Ferguson

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's a simple one of respect of the law. Like it or not, all Police forces are in place to maintain law and order, whether they are allowed to use guns or not. The majority of people do not steal or cause other offences and so never come into these situations. After events such as this there are always two responses, law abiding people protest with posters etc and non law abiding loot shops, burn cars and businesses. The larger issue is not really about who gets shot as that is a potential outcome from a crime in countries that arm the police, it's really about how to raise people to be law abiding. If the Police themselves do not obey the law they should be prosecuted, if they,do then they should be fully supported. The issue here is did the Policeman obey the law, yes or no. If he did then that is either the end of the matter or the law should be amended, if he didn't then he should be prosecuted. But in no circumstance should the colour of either party even be considered...............

That's theoretical, in this country, if you study closely, you will find that the Police are there to maintain a status quo and it's not the same thing.

They respond disproportionately to offences against commerce, property or business, with a all in approach, but for victims of rape, assault, burglary it mainly comes down to a crime reference number.

the laws of this country especially are designed to protect property and business from ordinary people you only have to look at the handling of the Westminster paedophile story to see that the approach is to protect the structure of 'society'
 

And this happens disproportionately by white cops against black men.
I'm interested in reading studies saying this, but can't find any recent research on that subject. I keep finding my way to a big 1976 study for some reason. Any chance you can point me in the right direction?
 

I'm interested in reading studies saying this, but can't find any recent research on that subject. I keep finding my way to a big 1976 study for some reason. Any chance you can point me in the right direction?

There's no study, just anecdotal evidence. Admittedly, I've not researched every case. Some have tried, but it's difficult. Few police departments are interested in reporting their activities. Evidence shows that criminal processing for smaller crimes (specifically drug crimes) is disproportionate. I'd be surprised if shootings are any different, but I understand this should be supported by data.


Underreporting of Justifiable Homicides Committed by Police Officers in the United States, 1976–1998

Abstract
Objectives. This study assessed the consistency of estimates of the number of justifiable homicides committed by US police officers and identified sources of underreporting.

Methods. The number of justifiable homicides committed by police officers between 1976 and 1998 was estimated from supplementary homicide report (SHR) and National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) mortality data.

Results. Nationally, the SHR estimate was 29% larger than the NVSS estimate. However, in most states this pattern was reversed, with more deaths reported in the NVSS.

Conclusions. Both systems underreport, but for different reasons. The NVSS misclassifies cases as homicides, rather than justifiable homicides committed by police officers, because certifiers fail to mention police involvement. The SHR misses cases because some jurisdictions fail to file reports or omit justifiable homicides committed by police officers. (Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1117–1121)

Justifiable homicides committed by police officers are important in regard to public health because they have a distinctive etiology and because the intentional killing of citizens by an agent of the government has consequences for communities that go far beyond the immediate loss of life. Almost every major civil insurrection that occurred in the United States in the past century was initiated or accelerated by the perception that the police had misused their right to use deadly force.1,2 These incidents frequently cause large numbers of injuries and deaths, and they disrupt the social and economic relationships through which essential economic, health, public safety, and social services are provided to communities.3–5

Also, the perception that police devalue the lives of some citizens may reduce citizen cooperation in reporting crime or assisting police in investigations and may generally degrade the quality of justice.6 The ability to accurately assess the incidence and characteristics of justifiable homicides committed by police officers is central to the development and evaluation of policies that promote public health and safety.

In the United States, 2 national systems—the Uniform Crime Reporting Program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) of the National Center for Health Statistics—collect information on homicides committed by law enforcement officers in the line of duty. Research conducted with special populations suggests that both systems underreport the number of citizens killed by police officers.7–10 However, there has been no comprehensive comparison of estimates from the 2 systems.

In this study, we took advantage of the presence of multiple reporting systems and assessed the consistency of estimates from the 2 systems during the 23-year period encompassing 1976 through 1998. We show here that both systems underreport the number of justifiable homicides committed by police officers, and we identify major sources of undercounting.

[more at the link]


How many police shootings a year? No one knows

A summer of high-profile police shootings, most notably the Aug. 9 shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., has rekindled a decades-long debate over law enforcement’s use of lethal force.

Police unions and some law-and-order conservatives insist that shootings by officers are rare and even more rarely unjustified. Civil rights groups and some on the left have just as quickly prescribed racial motives to the shootings, declaring that black and brown men are being “executed” by officers.

And, like all previous incarnations of the clash over police force, the debate remains absent access to a crucial, fundamental fact.

Criminal justice experts note that, while the federal government and national research groups keep scads of data and statistics— on topics ranging from how many people were victims of unprovoked shark attacks (53 in 2013) to the number of hogs and pigs living on farms in the U.S. (upwards of 64,000,000 according to 2010 numbers) — there is no reliable national data on how many people are shot by police officers each year.

The government does, however, keep a database of how many officers are killed in the line of duty. In 2012, the most recent year for which FBI data is available, it was 48 – 44 of them killed with firearms.

But how many people in the United States were shot, or killed, by law enforcement officers during that year? No one knows.

Officials with the Justice Department keep no comprehensive database or record of police shootings, instead allowing the nation’s more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies to self-report officer-involved shootings as part of the FBI’s annual data on “justifiable homicides” by law enforcement.

That number – which only includes self-reported information from about 750 law enforcement agencies – hovers around 400 “justifiable homicides” by police officers each year. The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics also tracks “arrest-related deaths.” But the department stopped releasing those numbers after 2009, because, like the FBI data, they were widely regarded as unreliable.

“What’s there is crappy data,” said David A. Klinger, a former police officer and criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri who studies police use of force.

Several independent trackers, primarily journalists and academics who study criminal justice, insist the accurate number of people shot and killed by police officers each year is consistently upwards of 1,000 each year.

“The FBI’s justifiable homicides and the estimates from (arrest-related deaths) both have significant limitations in terms of coverage and reliability that are primarily due to agency participation and measurement issues,” said Michael Planty, one of the Justice Department’s chief statisticians, in an email.

Even less data exists for officer-involved shootings that do not result in fatalities.

“We do not have information at the national level for police shootings that result in non-fatal injury or no injury to a civilian,” Planty said.

Comprehensive statistics on officer-involved shootings are also not kept by any of the nation’s leading gun violence and police research groups and think tanks.

In fact, prior to the Brown’s shooting, the only person attempting to keep track of the number of police shootings was D. Brian Burghart, the editor and publisher of the 29,000-circulation Reno News & Review, who launched his “Fatal Encounters” project in 2012.

“Don’t you find it spookey? This is information, this is the government’s job,” Burghart said. “One of the government’s major jobs is to protect us. How can it protect us if it doesn’t know what the best practices are? If it doesn’t know if one local department is killing people at a higher rate than others? When it can’t make decisions based on real numbers to come up with best practices? That to me is an abdication of responsibilities.”

Burghart has enlisted a team of volunteers to search news clips as well as file records requests for data, with the goal of collecting a database that will chronicle several years-worth of police shootings.

As of September 1, according to Burghart’s estimates, 83 other people had been killed by police officers in the United States since Michael Brown’s death.

Law enforcement watchdog groups and think tanks say that the lack of comprehensive data on police shootings hampers the ability of departments to develop best practices and cut down on unnecessary shootings.

The way we improve practices is to take information about what’s happening in the field to make those improvements,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonpartisan think tank in D.C. that produces reports on police tactics. “The more we know about (the number of officer-involved shootings) the better off we’ll be.”

Other than basic statistical analysis, Wexler said, a comprehensive database of police shootings would allow departments to better analyze when officers are drawing and using their guns – potentially leading to policy changes that could save lives.

He noted a shift in policy by the New York Police Department in 1972, in which the department instructed its officers to no longer shoot at moving vehicles.

“When they made that change the number of NYPD shootings plummeted,” he said.

James O. Pasco, the national executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, believes that an accurate database would require Congress to pass a law requiring police departments to report their shooting data to a federal agency, presumably the FBI.

“Otherwise it’s an unfunded mandate,” Pasco said. “About 80 percent of police departments have fewer than 10 officers. They don’t have huge data collecting operations. They don’t even have a single person in some of these departments who are dedicated to all the statistical work they have to do now.”

Pasco said he doesn’t know what the union’s position would be on a legal requirement to report shootings and the result of shooting investigations.

“It would depend on what the law looked like,” he said. “Clearly, if it’s just a function of collecting the data, I can’t see that we would have a problem with that. Our issues are with due process for officers.”

The most detailed analysis of police shootings to date was conducted by Jim Fisher, a former FBI agent and criminal justice professor who now authors true crime books.

“I was rather surprised to find there are no statistics,” Fisher said. “The answer to me is pretty obvious: the government just doesn’t want us to know how many people are shot by the police every year.”

In 2011, he scoured the Internet several times a day every day, compiling a database of every officer-involved shooting he could find. Ultimately, he tracked 1,146 shootings by police officers, 607 of them fatal shootings.

“I was surprised at how many shootings, a reasonable person would conclude, were unnecessary,” Fisher said.

Earlier this year, the Gawker Media-owned sports Web site Deadspin launched a project to crowd-source a definitive list of police shootings by analyzing local media reports – a system modelled off of Fisher’s 2011 effort.

“Having that data would be extremely helpful, in more ways than one,” said Adolphus M. Pruitt, president of the St. Louis chapter of the NAACP, who has been one of those most vocal about allegations of police brutality in light of Brown’s shooting. “We track everything. There is no reason in the world for us to not be able to know just how many people the police are shooting in any given year.”

