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
244 comments | Share | Flag

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."


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by NealS 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Today, even I have come around believing maybe Marijuana should not be criminalized. I don't use it, never will, at least I don't think I will at this point in my life. Some of my comrades from Vietnam live on the stuff and I see it in their interactions with society. If they want to screw up their heads that’s up to them. Most of them are retired now and are just waiting for their final outcome. They have little effect on society, and if society wants to bear the problems this might create so be it. I'm not against them but I'm still against it, perhaps not so much as to pass a law, but it seems we as a society have accepted it, so be it. Now, those laws need to be modified to meet society’s desire. Obey the law, or cause the law to be changed.

    Cops need rules too, but if you as a cop get a call to respond it should be up to you to decide to draw first or not draw at all. And disrespect for the law, not doing what a cop directs you to do in such a situation, is mandatory, especially today. It’s like running a stop light at full speed, I’m not going to do it, besides it’s against the law. If you disagree get the law changed. Years ago it wasn't the same, cops didn't need to worry as much about getting shot or prosecuted. That's only my perspective, I could be wrong.

    It seems to me that our leaders, those people we elect and hire to address everyone have thrown cops (hired and paid by us) under the bus because of a possible few bad ones. Police forces are never going to be perfect, they are human not computer controlled robots. Yes, there are dirty cops, but there are hundreds of times more that are not, and there are even hundreds of times more criminals than there are clean cops. I know which of those groups I want hanging around in my neck of the woods.

    Perhaps my perspective may have to do with my experience in combat and my combat with the public as I arrived home. It’s no wonder why they didn’t let us bring our side arms home with us. The people we went over to represent, how we were treated for doing what we were ordered and paid to do by the laws of the same people that sent us over there, who then threw us under the bus when we came home, still remains the biggest disappointment in my whole life. Now history is even getting it all screwed up, with the lies and political twists for someone else's agenda. I know it wasn’t everyone that spit on us but it sure seemed there weren’t too many that actually stood up against them with us. I would imagine that the average cop today feels more like a returning Vietnam Veteran than ever before, we’re doing the same thing to them. We need to make sure this is not allowed to continue and to escalate. Most of it has been based on totally false information and the media’s need to invent news. It’s everyone’s choice, either stand up with the cops or stand up with those that disrespect the cops and only sound off when one makes a poor judgment. Criminals make even worse judgments, just by being criminals. In any case at least stand up, your vote just doesn’t count if you don’t make it. And some of our leaders today that we elect and pay actually embarrass me not only for what they say but what they don’t say.

    Sorry for the babble, but this is an issue that’s really on my mind lately. Throwing cops under a bus full of criminals is not going to make America a better place to live. Some places actually still honor them and let them know that we support them, some don’t. At this year’s most recent Memorial Day presentation during the laying of the wreaths, when the police were called up, they got a standing ovation. I was so proud that it was actually my wife and my daughter that broke the ice and started it, then the majority of the crowd immediately followed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Horse hockey. All cops are protecting the bad ones, and that makes them all evil.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The people didn't choose to become enemies of cops. It's the other way 'round.

    Laws against too many things (and police willingness to enforce them) are part of the problem, too. But at some point, a cop or even a soldier has to say "Enough!" or be one of the bad guys.

    If a cop doesn't think he can be a cop without committing aggression, then the honorable thing to do is get a different job.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Risks that the (competent adult) victim voluntarily takes for a greater benefit shouldn't even count. They are accidents (accidental suicides, if you prefer).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Reason has reported two or three such cases in the last year. It happens to whites a lot less often than blacks (per capita), though that is changing.

    I hope we can raise awareness enough that whites scream about it as much as blacks do. When *that* happens, we'll start seeing reform candidates for chief of police.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The police abuse pepper spray and Tasers as well -- both by using them on people who haven't used or threatened force, and by using them as torture devices.

    If I had my way, cops convicted of repeated abuses such as these should be literally disarmed by sentence of court. Make them quadriplegics, and let them live the rest of their lives afraid, just like they tried to make us. It should take only a few dozen cases to really "encourage the others."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To me it sounds more like he wants an excuse to institute martial law and promote himself to dictator-for-life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just as illegal killing is sometimes right -- legal killing is sometimes wrong. If your reasoning starts and ends with "it was justified under Utah law, therefore it's OK" you should not be trusted with a gun OR a badge.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Police officer is still not the most dangerous job in the US. Truck driver is. I think they can afford to go back to hesitating.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I suggest that you show this video to you cop friends and ask them what would they do if the shooter was you (i.e., not in uniform)? Let's say, you are a concerned, conscientious citizen who decided to apprehend a possible criminal. The rest, as in the video. Do you think that the state of Utah would even let you out on bail? Sorry, but I do agree with Zenphamy that you should not carry until you review the law, including similar cases. You are on very thin ice here. Depending on the color of the victim and aggressiveness of the DA, you may not even escape murder 1 charges.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I tend to agree with you on the legitimate reasons for government, more specifically the reason for police (retributive force for individual rights violations) and military to prevent invasion by outside force.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are entitled to your option, but I live in Utah. I know the law here on shot/don't shoot. I have several friends that are police in the state and go recreational shooting with a friend that is a sheriff for the county.

    From what is in the Video this officer was likely justified in the shooting. I do have concerns about why he pulled his gun in the first place. That is not covered by the video or the article and it is possible, even likely that a mistake was made at that point that if corrected would have kept the situation from escalating to shots fired. I cant judge that.

