6/1/2015--The Counted: People killed by police in the US, During 2015 = 470
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 11 months ago to Government
The Guardian has compiled a unique and detailed, searchable, and interactive database and presentation of Americans killed by Police this year (470 through 6/1). There are other sites that are out there gathering information from citizen volunteers, but this one by The Guardian offers more detail and info in one place than any other I’ve seen. For those interested from either side of the issue, I highly recommend checking it out.
Needless to say, since my last post on this topic, America’s police have maintained their nearly 4/day kill rates and for the most part, their DA’s have continued justifying and protecting them from the consequences.
I reviewed one in particular from Salt Lake City last year, just today that is horrifying to watch from the Officer’s body camera. The complete video/audio was just released to the public. You can view it at : http://thefreethoughtproject.com/graphic...
As I viewed this shooting, the first thing that came to mind was the revelation of the 'No More Hesitation Target' story from last year about shooting range targets designed to remove any hesitation in real life street encounters between police and citizens that included pregnant women, mother with child, grade school age children, the elderly, etc. One story can be reviewed at Reason Magazine: http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/law-en...
From the article:
“According to a statement the company sent Reason last week, members of the law enforcement community inspired Law Enforcement Targets Inc. to design the "No More Hesitation" series in the first place:
The subjects in NMH targets were chosen in order to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training. I found while speaking with officers and trainers in the law enforcement community that there is a hesitation on the part of cops when deadly force is required on subjects with atypical age, frailty or condition (one officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with such a drastically new experience while on duty). This hesitation time may be only seconds but that is not acceptable when officers are losing their lives in these same situations. The goal of NMH is to break that stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman, etc. If that initial hesitation time can be cut down due to range experience, the officer and community are better served.”
From my memory of the stories about the targets and their use, what I don’t remember reading was how long Police Depts. had been training their officers at shooting ranges in this ‘No More Hesitation Shooting’, or what DHS did with the $2,000,000 worth of those targets that they had already ordered And I don’t doubt that training has a great deal to do with the number and types of un-armed shootings we’re seeing.
From the SLC shooting linked above, I have no doubt that Officer had passed his ‘No More Hesitation’ training class with an A+.
Let me repeat one sentence from the article above: "one officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with such a drastically new experience while on duty."
Needless to say, since my last post on this topic, America’s police have maintained their nearly 4/day kill rates and for the most part, their DA’s have continued justifying and protecting them from the consequences.
I reviewed one in particular from Salt Lake City last year, just today that is horrifying to watch from the Officer’s body camera. The complete video/audio was just released to the public. You can view it at : http://thefreethoughtproject.com/graphic...
As I viewed this shooting, the first thing that came to mind was the revelation of the 'No More Hesitation Target' story from last year about shooting range targets designed to remove any hesitation in real life street encounters between police and citizens that included pregnant women, mother with child, grade school age children, the elderly, etc. One story can be reviewed at Reason Magazine: http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/law-en...
From the article:
“According to a statement the company sent Reason last week, members of the law enforcement community inspired Law Enforcement Targets Inc. to design the "No More Hesitation" series in the first place:
The subjects in NMH targets were chosen in order to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training. I found while speaking with officers and trainers in the law enforcement community that there is a hesitation on the part of cops when deadly force is required on subjects with atypical age, frailty or condition (one officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with such a drastically new experience while on duty). This hesitation time may be only seconds but that is not acceptable when officers are losing their lives in these same situations. The goal of NMH is to break that stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman, etc. If that initial hesitation time can be cut down due to range experience, the officer and community are better served.”
From my memory of the stories about the targets and their use, what I don’t remember reading was how long Police Depts. had been training their officers at shooting ranges in this ‘No More Hesitation Shooting’, or what DHS did with the $2,000,000 worth of those targets that they had already ordered And I don’t doubt that training has a great deal to do with the number and types of un-armed shootings we’re seeing.
From the SLC shooting linked above, I have no doubt that Officer had passed his ‘No More Hesitation’ training class with an A+.
Let me repeat one sentence from the article above: "one officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with such a drastically new experience while on duty."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
Cattle might be apt in that situation.
And the job they do should be thankless--following nonsense laws because they're ordered to and spending their time collecting money from people to fund their operations instead of watching for true safety problems.
The second or two that the cop delayed, had he delayed could have meant he died rather than this guy.
I do carry a gun at times, but have never had to shoot anyone. I have had an occasion where I pulled a gun and leveled it at someone. The situation quickly deescalated once that happened. I hope I never feel the need to fire at someone.
If I were in the situation this cop is in and the person I had drawn a gun on suddenly turned back at me I would not wait to get shot, I would fire and it would be justified because in my mind I am not waiting until I can see the gun to react, it is likely to late then. I would be in fear for my life when he turned.
From my perspective this would be an entirely different thing had the cop shot him in the back while he was running away from the cop.
Are you telling me this video does not present a case for the officer to have felt that his life was about to be threatened and at serious risk? I can not say that from the Video. Fact is there is plenty in the video that would give cause for concern for your own safety when a guy who ran, hands hidden from view turns back at you.
Do you wait to see what his intent is, based on reaction time to such situations if you do it could get you killed. If you do not you may kill someone that is not a threat. Only hindsight will tell you which it was.
In this case it was not an armed person attempting to take you down, it was just an irrational person acting foolishly. It could have just as easily been a guy turning back with a glock-19 about to pump 17 9mm rounds into you and in that case the cop would have died had he delayed shooting. That is why the judge ruled as he did, and properly.