In the absence of reliable data, the FBI’s “justifiable homicides” statistics continues to be widely cited in academic studies, media reports, and other examinations of the use of lethal force by law enforcement despite being decried as unreliable by officials inside the Justice Department and other officials outside of the government.

As they do, criminal justice experts note that even compiling accurate numbers of people shot and killed by the police would be just a start.

“Every study that I’m aware of shows that most of the people who are shot by the cops survive and most of the time when cops shoot the bullets don’t hit,” said Klinger, who will soon publish a new study analyzing police shootings in St. Louis.

That study, prepared with several other academics, found that there were 230 instances in the City of St. Louis between 2003 and 2012 when officers fired their weapons. Only 37 of those fired upon were killed.

“If your statistics look just at dead bodies you’d be under-counting it by 85 percent,” Klinger said. “If the cops are shooting, we need to now when they are shooting, not just when they kill somebody with the bullets.”
 
The Ferguson verdict
In black and white

HOW surprised should we be that a grand jury in Missouri failed to indict a police officerfor killing an unarmed black man? In one sense, very surprised: it is very rare for grand juries to fail to indict a suspect when the state is doing its best to make a case. The standard of proof for an indictment is not that the state has made its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that there is probable cause to prosecute. According to the Missouri courts, "probable cause" exists where "knowledge of the particular facts and circumstances is sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that a suspect has committed an offense". The 1996 case establishing that standard, State v Tokar, upheld a suspect's arrest for a murder committed during a burglary because the defendant and his girlfriend drove a yellow station wagon (which matched eyewitness descriptions of the perpetrators), and he had prior convictions for similar burglaries.

Given this standard, and the fact that prosecutors have enormous discretion over the proceedings, one would think that indictments are fairly easy to secure whenever the state has a reasonable amount of evidence. And indeed, as Reason's Anthony Fisherwrites, a grand jury refusing to hand down an indictment is "an incredibly rare thing". In federal (rather than state) courts, grand juries in 2010 failed to indict in just 11 out of 162,000 cases. If anything, conservative legal scholars in recent years have worried that grand juries are too susceptible to indicting based on flimsy cases.

At the same time, we shouldn't be at all surprised by the grand jury's verdict. While it is generally easy to get an indictment, it is extremely difficult to indict a police officer. This is especially true for homicide, as Jamelle Bouie writes. While 410 "justifiable homicides" were reported by the FBI in 2012, there were virtually no indictments of police for killing people. FiveThirtyEight's Ben Casselman wonders whether the difference is based on jurors being more inclined to trust police; prosecutors being less inclined to make cases aggressively against police; or prosecutors being forced to bring weak cases against police, due to political pressure.

We do not have the data to answer that question, and realistically, we never will. What Mr Casselman doesn't mention is the glaring issue of race. The 12-member Missouri grand jury needed nine votes to indict. Three of the jurors were black. The jurors are prohibited by law from discussing their deliberations.

I have served on one American jury, and the entirety of our discussion (which required us to be sequestered for two days) turned on whether or not we trusted the police. We ended up with a hung jury because the white jurors trusted the police, and the black jurors did not. The evidence presented in the case consisted of a bag of cocaine, and two police officers who testified that the accused had tossed it under a car while fleeing. (The only defence testimony came from a chemist who challenged the police lab's procedures for measuring the quantity of the drugs; that played little role in the jury's discussion.) For the white jurors, without any testimony contesting the police account, we had no "reasonable doubt" of the state's case. For the black jurors, and for one juror in particular, the testimony of two police officers with no corroborating witnesses or evidence was simply not enough reason to send a man to jail.

These are both reasonable ways of approaching the world. What is dangerous is how neatly the disagreement falls along racial lines. African-Americans have a radically different experience of interaction with police officers than white Americans do, and are much less likely to implicitly trust the testimony of officers accused of brutality or lawbreaking. Most white Americans do not understand this distrust, so minorities are often left with a sense that the legal system offers them no recourse. White Americans cannot understand why African-Americans do not accept the verdict of the justice system. African-Americans suspect that the system is structured in a way that denies them justice.

The decision in Missouri yesterday will widen that divide. There are a few obvious measures that could help narrow it. One would be for all police to wear body cameras while on patrol, a step Michael Brown's parents have endorsed. But technological solutions do not usually solve deep social ills. The most difficult step is less technical than ethical: white Americans need to recognise that if black Americans mistrust the police, they often have good reason to do so. Police officers sometimes employ excessive force; sometimes, they kill people for no good reason. They are almost never indicted for it. Impunity is insidious. It makes it impossible for citizens to trust that in any given failure to prosecute, justice was done.
 