    This is my main point. Were judging this cop based of a small bit of information and there is not enough to condemn the cop. What is there could be interpreted many ways. A judge interpreted as justified and off what I see it may have been, I wont judge that for myself because I do not know enough of the context around it. That is my main point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    From what I see in the video I wondered why the cop had his gun out at all, but have no context to judge as to why he had it out.

    I also wondered what his buddy could see, and if they were in communication. Some context around what lead to the point of the gun being pulled and what verbal communication occurred between the officers and the dead man would help to add context.

    With what I know there are scenarios in which the shooting could be legit. I do not judge it based of a video clip which I know tells only part of the story.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's like telling the cow. "There, you've been a good cow. This will help you. Now, walk down this corridor to that big hydraulic, overhead ram." In my dad's case they were going to let him die had I not diagnosed him. (70-years old, on medicare...adios sucker)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree there is a problem, but I think it is bi directional. More cops are dying and more people are dying.

    I think BOTH are the result of a government looking for a emergency in order to use it to push the agenda.

    The one you describe with the pastor may be more cut and dry and may be a good example of the cop going to far and committing murder. I believe it happens, but most of the time there is justification for the cops actions.

    We have mayors stating the violence towards the cops is justified and ok. That is stupid. We have cops saying excessive force (not called that) is necessary to control the situation. That is stupid. If we are still a civilized people we sit down and talk about these things. We discuss we negotiate and we trade. We do not degrade to riots and excessive force. In my view it will continue to escalate from both sides until both sides step back and realize they are being played by their "officials" against one and other to create a Crisis.

    I think within the cops they are setting up (through training and attitude) a police force that will do more oppression than police work. They wish to create Obama's "Civil Defense Force" which he stated we need when first running for president. Obama could not make that happen so he is attempting to federalize and centralize our police force and turn them into the "Civil Defense Force" he wants. I do not disagree with that and I think that is what your getting at in the end. The cops are being trained in that direction and they do need to realize it. I agree with that.

    I do not agree with an example of a specific case where it is quite likely that the cop acted quite appropriately for the situations based on the information he had at the time and the actions of the target.

    Overall I agree with what I think your getting at. Cops are being trained to become a federally controlled force of oppression against the citizens. I recognizing it would be a good thing to have cops become aware of this and stop it. I think we are to far down the road, any cop that recognizes and rejects becoming a force of oppression will loose their job over some technicality. The very acts that are occurring by the police and by citizens against the police will create the crisis that will allow a new federal police department that will be the start of federalizing and militarization all police everywhere. I do not believe that anything will stop that unless the masses (even more than the police) stop buying what they are being sold.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One way street? Has to do with your sources of information or lack there of. And your school of red herrings.Can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm tired of your accusations of left leaning tendencies or my voting habits, which you know absolutely nothing about.

    I think Mark Twains comment about voting covers that topic: (paraphrased)
    'If voting could make a difference, they wouldn't let us do it'
    .
    Other than that, this is at least second caution to stay on topic
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, the clothing version of no standing army on US soil, as understood at the founding.
    Just like giving themselves military rank, i.e. Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, etc. It causes a mind set that is opposite
    to a legitimate government purpose.

    Edit to add
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It won't if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils. The point is finding out if your charges are legitimate no matter the rather curious cites. All decidedly left wing. As it turns out I now believe they developed nothing but used previous, at hand, and easy to find information then slanted and spun it for other purposes. Two years? Try 2010 and long before. Can't change the White House nor probably the Congress but you can learn whose responsible for the cover up and get rid of them. that means using the vote as intended while we still have it to use.

    The blame is equally spread over three Presidents and twenty years of their Congress's and their Attorney Generals. Along with the obvious support of some but not all the news media. That leads to the citizens who openly and willingly supported by re-electing at least six times a dirty government. Having now defined the validity and those responsible it's time to decide a course of action. Action does not mean endless go no where posts. It also means deciding how to circumvent by use of the 911 tragedy to stage a revolt against Constitutional law - the present Government.

    Before it goes any further it's time to answer the question. What Are You Prepared To Do?: If it is solely rely on a document no longer in force step aside. if it is - for example - to speak with and recruit the one organization that is legally entitled to take the necessary steps then take the lead. But at this point recall you don't know to whom you are speaking and neither do I. I suspect that should remain the case. the charge is fundamentally changing the Bill of Rights without first amending the Constitution as required and usurping power and powers not granted. The primary action is one granted to any citizen assuming the right to do so still exists. An action which any good citizen knows how to take - as long as it's still available the rest follows. One whomever the present incumbent - assuming voluntary abdication - annoints as heir opinion repudiate he, she, and their supporters. Two whomever the other half of the the Government Party or Coalition chooses as the companion candidate shun them. The third and most difficult is finding someone suitable - or raise the spectre of the military be held accountable for not up holding their oath of office to the Constitution. If it means dividing the nation so be it. No biggie it's already divided. As of yet no white horse candidate has appeared. Put another way who is the most trusted individual in the country. Is there such a person who has not been thoroughly smeared or tainted.

    You can't change citizens without offering them a reason to change or at least a reason to reject.

    Didn't work? Fine. Did it do damage to the opposition? Better yet. The cycle of repression works in both directions and so does the cycle of expression. I guess i fibbed about one week off from this . I'll rule it started today and go fishing. Until the 14th. So...What are you prepared to do? What can you offer?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A cop's uniform should reflect service to the citizenry instead of preparation for war and combat against the population.

    They might act a little differently if so.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo