of them. They could have written it off as we are in a dangerous business and accidents happen. Instead they looked at the systemic situation, and determined the truth. The pilots needed more experience before transitioning to the AV-8.

Topgun. The Naval Fighter training program. Started when statistics showed that the pilots were not trained sufficiently well in Dogfighting.

Low level flights. We learned using Statistics that our ideals of safety from anti aircraft weapons by flying low and fast was not true. The enemy could and would engage our aircraft. We suffered fewer lost aircraft by flying higher, because it gave the pilot time to react to the incoming fire.

We use statistics at work to maximize worker safety. Statistically workplaces with a heavy emphasis on safety suffer fewer injuries, and lost time accidents. Statistically people who work in industrial areas wearing personal protective gear suffer fewer injuries.

Statistics in this case show clear racism in the traffic stops. Statistics in the case of my State of Georgia show that we need to address the use of force policies and training to reduce the number of people shot by police. We will never be perfect. We can strive to be better. And only by looking at not only the individual incidents, but the systemic situation, can we ever hope to become better. Ignoring one will always keep you in the status quo, which means the mess you are in now.

Wow, you really try hard to muddy up a debate don't you? Look, Human's are not robots. Officers bring with them not only their training, and life experience doing the job, but multitude of other issues...What I'd like to see is this systematic racism you speak of within the system, quantified.....IOW, prove it. And not with analogy, after analogy....

For instance, show me where a white man caught with a couple of kilo's of weed, would be treated differently in the system than a black man caught with the same thing...

In my first post I clearly showed that Blacks are more likely to be pulled over, I linked to it. They were also more likely to have their cars searched. Yet, they were less likely to have actionable contraband in the vehicle. Now that is your proof. Wait. You want more. Again, first post, and the link. Blacks were less likely to be pulled over at night, than they were in the day. Why? The cop could not see the driver. So while the blacks are bad drivers argument or more likely to violate traffic laws, yet that does not carry over to the stops at night. Odd isn't it?

So two hundred million traffic stops did not show you what you wanted to see. So you wanted to judge them individually. The only thing that would make you believe is if I lined up every cop and got them to admit to being racist. But who admits that? Even members of the KKK do not admit they are Racist. They swear they are just reacting to the scientific or statistical issues with minorities.

The truth is there my friend, and all you have to do is open your eyes, and see it.

 

[j-mac]

First Nonsense. Let me put your statistics into context. Let's say that you are a cop and you are writing tickets to speeders. You have a stretch of road, a down hill stretch of road that you are on every day. Pretty much everyone is speeding. You don't like Red Cars, and you pull over more of them than any other color. In fact, half the cars you pull over are red. Perhaps the color attracts the eye easier, whatever. In a few months, the statistics say that Red Cars are more likely to be speeding than any other color car. So now, you have a Statistical proof that Red Cars are driven dangerously, and you can focus on the Red Cars even more, because statistically it is more likely that they are speeding than other cars. When the truth is that everyone is driving about the same speed, and it is merely your choice that makes the Red Cars the targets.

You have to go to a larger subset of statistics. Let's take Traffic Stops.

The Stanford Open Policing Project

We are collecting, releasing, and analyzing data on millions of traffic stops across the United States.

openpolicing.stanford.edu

Now, what did we learn looking at over 200 million traffic stops? We learned that Blacks were pulled over more often than whites, statistically speaking. So obviously Black Drivers were more likely to be speeding and driving recklessly right? Yet, those same Black Drivers were pulled over less often at night, when the color or identity of the driver was harder to discern. So wait a minute, if Black Drivers were in fact more likely to be speeding, than that would continue through to the darkness wouldn't it? Yet, in the dark, when you could not tell the car was driven by a Black, they were less likely to be pulled over. Odd isn't it? Seeing Red Cars yet?

SO let's go with Searches. Blacks were more likely to have their cars searched, yet they were less likely statistically speaking to have actionable contraband. By that I mean enough drugs to warrant an arrest, or weapons, or other illegal items in the car. So wait a minute. If Whites were more likely statistically speaking, to have that contraband, why were they not searched more often than their Black counterparts? Red cars anyone?

