Americans Killed by Cops Now Outnumber Americans Killed in Iraq War

[n2doc]

Cops have killed well over 5,000 Americans since 9/11. Many of these killings have occurred during no-knock raids, which have risen by 4000%.

Iraqi insurgents have killed around 3,500 Americans in Iraq since 9/11 in Operation Iraqi “Freedom.”

Afghan insurgents have killed around 2,000 Americans in Afghanistan since 9/11 in Operation Enduring “Freedom.”

The police are getting paid with our money to go on shooting sprees and they are killing more of us than the terrorists from whom they “protect” us. In fact, you are eight times more likely to be killed by a cop than by a terrorist.

Domestic violence is two-four times more common among police families than American families in general.

more

http://filmingcops.com/2013/11/13/americans-killed-by-police/

[FreakinDJ]

1. 20% - 30% of Police shooting victims have no weapon at all

Oops - your dead

[Orrex]

7. Citation, please

[FreakinDJ]

13. Give it a rest Orrex - I've posted those citations to you numerous times

I really find it disingenuous your repeatedly questioning the authenticity without so much as reading the citations given

[Orrex]

18. Give it a rest? Because you don't like to document your claims?

You've posted irrelevant citations, and although this has been explicitly pointed out to you, you've offered no other citations nor made any attempt to correct your error. I've read more than enough of your scribblings to see that you like to make wild accusations without offering actual support for them.

Even your current "20% to 30%" claim is ill-supported even by the scant documentation that provided previously, yet you still offer it as if it's verified truth.

In all of our exchanges so far, you have failed to answer a single question asked of you, and you have failed to provide credible documentation for any of your claims. In fact, you knowingly make assertions that have been shown to be, at best, inconsistent with reality. That is sloppy and irresponsible.


And now you want me to "give it a rest?" Why? So you can continue to post your made-up "facts" without being called out for them?

[FreakinDJ]

19. Your inability to accept "Reality" is not anyone else's problem

yet you admit this is a problem of your "Not liking" the documentation

Even your current "20% to 30%" claim is ill-supported even by the scant documentation that provided previously, yet you still offer it as if it's verified truth.

If you don't like seeing this then feel free to place me on your ignore list. However don't be surprised when DUers recognize selective denial when they see it

[Orrex]

23. "Scant documentation" means minimal documentation.

It is not a statement about whether I like or dislike that documenation. Further, my objection to your documentation is that it doesn't support your claim. That should be your objection as well; instead of correcting your repeated error, you take issue with the person who identifies your error for you. That is selective denial.

And why would I place you on my Ignore list? What would that serve, except to fuel your mistaken impression that you've documented your wild assertions and to inspire you to continue to make such bogus claims?


I have read the posts that you've had hidden, so I'm pretty sure that DU understands your schtick pretty clearly.

[FreakinDJ]

28. It never was "Scant Documentation"

The study, the first of its kind, was conducted by Dr. Darrell Ross, a criminology professor, department head, and director of the Center of Applied Social Sciences at Valdosta State University in Georgia.

LETHAL FORCE CASE POOL: Drawing on databases maintained by Westlaw and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE), Ross analyzed 1,000 randomly selected cases published by federal courts from 1989 to 2012, involving police use of deadly force and allegations of constitutional violations under section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act.

Of the suspects fired upon, 96% died, Ross writes. About one-third shot or pointed a weapon at police; 30% used a vehicle to attack ("a sizeable number," Ross says), others a personal or edged weapon. But in nearly one in five cases, "the suspect did not possess any weapon."

http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/237.html

[Orrex]

32. Better. But look closely:

Ross analyzed 1,000 randomly selected cases published by federal courts from 1989 to 2012, involving police use of deadly force and allegations of constitutional violations under section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act.

So what you're citing is a specific category of incidents of deadly force, of which less than 20% involved an unarmed suspect.

First, you either need to abandon your 30% figure or provide support for it, because the current citation contradicts it.

Second, you are making an unsupported leap between the use of deadly force in a specific type of situation and the use of force in all police encounters, but you are presenting your statistics as if they apply across the board. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is an honest mistake of methodology on your part rather than a deliberate attempt at deception, but you need to rephrase your assertion in either case.