Didn't use mace, didn't carry a tazer to stop it escalating.

Did try and shoot Brown at close quarters and only failed to kill him due to a gun that jammed; did pursue this 'threat on his life' that was running the other direction and away from him, did fail to wait for back up.

Wilson provoked the incident, was out of control when he couldn't handle the situation, then finally snapped and went on a shoot to kill chase.

End of story.

It wasn't about the robbery. He told him to get on the pavement for some reason, and that was the start of it.

This copper made so many errors he shouldn't be in charge of a peashooter. He's obviously a bit thick.

*shakes head*

Use Mace ? Spray mace at a guy who is within inches of you, thus risking blinding yourself. Genius.

He didn't have a tazer.

Wilson didn't 'provoke' Brown to reach inside of a police car and start fighting an armed officer, nor did he provoke him to charge at an armed officer after being pursued.

"He told him to get on the pavement for some reason" He asked him to get on the pavement because he was walking in the middle of the road. Any police officer would do the same, as would i if i was trying to drive down the street.

One can clearly argue that Wilson shouldn't have chased after Brown on his own after what happened, all i'll say is that's an easy argument to make in hindsight, when you haven't just been fighting for your life.
 
*shakes head*

Use Mace ? Spray mace at a guy who is within inches of you, thus risking blinding yourself. Genius.

He didn't have a tazer.

Wilson didn't 'provoke' Brown to reach inside of a police car and start fighting an armed officer, nor did he provoke him to charge at an armed officer after being pursued.

"He told him to get on the pavement for some reason" He asked him to get on the pavement because he was walking in the middle of the road. Any police officer would do the same, as would i if i was trying to drive down the street.

One can clearly argue that Wilson shouldn't have chased after Brown on his own after what happened, all i'll say is that's an easy argument to make in hindsight, when you haven't just been fighting for your life.

What about the witnesses who said he never charged him but turned with his hands up??

Quite conceivable he had lost control of his emotions and snapped shooting him down in cold blood but lying his arse off so he does not go down himself.

Only he will know the full truth.
 

What about the witnesses who said he never charged him but turned with his hands up??

Quite conceivable he had lost control of his emotions and snapped shooting him down in cold blood but lying his arse off so he does not go down himself.

Only he will know the full truth.

There were also 'witnesses' who said that he shot Brown in the back even though forensic evidence proved that not to be the case...

I doubt the narrative that he just shot him in cold blood because he was annoyed. In the middle of a residential street, not knowing who could be watching ? Committing murder ? Don't buy it.
 
To an extent, perhaps. But how often do they really need armoured vehicles in situations in which something like the FBI or a more paramilitary organization could get involved?

But I'm ok with them having the equipment so long as there are regulations for its use and repercussions for it being used unnecessarily. The police should be social workers with a side of enforcement, rather than all enforcement all the time. That hardline disciplinarian approach has brought us to this place.

Sometimes a situation can escalate too quickly for the FBI or a paramilitary outfit to get there in time to defuse it. That said, the cops in my city, population c. 400,000, have an armoured vehicle and I can't think of a good reason why. The worst that happens here is a bunch of drunk university students get out of hand (you might have heard of the St. Patrick's Day riot here a couple of years back), and then a good water cannon would suffice.
 
There's no study, just anecdotal evidence.

and this is what is so fundamentally wrong with the "community" response to this case. There is no evidence to support their claims. The court should be applauded for not giving a verdict to appease the public opinion; it gave one based on evidence. A forensic lab clearly and openly showed that he hadn't been shot in the back, as CNN ran with when the story first emerged based on "eye witness testimony". Now, should he be facing at least a manslaughter charge, probably yes.
 
and this is what is so fundamentally wrong with the "community" response to this case. There is no evidence to support their claims. The court should be applauded for not giving a verdict to appease the public opinion; it gave one based on evidence. A forensic lab clearly and openly showed that he hadn't been shot in the back, as CNN ran with when the story first emerged based on "eye witness testimony". Now, should he be facing at least a manslaughter charge, probably yes.
This is because no one tracks the data.

The police forces do not have to report any statistics on discharge or their weapons, or number of people killed. No one has any idea how many people were shot by police over the course of the past year, or indeed any year. Anecdotal evidence is the only evidence that exists. Coupled with the very clear data that minorities are more likely to be arrested and imprisoned for the same crime as a white person, the anecdotal evidence seems to be more well supported than the opposing viewpoint.

There is a fundamental breakdown in law enforcement in America. Both in relation to oversight and it's interaction with minorities.
 
What about the witnesses who said he never charged him but turned with his hands up??

Quite conceivable he had lost control of his emotions and snapped shooting him down in cold blood but lying his arse off so he does not go down himself.

Only he will know the full truth.

Proven unreliable
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top