But let's look at the arrest and conviction rates. Blacks being generally poorer than the Whites were often unable to afford quality Legal Council. Back to cars. A $15,000 hatchback is not going to be as good as a $150,000 sedan right? So quality cost money, and quality delivers better results.

What happened when a Black man was able to afford that quality legal representation? OJ Simpson anyone? Even now people are outraged that he got off. Several on this board will probably reply that it was because of his race, but it really wasn't. IT was because his lawyers were the best in the nation, and cost several million dollars to defend him. When the legal representation is that expensive, like the quality car we mentioned above, it usually gets much better results.

Then we have the Police. A survey of Judges, and Lawyers, indicated that they believed that police lied in about one case out of five. In other words, twenty percent of the court cases involving police have a lie in there somewhere. How they got the evidence, how they got something. Now, we know these lies are exposed when you have the high priced lawyers who have the money, time, and resources to check and double check every single assertion by the Police. They have investigators, junior lawyers, and others who go blind practically as they examine every thing the cop asserts. The statement of Mark Furman in the OJ Trial that he had never used the N word to describe a Black, and then the audio tape of him saying the word is a good example. At that point, everything that Mark Furman said was now suspect, and the Jury would doubt his assertions on the facts.

It wasn't that OJ was black, it was that OJ was represented by the finest Criminal Defense Lawyers in the Country. People who were legends before they took the case like F. Lee Baily. No public defenders office would have found that recording. No public Defender would have been able to attack the evidence piece by piece, and create the doubt that existed. Only a very skilled, and thus very expensive lawyer could.

Look at the Innocence Project. In nearly every single exoneration, we find that the Convicted Felon was represented by either a very cheap and thus not very good lawyer, or a Public Defender, who has fifty cases that he can't afford to spend the time, or resources to prove the defendant innocent. In every case, we find Police and Proprietorial Misconduct was rampant.

Now, lets step away from Statistics for a minute. We have shown I think that statistics can be made to show whatever you want, when you just look at the surface. Hence the old saying Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Let's talk about the Constitution. Every single citizen is entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. It is the basis of the idea, which has sadly never actually become reality, that no one is above the law. If we are to give the police a pass in their mistreatment of Blacks based upon demonstrably flawed statistics, we would be denying an entire group of people their rights under the Constitution. We would be driving one of the last, if not the last, nail in the coffin of our nation. We should demand that people, citizens, of this nation are treated fairly and equally. We should be voting anyone who makes such an argument out of office. And we should demand that any Judge who allows such nonsense to guide his actions be impeached and disbarred from ever working in the legal field ever again.

So the Statistics are at best questionable. The Actions of the police are certainly questionable, and the justification for those actions, the questionable statistics, is a weak reed to grasp.

Do you see the Red Cars yet? Because the red cars are right in front of you.

Sorry but your analogy doesn't work....The reason statistics fail to tell the picture here is that because every situation is different...We must look at these situations as stand alone's, and judge them individually....One thing I am noticing is that in nearly every case, involves the suspect resisting, or fighting against being detained which escalates the the event...

The stand alone does not work when you are examining a systemic problem. You were 101st Airborne. I was 82nd. Let's say that a unit has a roughly five percent injury rate on jumps. It is higher than the average for other units. If you look at the individual cases, you find that minor errors in landings and rigging caused the injuries. If you look at it as a Systemic Problem, the larger picture, you find that there is an issue with how the jumps are planned, and the training for the soldiers. Only by addressing the systemic can you hope to really understand the individual issues.

Another example. Several 737's started to fall out of the sky during the 1980's. These crashes were written off as weather, or pilot error. Experienced pilots causing problems that led to the crashes. Not unheard of but not the answer. It wasn't until the NTSB discovered a problem with the airplane that the crashes stopped. The actuator for the tail rudder was freezing, and causing an uncontrollable roll and turn. The Pilots never had a chance to understand what was happening or what to do to fix it, they were too close to the ground. The problem was not individual, it was systemic. A design flaw, an unintended flaw that nobody had ever considered even being possible.

But let's get back to police shootings. Looking at the individual cases means you examine the one, and find that while regrettable, it was allowable by law. When you examine the larger picture, you find that there were an awful lot of those regrettable but allowable incidents. In Georgia, nearly half of the people shot by police were unarmed, or shot in the back. Each case was regrettable, but allowable. Only when you examine the larger picture do you get the idea that we need to seriously reconsider our training and policies. Because half of the people being killed in such circumstances, is just too many.

OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia

Explore reports and cases from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s year-long examination of police shootings in Georgia.

investigations.ajc.com

When we look at the larger picture, we often learn a great deal. During World War II and Korea, and most of the way through Vietnam, Morphine was readily available to treat injured people with. We were doing the best we could, treating the agonizing pain of the wounded soldier. But it was not until someone took a larger look at the issue, that we discovered the truth. In treating the pain first, we were killing our soldiers. Killing them with good intentions. By shooting them up with Morphine, we were in fact sending them into shock, which killed them. Survivable wounds were killing people, because we did not know what was really happening. When we looked at the larger picture, we saw a problem. We discovered the answer, and adjusted the treatment regime, and restricted Morphine to the Medics, and told them that first you had to stabilize the patient, and treat them for shock, and then treat them for pain. Otherwise, pain was the patients problems. I do not blame the Medics and soldiers for their actions. We did not know. We thought we were doing the right thing. We believed we needed to do that to help our buddies. We learned, and now we know that to help our buddies, we may have to ignore their pain for a bit.

The larger picture, statistical trends is used in every other facet of life. Only when we come to Law Enforcement are the types of statistics we are allowed to talk about limited.

Take anything. Take the AV-8 Harrier that the Marines got. A fantastic plane. One of my favorites to be honest. The British told the Marines that the plane was a widowmaker. It would kill the pilot if he was not sufficiently trained and experienced. The Marines took this to heart, and for the first squadron assigned only experienced pilots to the aircraft. There were no accidents that led to the loss of aircraft. The Marines decided the British were overselling the dangers. Newer less experienced pilots were assigned, and immediately the number of accidents increased. Loss of aircraft, and dead pilots, and the truth was right in front of them. They could have written it off as we are in a dangerous business and accidents happen. Instead they looked at the systemic situation, and determined the truth. The pilots needed more experience before transitioning to the AV-8.

Topgun. The Naval Fighter training program. Started when statistics showed that the pilots were not trained sufficiently well in Dogfighting.

Low level flights. We learned using Statistics that our ideals of safety from anti aircraft weapons by flying low and fast was not true. The enemy could and would engage our aircraft. We suffered fewer lost aircraft by flying higher, because it gave the pilot time to react to the incoming fire.

We use statistics at work to maximize worker safety. Statistically workplaces with a heavy emphasis on safety suffer fewer injuries, and lost time accidents. Statistically people who work in industrial areas wearing personal protective gear suffer fewer injuries.

Statistics in this case show clear racism in the traffic stops. Statistics in the case of my State of Georgia show that we need to address the use of force policies and training to reduce the number of people shot by police. We will never be perfect. We can strive to be better. And only by looking at not only the individual incidents, but the systemic situation, can we ever hope to become better. Ignoring one will always keep you in the status quo, which means the mess you are in now.

Wow, you really try hard to muddy up a debate don't you? Look, Human's are not robots. Officers bring with them not only their training, and life experience doing the job, but multitude of other issues...What I'd like to see is this systematic racism you speak of within the system, quantified.....IOW, prove it. And not with analogy, after analogy....

For instance, show me where a white man caught with a couple of kilo's of weed, would be treated differently in the system than a black man caught with the same thing...

In my first post I clearly showed that Blacks are more likely to be pulled over, I linked to it. They were also more likely to have their cars searched. Yet, they were less likely to have actionable contraband in the vehicle. Now that is your proof. Wait. You want more. Again, first post, and the link. Blacks were less likely to be pulled over at night, than they were in the day. Why? The cop could not see the driver. So while the blacks are bad drivers argument or more likely to violate traffic laws, yet that does not carry over to the stops at night. Odd isn't it?