From our interaction so far, I suspect that you'll claim that I "don't like" your documentation, or that I'm "denying reality," as you have claimed previously. Neither of these is accurate; I am in fact pointing out how your chosen source material doesn't support the claims that you're making.

Intellectual honesty should inspire you to change your assertions to be consistent with your sources or else find other sources that support your assertions. Simply attacking someone for disagreeing with you is sloppy and irresponsible.

[FreakinDJ]

33. 30% would be "Regional" as in some areas are worse then others

as in this case study in Houston Tx.

After two unarmed teenagers were shot and killed in separate incidents last year, the Houston Chronicle analyzed 189 shootings by officers from 18 local law enforcement agencies in the past 5 1/2 years.

http://m.chron.com/news/article/One-in-three-police-shootings-involve-unarmed-1651275.php

And given most States keep OI investigations "Secret" just how can anyone examine the statistics

[Orrex]

34. Well, we discussed that 65/189 figure in a different thread, and the same is true

We can't take a tiny sampling of a very specific region & context and extrapolate a nationwide trend covering all police interactions.

And given most States keep OI investigations "Secret" just how can anyone examine the statistics.

This is indeed a problem, but even so we can't make assumptions about those secret statistics. For all we know, those statistics might completely dispel our concerns about police brutality, but we simply can't assume one way or the other.

The only logically supportable course is to make claims based on the avaiable data and to be very careful in extrapolating beyond this information. You could, for instance, say something like "In the greater Houston area cops were found to use deadly force against unarmed suspects nearly 33% of the time," and you could then offer your citation. Then even sticklers like me wouldn't be able to claim that you'd failed to support your assertion; we would instead have to focus on the assertions of the article itself, rather than on your citation of it.

[FreakinDJ]

37. Should it be legal to shoot citizens on a "Perceived Threat"

was also an argument we had

And yes I do believe they are shooting unarmed citizens and being cleared of all wrong doing based on a "Perceived Threat"

Which by itself I don't believe passes the 4 point test. And I also question should it pass the test for "Reasonable". My question is it Reasonable to fire before being able to determine the civilian has the Ability. Many of these cases the officer already has his weapon drawn and aimed at the civilian. At this point the civilian has not produced a weapon, has not aimed the "Perceived" weapon, and has does not have his finger on the trigger of the "Perceived" weapon.

At what point do we say the cop clearly had the advantage and even the most law enforcement sympathetic person could understand the officer could wait to make SURE the "Perp" had the ABILITY

http://www.reviewjournal.com/multimedia/unarmed-man-shot-by-officer-files-federal-lawsuit-against-department

The reason is because Police Union attorneys will argue to Disallow 20/20 Hindsight

[Orrex]

38. Perhaps this is where we're going to differ

I accept that situations arise wherein a cop doesn't have time to perform an exhaustive analysis of the scene before opting to draw his weapon and fire. The time between "does that kid have a weapon" and "dead cop" can potentially be measured in fractions of a second, so I honestly can't suggest a reasonable alternative at the scene.

However, it is entirely reasonable to demand a transparent investigation of such incidents, with accountability when a cop is found to have acted improperly, though obviously this doesn't happen in real life at this time.

[FreakinDJ]

39. So the number of Innocent Civilians Killed is Acceptable ???

Its not an "Exhaustive analysis" as you suggest - it is the Law. The civilian (or "Perceived Threat&quot must have the ABILITY to inflict harm

I believe this is more a perception of Police reviewing Police shootings as none of this would pass a civilian trial

<on edit>

In the video linked the cop already had his weapon drawn and aimed at the innocent civilian before he backed the guy up into the store.

Again my question - since the officer already had the advantage of drawing and aiming his weapon at the civilian why should this precludes him from following the complete guidelines of a "Justifiable Shooting"

[Orrex]

41. Now you're slipping back into incorrect citation

So the number of Innocent Civilians Killed is Acceptable ???

That's not at all what I said, so in point of fact I have no obligation to respond to your misstatement of my argument.

I believe this is more a perception of Police reviewing Police shootings as none of this would pass a civilian trial

Possibly, but what's the alternative? How might such a trial be undertaken? How might the case be investigated? You object to police coverup under the current structure; how much more intense would the coverup be if a civilian agency were investigating?

That's not an argument in favor of the current system, but it's an acknowledgment that there's no obvious alternative at this point.

[FreakinDJ]

43. Civilian Review would be Corrupt ??

I think some thing as simple as selecting civilians from the available jury pool would be simplest and least susceptible to corruption.

And no it wouldn't have to be a "Trial" but merely a panel of civilians assigned to witness the investigation with power of subpoena over all evidence collected, witnesses involved, and records.

You know - simple "Checks and Balances" to the obviously flawed system of secret investigations being conducted by police investigating police we have now

[Orrex]

49. What I meant was...

police stonewalling, already claimed to be widespread and entrenched, would only become more tenacious if exposed to independent civilian oversight.

And how might such civilian oversight be implemented? If police resist basic internal review, don't you think that they'd fight tooth and nail against a bureaucratic civilian agency looking over their shoulders? And do you think that police unions would accept it?

These aren't petty or trivial objections. They're major obstacles that would have to be overcome

[FreakinDJ]

54. Police Officers Unions can object all they want to a State Law

Of course this would have to be implemented by law at a State Level or by settlement of a Federal Civil Rights suit as in the case of LA

[Orrex]

55. A consent decree?

Last edited Sun Nov 17, 2013, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Good luck getting that through in thousands of municipalities across the land.

Your solution simply isn't realistic, in part because it would immediately create the very same problem that it purports to solve. Who watches the watchmen who watch the watchmen?

And how would you fund this operation that would likely run into hundreds of billions of dollars?

[Bluest4t3]

58. I'm sorry but...

Don't we pay cops good money (and insane benefits) to go do dangerous stuff? Last I checked it was part of their JOB to perform an "exhaustive analysis" of the situation before shooting. Isn't that why we dump good tax money on all their Hogans Alley's and training simulators?

There needs to be a new Federal statute about this. Cops should be required to be able to clearly identify a weapon before they can draw a weapon, and have it pointed at them before they can open fire.

With all the perks they get (get out of jail free cards, life long pensions, etc.) this is the least we can require to halt the senseless murder of innocents!!!

[heaven05]

65. Police misconduct is at an all time high

especially in relation to 'minorities' of all persuasions except asian. DWB, WWB, HAHWB, being black or brown or 'different'. Wake up please, you'll feel better.

[Orrex]

66. Citation, please.

Police misconduct is at an all time high

Nationwide? Regionally? What sort of misconduct? Corruption? Malfeasance? Negligence? What's your source for this assertion? High-profile misconduct is certainly getting a lot of attention, but does that prove that the actual incidence of misconduct is on the rise?

I know that it's satisfying to lament the dreadful police state in which we find ourselves, but blanket statements like yours are unhelpful because they're so vague that they're meaningless.

Provide some data. Provide citations.


You'll feel better.

[heaven05]

67. please, you're not awake

shooting into a van of children. Football player killed after his car accident because a homeowner got frightened when he came to her door looking for help. Policebrutality.info, policecrimes.com, and there are many sources to find if you're awake.

[Orrex]

69. Nope, try again

You can't make a claim and then require your reader to support it for you. And accusing me of being asleep because you're too lazy to support your claim is lazy and dishonest of you.

You assert that "Police misconduct is at an all time high." Let's see your evidence. Anecdotes, even cruel and vile incidents, don't automatically mean that overall brutality is on the rise. You need to demonstrate a widespread trend overall.


You have made a very simple assertion. Now it's up to you to support it.

[heaven05]

70. fact supports my claim

you are asleep at the wheel. I have nothing to prove to you. Your blanket demands for "proof" are ludicrous to say the least. You're wrong. Period. And you're boring in your need to be right. Support your contentions all you want, I laugh at you, LOUD. Can you hear me. I hope so. I'm done with you. bye.

[sl8]

51. That "nearly 1 in 5" figure is drawn from cases where a suit was filed in Federal court

Do yo think the number would be higher or lower in cases where no one chose to file suit?

[FreakinDJ]

53. ABSOLUTELY HIGHER - Civil letigation other then a Federal Civil Rights Suits

These are just the cases filed under a Federal Civil Rights Suit. Many are settled with the family of the deceased out of court before it EVER reaches this level

[Ranchemp.]