Yes, the guy turned around, while kept backing away from the cop. Yes, his hands were behind. Question for you - do you carry a gun? If you do, you should know that shooting someone just because you can't see their hands is a straight ticket to welfare for life, and if you're in Arizona, that would be welfare for life while wearing pink panties. If the cop had any part of the vessel where his brains were supposed to have been filled with the grey matter instead of testosterone, he may have realized, while observing the guy's back while he approached, that even if he had a gun back there, wearing, or almost not wearing, his pants, the way that they were hanging there, he could not have possibly quickly drawn a gun from that wardrobe, especially when the cop already had his gun drawn and aimed. And yes, the difference I'm talking about is perhaps just a second or so, but that is a difference between a legitimate stop and murder. If the cop does not have the training to differentiate the two, he should get pink panties and get on the life welfare dole while pondering the dilemma.
Watch the video again.
The man was shot in the chest, in the front. He tuned back on the cop. The cop had no way of knowing if the man had a gun now or not. The mans hands were hidden.
In hindsight he was unarmed, at the moment, if it were me. I would have shot as well because I am not waiting for the guy turning back on me to shoot first.
Your point about the oil rig divers is important, because most of us never have any contact with these folk, or with many other people with dangerous jobs (like Alaskan fishermen - the most deadly American profession). By contrast, we have contact with a police presence almost daily, so it's hard not to have some opinion about their behavior or job performance. We all generally wish there was a little more slack, but cities make money from non-violent offenders, and the cops have to enforce the rules, even when they don't personally think it's a good use of resources. I personally find it hard to have a favorable view of law enforcement when they deliver a document about how I've violated yet another nonsense city ordinance, or get a ticket for overtime parking.
It takes self-discipline to remind yourself that the other person has to live by different rules, and act in accordance with those rules, even when they make your life uncomfortable. We should focus on the people who make up the rules, the politicians. They're the ones who create the adversarial environment between the public and law enforcement.
i find it difficult for this specific department to class this as a 'justified shooting", since it seems very questionable when viewing the video clip.
We do definitely have a culture, much more so, of shoot first and ask questions later. The Cops are being taught to do it.
At the same time the "Useful Idiots" are being taught to resist. That senseless violence is good.
The result is a civil unrest brewing that the "Obama" camp and their like needs in order to put in place a military state where our National Socialist Party within the US can come out of hiding behind the new US gestapo.
I realize that is a bit out there, but I think its the end game. Much backs it up.
I see your argument but I do not blame the police for it, or the rioting hordes. I blame the people responsible for training like "No More Hesitation" and Mayors who state that violence is justified to those that are rioting in their own city.
"No More Hesitation" is a symptom of a larger picture to create civil unrest and cause a crisis for those in power to take advantage of. I may be wrong in how they wish to take advantage of it, but they do wish to do so in some way.
it was a reasonable assumption that you intended this comment for at least me and perhaps Zen. I have not been critical of all police. I have been critical of training methods and how things have changed over the years. I am highly critical of asset forfeiture. and yes, bad shit goes down and cops can be corrupt. so unless we know them individually, why do we have to tke a patriotic view of their "service." People who dive working for oil rigs have a much more dangerous job and we don't put them on pedestals. and that's part of the problem for me. It's a job, a career. It involves danger. It attracts cocky individuals who like the idea of a uniform and authority. -and hopefully, to make communities safe. I was just enjoying a conversation with a gentleman from Deming, NM. Here was the scam the police were running there. They pulled over individuals arrested them for suspicion of drugs and ordered they get colonoscopies to check body cavities for drugs. In ALL cases, those charged were innocent and the hospitals stuck them with the bills for the procedures done against their will. How sick is that? having a healthy skepticism of ANYONE who has authority over you-is a good thing. My husband and I used to cross the border and head into Deming all of the time. Luckily we did not have any run-ins. Oh, there's border stops-you are not a US citizen entitled to the rights of citizenship 100 miles (that's right) within any international border. It's no man's land
Regards your point about speed traps, the whole idea of using police to generate revenue is imposed by politicians. A cop is not usually happy to be sitting on the side of the road when he could be chasing real bad guys. All I'm saying is that without being willing to take a walk in the other guy's shoes, it's hard to find sympathy for one's complaints.
I think a stockade is to the Army as the brig is to the Marines.
The brig is where most Parris Island runners wound up before being given a second chance.
Those who could not be caught fairly quickly were listed as deserters.
How's that for a happy thought this Friday? - haha...
I see your point, but I think its evolved to the point where police are more afraid of the public, more so than the other way around. I would also venture a guess that firing all the police and hiring new ones would do nothing at all. Maybe we should get rid of all the criminals and get new ones and see if that does anything to reduce crime. That would stand a better chance than replacing all the cops with new, unarmed, and unafraid ones. New cops get shot, it's just like second lieutenants in Vietnam. They haven't yet gotten the proper sense of self preservation and protection, they are unafraid.
I see your point too in relation to the video, it looked like the cop came with his gun drawn. My question is why did he even come there, was he called, or did he just stop for coffee and decide to pull his gun on some "suspects"? I just say we didn't get enough info to make ant kind of a decision. Perhaps he had more info than we did, perhaps not. And when criminals start hunting police I say that is much more of a problem than the opposite scenario. I know you'll reject that last statement, but I'd defend myself profusely if I was in that position. I just say we've created these problems just by not enforcing the laws. and it's moving in the wrong direction, and the wrong parties are being blamed. Increase in crime is not caused by the police, it's caused by criminals.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/my-ri...
Load more comments...