View attachment 381920

So two hundred million traffic stops did not show you what you wanted to see. So you wanted to judge them individually. The only thing that would make you believe is if I lined up every cop and got them to admit to being racist. But who admits that? Even members of the KKK do not admit they are Racist. They swear they are just reacting to the scientific or statistical issues with minorities.

The truth is there my friend, and all you have to do is open your eyes, and see it.

I am getting to the point where I fail to see the correlation between traffic stops and what you say is epidemic of police shootings....for instance, what should an officer do when faced at a traffic stop, with the driver has a warrant out for their arrest? let them go?

 

[SavannahMann]

First Nonsense. Let me put your statistics into context. Let's say that you are a cop and you are writing tickets to speeders. You have a stretch of road, a down hill stretch of road that you are on every day. Pretty much everyone is speeding. You don't like Red Cars, and you pull over more of them than any other color. In fact, half the cars you pull over are red. Perhaps the color attracts the eye easier, whatever. In a few months, the statistics say that Red Cars are more likely to be speeding than any other color car. So now, you have a Statistical proof that Red Cars are driven dangerously, and you can focus on the Red Cars even more, because statistically it is more likely that they are speeding than other cars. When the truth is that everyone is driving about the same speed, and it is merely your choice that makes the Red Cars the targets.

You have to go to a larger subset of statistics. Let's take Traffic Stops.

The Stanford Open Policing Project

We are collecting, releasing, and analyzing data on millions of traffic stops across the United States.

openpolicing.stanford.edu

Now, what did we learn looking at over 200 million traffic stops? We learned that Blacks were pulled over more often than whites, statistically speaking. So obviously Black Drivers were more likely to be speeding and driving recklessly right? Yet, those same Black Drivers were pulled over less often at night, when the color or identity of the driver was harder to discern. So wait a minute, if Black Drivers were in fact more likely to be speeding, than that would continue through to the darkness wouldn't it? Yet, in the dark, when you could not tell the car was driven by a Black, they were less likely to be pulled over. Odd isn't it? Seeing Red Cars yet?

SO let's go with Searches. Blacks were more likely to have their cars searched, yet they were less likely statistically speaking to have actionable contraband. By that I mean enough drugs to warrant an arrest, or weapons, or other illegal items in the car. So wait a minute. If Whites were more likely statistically speaking, to have that contraband, why were they not searched more often than their Black counterparts? Red cars anyone?

But let's look at the arrest and conviction rates. Blacks being generally poorer than the Whites were often unable to afford quality Legal Council. Back to cars. A $15,000 hatchback is not going to be as good as a $150,000 sedan right? So quality cost money, and quality delivers better results.

What happened when a Black man was able to afford that quality legal representation? OJ Simpson anyone? Even now people are outraged that he got off. Several on this board will probably reply that it was because of his race, but it really wasn't. IT was because his lawyers were the best in the nation, and cost several million dollars to defend him. When the legal representation is that expensive, like the quality car we mentioned above, it usually gets much better results.

Then we have the Police. A survey of Judges, and Lawyers, indicated that they believed that police lied in about one case out of five. In other words, twenty percent of the court cases involving police have a lie in there somewhere. How they got the evidence, how they got something. Now, we know these lies are exposed when you have the high priced lawyers who have the money, time, and resources to check and double check every single assertion by the Police. They have investigators, junior lawyers, and others who go blind practically as they examine every thing the cop asserts. The statement of Mark Furman in the OJ Trial that he had never used the N word to describe a Black, and then the audio tape of him saying the word is a good example. At that point, everything that Mark Furman said was now suspect, and the Jury would doubt his assertions on the facts.

It wasn't that OJ was black, it was that OJ was represented by the finest Criminal Defense Lawyers in the Country. People who were legends before they took the case like F. Lee Baily. No public defenders office would have found that recording. No public Defender would have been able to attack the evidence piece by piece, and create the doubt that existed. Only a very skilled, and thus very expensive lawyer could.

Look at the Innocence Project. In nearly every single exoneration, we find that the Convicted Felon was represented by either a very cheap and thus not very good lawyer, or a Public Defender, who has fifty cases that he can't afford to spend the time, or resources to prove the defendant innocent. In every case, we find Police and Proprietorial Misconduct was rampant.

Now, lets step away from Statistics for a minute. We have shown I think that statistics can be made to show whatever you want, when you just look at the surface. Hence the old saying Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Let's talk about the Constitution. Every single citizen is entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. It is the basis of the idea, which has sadly never actually become reality, that no one is above the law. If we are to give the police a pass in their mistreatment of Blacks based upon demonstrably flawed statistics, we would be denying an entire group of people their rights under the Constitution. We would be driving one of the last, if not the last, nail in the coffin of our nation. We should demand that people, citizens, of this nation are treated fairly and equally. We should be voting anyone who makes such an argument out of office. And we should demand that any Judge who allows such nonsense to guide his actions be impeached and disbarred from ever working in the legal field ever again.

So the Statistics are at best questionable. The Actions of the police are certainly questionable, and the justification for those actions, the questionable statistics, is a weak reed to grasp.

Do you see the Red Cars yet? Because the red cars are right in front of you.

Sorry but your analogy doesn't work....The reason statistics fail to tell the picture here is that because every situation is different...We must look at these situations as stand alone's, and judge them individually....One thing I am noticing is that in nearly every case, involves the suspect resisting, or fighting against being detained which escalates the the event...

The stand alone does not work when you are examining a systemic problem. You were 101st Airborne. I was 82nd. Let's say that a unit has a roughly five percent injury rate on jumps. It is higher than the average for other units. If you look at the individual cases, you find that minor errors in landings and rigging caused the injuries. If you look at it as a Systemic Problem, the larger picture, you find that there is an issue with how the jumps are planned, and the training for the soldiers. Only by addressing the systemic can you hope to really understand the individual issues.

Another example. Several 737's started to fall out of the sky during the 1980's. These crashes were written off as weather, or pilot error. Experienced pilots causing problems that led to the crashes. Not unheard of but not the answer. It wasn't until the NTSB discovered a problem with the airplane that the crashes stopped. The actuator for the tail rudder was freezing, and causing an uncontrollable roll and turn. The Pilots never had a chance to understand what was happening or what to do to fix it, they were too close to the ground. The problem was not individual, it was systemic. A design flaw, an unintended flaw that nobody had ever considered even being possible.

But let's get back to police shootings. Looking at the individual cases means you examine the one, and find that while regrettable, it was allowable by law. When you examine the larger picture, you find that there were an awful lot of those regrettable but allowable incidents. In Georgia, nearly half of the people shot by police were unarmed, or shot in the back. Each case was regrettable, but allowable. Only when you examine the larger picture do you get the idea that we need to seriously reconsider our training and policies. Because half of the people being killed in such circumstances, is just too many.

OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia

Explore reports and cases from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s year-long examination of police shootings in Georgia.

investigations.ajc.com

When we look at the larger picture, we often learn a great deal. During World War II and Korea, and most of the way through Vietnam, Morphine was readily available to treat injured people with. We were doing the best we could, treating the agonizing pain of the wounded soldier. But it was not until someone took a larger look at the issue, that we discovered the truth. In treating the pain first, we were killing our soldiers. Killing them with good intentions. By shooting them up with Morphine, we were in fact sending them into shock, which killed them. Survivable wounds were killing people, because we did not know what was really happening. When we looked at the larger picture, we saw a problem. We discovered the answer, and adjusted the treatment regime, and restricted Morphine to the Medics, and told them that first you had to stabilize the patient, and treat them for shock, and then treat them for pain. Otherwise, pain was the patients problems. I do not blame the Medics and soldiers for their actions. We did not know. We thought we were doing the right thing. We believed we needed to do that to help our buddies. We learned, and now we know that to help our buddies, we may have to ignore their pain for a bit.

The larger picture, statistical trends is used in every other facet of life. Only when we come to Law Enforcement are the types of statistics we are allowed to talk about limited.

Take anything. Take the AV-8 Harrier that the Marines got. A fantastic plane. One of my favorites to be honest. The British told the Marines that the plane was a widowmaker. It would kill the pilot if he was not sufficiently trained and experienced. The Marines took this to heart, and for the first squadron assigned only experienced pilots to the aircraft. There were no accidents that led to the loss of aircraft. The Marines decided the British were overselling the dangers. Newer less experienced pilots were assigned, and immediately the number of accidents increased. Loss of aircraft, and dead pilots, and the truth was right in front of them. They could have written it off as we are in a dangerous business and accidents happen. Instead they looked at the systemic situation, and determined the truth. The pilots needed more experience before transitioning to the AV-8.

Topgun. The Naval Fighter training program. Started when statistics showed that the pilots were not trained sufficiently well in Dogfighting.

Low level flights. We learned using Statistics that our ideals of safety from anti aircraft weapons by flying low and fast was not true. The enemy could and would engage our aircraft. We suffered fewer lost aircraft by flying higher, because it gave the pilot time to react to the incoming fire.

We use statistics at work to maximize worker safety. Statistically workplaces with a heavy emphasis on safety suffer fewer injuries, and lost time accidents. Statistically people who work in industrial areas wearing personal protective gear suffer fewer injuries.

Statistics in this case show clear racism in the traffic stops. Statistics in the case of my State of Georgia show that we need to address the use of force policies and training to reduce the number of people shot by police. We will never be perfect. We can strive to be better. And only by looking at not only the individual incidents, but the systemic situation, can we ever hope to become better. Ignoring one will always keep you in the status quo, which means the mess you are in now.

Wow, you really try hard to muddy up a debate don't you? Look, Human's are not robots. Officers bring with them not only their training, and life experience doing the job, but multitude of other issues...What I'd like to see is this systematic racism you speak of within the system, quantified.....IOW, prove it. And not with analogy, after analogy....

For instance, show me where a white man caught with a couple of kilo's of weed, would be treated differently in the system than a black man caught with the same thing...

In my first post I clearly showed that Blacks are more likely to be pulled over, I linked to it. They were also more likely to have their cars searched. Yet, they were less likely to have actionable contraband in the vehicle. Now that is your proof. Wait. You want more. Again, first post, and the link. Blacks were less likely to be pulled over at night, than they were in the day. Why? The cop could not see the driver. So while the blacks are bad drivers argument or more likely to violate traffic laws, yet that does not carry over to the stops at night. Odd isn't it?

View attachment 381920

So two hundred million traffic stops did not show you what you wanted to see. So you wanted to judge them individually. The only thing that would make you believe is if I lined up every cop and got them to admit to being racist. But who admits that? Even members of the KKK do not admit they are Racist. They swear they are just reacting to the scientific or statistical issues with minorities.

The truth is there my friend, and all you have to do is open your eyes, and see it.

I am getting to the point where I fail to see the correlation between traffic stops and what you say is epidemic of police shootings....for instance, what should an officer do when faced at a traffic stop, with the driver has a warrant out for their arrest? let them go?

The Traffic Stops showed a problem with racism. A painfully obvious point. If you missed it, then perhaps it is not me that is the problem, but your lack of comprehension.

But let's take this one. The latest out of Wisconsin.

I counted at least three cops there. Three males. So you couldn't argue that the weaker sex was the reason. Three. Are you telling me that there was no alternative between doing nothing, and shooting seven times in the back? There was no alternative? There was no level of force available between A, do nothing, and B, shoot him? Because with three cops there it seems reasonable to assume that there was several alternatives.

If you tell me that three trained police officers with enough stuff on their belt to make Batman feel envious, and the only alternative they had was the gun, I am going to seriously question your judgement. If the three cops had tackled him and cuffed him and stuffed him in a car. I would have said nothing about it. If the cops had tased him and then cuffed him and stuffed him in the back of a car I would have said nothing. I might have scowled a bit at the use of the clubs, but again, said nothing. I accept the realistic idea that you must use necessary force to arrest someone. If they resist, you must use force. I get that. But I do not believe that the only alternative open to the cops was the gun.

They have the collapsible baton. Pepper Spray, Tasers, and numbers as well as size over the suspect, and the only alternative was the gun? Seriously?

I object to excessive force. Brutality used for the sake of beating the shit out of the guy.

Sacramento sheriff investigating video that shows deputies, officer kick man before arrest

The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department has launched an excessive force investigation after video appearing to show a deputy kicking a man in the back went viral.

www.abc10.com

The man was standing there, complying with the orders. His hands were up. All Barney Fife had to do was walk up and put the cuffs on him. Instead he Tazed the man, standing there, with his hands up. When the Taser did not work, he kicked the man, standing there with his hands on his head. The fight started. Why? Was he resisting arrest? He was standing there with his hands up waiting for the cuffs and the explanation as to why he was being arrested. The police escalated the situation, not the big scary black guy.

It is a question of proportional response. Proportional Response means you do not go to the last option unless it literally is your last option. We had enough Nuclear Weapons to turn North Vietnam into a radioactive hell that would make Chernobyl look safe by comparison. We did not do that. Because the action was not proportional to the situation. The same truth was in Korea. When the Chinese came crawling out of the canyons and mountains like cockroaches and drove us back to Wonson and the evacuation to the sea, they did not use Nukes. When we were pushed all the way to the Pusan Perimeter with even odds that we would be pushed clear off the Peninsula, we did not break out the nukes.

Proportional Response. If a man says I'll kick your ass, you don't shoot him. The inevitable Jury of your Peers will not accept that.

Remember the shooting at the Stop and Rob in Florida? The man pulled his gun, and the "aggressor" began backing away. At that point, shooting became unnecessary. And I am not alone, the Jury agreed.

If the baddie had been armed with a gun, or knife, I would not object at all. He was unarmed, and shot in the back. He should have been tackled, and arrested. He was not complying, and I would have given the cops a pass for arresting him and even tackling him. Pepper Spray, Taser, or three cops jumping on him and taking him down to cuff him. So long as they got him in custody, and stuffed him in the car without stomping on him or cutting off his airway. Proportional Response.

Texas police release body cam video of fatal shooting

Video from the body cameras of two Texas police officers show the moments leading up to the fatal shooting of a suspect outside of an Applebee's restaurant. (WARNING: VIDEO IS GRAPHIC)

abc7.com

In that one, the cops shot a man holding a BB Gun. At the time, and to this day, I believe the cops should have searched him and cuffed him in the Men's room of the Restaurant. However given the situation, the seeing of the gun, and the reaction of the cops, I had no issue with the actual shooting. At the time, I said, and I still maintain, from the point where he pulled the "gun" I have no heartburn with the shooting. It was justified.

So what is the difference? The cops saw a gun, and used deadly force to defend themselves. No problem. Proportional Response for the situation. St. Louis, when a guy came at the cops armed with a knife, I said no problem there. Attacking with a deadly weapon is justifiable reasons for deadly force. I do not shoot people for giving me a dirty look or calling me a name. I will shoot if there is a threat including a weapon, to my life, or the lives of my family.

Now, what do I mean about the cops searching him in the Bathroom? Well, in Air Crash Investigations, one of the goals is to minimize the chances of that situation happening again. To learn from it by looking at the entire incident. Everything that was a contributing factor to the accident. Poor training, equipment that needs improving, new techniques or standards to stop it from happening again. Hopefully the next time the cops find themselves in that situation, they'll search the guy right away, and prevent the need of a shooting. Because inside a well lit room is better than a poorly lit parking lot.

We can always learn, our society exists because we are always striving to improve. Car Safety, Flight safety, worker safety, and the list goes on and on and on. Improvements are always happening, and they will so long as we are honest in our belief that we can do better, and we as humans make mistakes, or poor decisions. It is how we gain that thing we admire, called experience.