10. I'm going to assume that you have a link for this?

Otherwise you wouldn't have posted this right? Oh, wait.......
If you mean no weapon at all, I assume you mean no gun, no knife, nothing that can potentially injure or kill a police officer?

[FreakinDJ]

17. Nothing that can constrewed as "Reasonable"

http://m.chron.com/news/article/One-in-three-police-shootings-involve-unarmed-1651275.php

But sure - go right ahead and assume all OI shootings are justified just as the FBI statistics do

Fact is giving officers the "Loophole" of determining what other officers do as "Reasonable" while maintaining ALL of the investigation be held "SECRET" (for the officer's protection) is some thing right out of a Kafka novel

[Ranchemp.]

26. Thanks for the link.

Makes for some interesting reading.
So that means that 70-80% of officer involved shootings are against armed individuals, seems like most cops get it right, but I do agree in that the 20-30% is too high, that needs to be rectified and there should be a civilian review board for ALL officer involved shootings, local/state and federal, the dept. involved should not be investigating it's own officer's shooting.

[FreakinDJ]

29. We agree "Civilian Review Board" nt

[Gravitycollapse]

68. Holy shit.

[WatermelonRat]

11. Which in turn means that 70-80% of the people killed DID have a weapon.

When you combine that with the "unarmed" people like that woman who tried to ram her car through the White House's security barriers, OP's numbers get a lot less impressive.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. It's also how they define "weapon" which could be most anything.

[Th1onein]

45. Are you trying to say that a ballpoint pen is NOT a weapon?

The police chief in this instance would beg to differ:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/cop-cleared-after-killing-mentally-disab

[Th1onein]

48. Or a WATER HOSE. Yes, it's a dangerous weapon.

That same year, in Long Beach, California, police responded with heavy firepower to a perceived threat by a man holding a water hose. The 35-year-old man had reportedly been watering his neighbor's lawn when police, interpreting his "grip" on the water hose to be consistent with that of someone discharging a firearm, opened fire. The father of two was pronounced dead at the scene.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338571/Douglas-Zerby-shot-dead-police-holding-GARDEN-HOSE-nozzle-gun-chief-admits.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. Then there's this...

[Th1onein]

59. I hadn't seen this before. Thanks.

[L0oniX]

2. "Domestic violence is two-four times more common among police families" Shhhhh!

[G_j]

3. no-knock raids have risen by 4000%?

saying we live in a police state is NOT hyperbole..

[woo me with science]

62. [phone]

That in itself should be an OP.

[gopiscrap]

4. Not a surprise, we've turned into a fucking police state

[jsr]

5. Recommend

[Oilwellian]

6. Amazing numbers

Thank you for posting.

[Overseas]

8. K&R. That's a big reason I hated the Cops type shows glorifying their violence. /nt

[Logical]

15. Yes, and 99% of america trusts them 100% and think they are always right and telling....

the truth. Neither is true.

Cops are not your friend.

[n2doc]

42. It's not even 60%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

[Logical]

44. Well, that is good news. Thanks!

[pscot]

9. Great comment thread at the link

[MyNameGoesHere]

12. Recently my town had a shooting

of a 50 something year old black man with a mental illness. He was walking down main street acting "suspicious" as the police put it. He was actually in a full blown psychosis. Officers approached him and he pulled a knife.

"Jones was shot with a Taser twice and later was fatally shot when police say he stabbed an officer with a knife, causing a minor wound when the weapon penetrated the officer's vest."

The glossed over "fatally shot" was 15 rounds fired and hitting the man. 15 rounds! The officers were investigated and cleared of any wrong doing. Now while this is indeed horrendous the thing that really blew my fucking mind beyond anything was the local newspaper forums. Or the gathering of shit heads as I call it, overwhelmingly supported these murderers.

I never really respected police very much before. I felt they were a necessary evil. Now I despise them and every thing they stand for. I feel even more contempt for those that support them. I don't care if there are "good" ones, because when it comes down to it, those "good" ones will circle the wagons to support their murderers in arms.

[Logical]

16. People are raised from day one to believe the police are your friends and always right. n-t

[Logical]

14. No knock raids should be illegal except in rare circumstances. If someone kicks in my front...

I would always assume it is a criminal.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. This is what you get when the line of recruits are fans of the show "Cops".

[99th_Monkey]

22. K&R Where is the outrage? nt

[99Forever]

24. And they wonder why so many law-abiding citizens...

... fear, distrust, and are disgusted by them.

[eqfan592]

61. Yet so many here feel they should be the only ones armed in the country.

Still trying to wrap my head around that one.

[Orrex]

63. Because citizens with guns fare so well against cops in armed standoffs.

[mtasselin]

25. police state

If you ever had a doubt about America turning into a police state stop wondering because it's here. They would rather shoot first and not answer questions later. Sad state of affairs in America.

[NuclearDem]

27. Couldn't have picked a better analogy.

Everytime I see a police raid, I'm reminded of Army or Marine raids on houses in Iraq. Same level of armor, weaponry, and aggression. It's unsettling.

[Savannahmann]

30. I'll give this a kick and a rec

[hfojvt]

31. what a nice little anti-cop site that is

nice that they threw in some anti-government rhetoric as well. Maybe they should add a quote "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem."

So 5,000 Americans have been killed by the police. They "estimate".

The other link says they estimate 500 to 1,000 a year.

Well at least it is a precise estimate.

And they apparently make no attempt, as they go on and on about all the ways the pigs are so evil and awful and horrible, but they make no attempt to "estimate" how many of those people killed were a clear and present danger to the public that the police are sworn to protect.

Oh, here's one of those police "victims" that the effing pigs shot to death. A$$holes. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/mall.shooter/

Probably should add that those militarized SOB's caused the death of poor little Adam Lanza, even though they did not actually manage to shoot him. Wiki says "After realizing he had been spotted by a pair of police officers who had entered the building, Lanza fled from their sight, then fatally shot himself in the head with a Glock 10mm handgun in Soto's classroom."

Clearly it is time to rid this country of all pigs, before they kill again.

[Ikonoklast]

46. Best be careful around any source of sparks.

Working with that much straw lying around could lead to a conflagration.

[hfojvt]

50. straw how?

The OP mentions all the Americans killed by police - as if that is always a bad thing.

16,000 Americans were murdered in 2010. Meaning that in the 12 years since 9/11 about 192,000 Americans have been killed by other Americans.

Let's say the police have killed 5,000.

Okay, how many of those 5,000 were involved in gun battles with police? The article I linked to would be one such person. How many were involved in some other violent struggle with police? It kinda makes a big difference, or it should, if that number is 4,500 or if it is 500. Without that number, the 5,000 number does not mean all that much to me.

edit: and was quoting Reagan a strawman, or did the article the OP linked to include this nice little rightwing sentiment? "While we’re at it, over a quarter of a billion human beings were killed by government last century alone, making government the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century. This doesn’t include casualties from all the wars that governments started to “protect” us."

Gubmint is evil.

[Th1onein]

47. ONE of these officers were fired! Wow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/darrin-hanna-recordings-n_n_1414626.html

The recordings were from police videos. These video recordings showed Hanna begging for his life, but of course, they were part of the official police report.

[Iggo]

35. Yay, Cops!

They're the best!

[gulliver]

36. This is getting ridiculous. I wish these FTPers...

...could just find someone other than liberals and progressives to pester with this junk.

[FreakinDJ]

40. I wish Police would protect "Brown Skinned Children" as much as they do their own children

instead of just shooting those "Brown Skinned Children" because he had a "Hoodie"

[WillyT]

52. To Serve The Projectile... er, I Mean... To Serve and Protect...

[Mostly Orbiting]

57. There's only one country that can destroy us

US

[Blue Owl]

60. More than from those who hate us for our freedom, eh?

Hmmm...

[toby jo]

64. I took some college classes in criminal justice on my way to a degree

in forestry - eye openers.

I remember the day a group of the guys went on a bragging stitch about how they got a chance to go out and
ride roughshod over at a res. It was nothing but a massive power trip. I thought 'wow, no way I could ever work
with asshats like these.'

My take away was that there's just something wrong with a certain percentage of cop wannabes. Not surprising at all that they have so many domestic situations in their own homes.

Don't forget the good guys, though. They're out there, too. Just like there's good politicians, the folks who really want to help.