Nonviolent Civil Resistance - The 3.5% Rule

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A total 457 civilians have been fatally shot by police officers as of July 2, 2019.
Twenty-seven officers have been feloniously killed so far this year, and another 15 have died in accidents like car crashes.
17:1

So what's your point, exactly? That the ratio should be more even?

Nothing about those numbers indicates the nature of those shootings. The policy are entrusted with deadly force, as the purpose is to protect the rest of us. Presumably, there would be a lot more civilian shootings WITHOUT the police.

While we don't want unjustified shootings, and we need the police to be ever vigilant, we arm them to protect us from crime. Part of the "social contract" with police is enabling them to do their job. Like any position of authority, it comes with both rights and responsibilities. While we need to hold police responsible for their actions, we owe them the benefit of the doubt. While there will be mistakes, we don't need a head to roll every time to satisfy someone's social agenda. If it's in the grey area, we shouldn't be using it to add social anxiety. Yes, I get that if you know someone they're never going to be in the grey area. But most of the people protesting don't know the person. They're just getting their buttons pushed.

We need to get away from treating every event as a contest of social ideas, where people want view the event in a certain way so that it "proves" their political point, at the cost of understanding the nuances of the particular event.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

So what's your point, exactly? ...

It's just a data point.
One possible interpretation might be, that the police are not, typically, just sitting in their cars.


Fatal shootings by police are the rare outcomes of the millions of encounters between police officers and the public. Despite the unpredictable events that lead to the shootings, in each of the past four years police nationwide have shot and killed almost the same number of people - nearly 1,000.
Looking at other, more common applications of the use of force may be much more telling. Since things like Taser usage, or open hand strikes are more common, it may be easier to see when a police department or individual officer is an outlier.
Unfortunately, there is no official data set that captures all the elements needed to fully understand the factors that lead to (fatal or other) police shootings.
There are about 100 million homes with guns in them and 10 million cars, so every time an officer walks into a home, or pulls over a car, they could encounter a gun. This is a characteristic of American life, which creates a unique set of hazards to police, and may lead to more killings by police.
Some context
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30311055
➥ https://killedbypolice.net/

The Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc., (ODMP) is a non-profit organization dedicated to honoring America's fallen law enforcement heroes. More than 23,000 officers have made the ultimate sacrifice in the United States since 1791.
➥ https://www.odmp.org/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It's just a data point.

No, it's not. Or it's a meaningless one absent linkage to other relevant data as letsgetsailing3 just explained.

One possible interpretation might be, that the police are not, typically, just sitting in their cars.

Of course they're not, but in many areas they are reportedly getting out of their cars less. Or better put they're interacting less with the public on a more personal level (the most effective form of LE) ever since national leaders decided to politicize events before allowing the justice system to sort out the actual facts. It was a bogus instigation, but there was truth to some of the longstanding, underlying tensions which helped fuel the political fires. But it backfired, and predictably so, and wound up hurting the very people those same politicians claimed to be supporting. We just saw it again in Portland, OR, namely police depts. being ordered to stand down while bystanders get beat up and property destroyed. Way to go Portland (and Baltimore).

Fatal shootings by police are the rare outcomes of the millions of encounters between police officers and the public. Despite the unpredictable events that lead to the shootings, in each of the past four years police nationwide have shot and killed almost the same number of people - nearly 1,000.
Looking at other, more common applications of the use of force may be much more telling. Since things like Taser usage, or open hand strikes are more common, it may be easier to see when a police department or individual officer is an outlier.

Each encounter has a unique set of facts, often involving highly charged & unpredictable scenarios, and split-second decisions. In low-income, crime-ridden urban areas there are always complaints about systemic racism which need to be taken seriously, but often prove dubious given the racial makeup of the population along with that of the police. NYC, for example, is said to have the most diversified police force in the world.

Unfortunately, there is no official data set that captures all the elements needed to fully understand the factors that lead to (fatal or other) police shootings.

How about the number of times a police shooting is preceded by a citizen resisting or interfering with a police encounter or arrest? Rights & responsibilities apply to the citizenry as well, do they not? Common sense suggests that the side of the road is a bad place to try and challenge the legality of such interactions. Whether resistance to abusive police practices is justified or not, the outcome becomes most predictable when such resistance is done face-to-face. Cops are no different from anyone else, except they're often under-trained, underpaid, under-appreciated, and face high risk on a daily basis. But like any group of people, the vast majority are well-intended and hope to complete their careers without ever having to unholster their weapons. But also like any group, there are undoubtedly a small minority of abusive ones who require diligence to remove or curtail. I don't think most of us need data sets to understand this.

There are about 100 million homes with guns in them and 10 million cars, so every time an officer walks into a home, or pulls over a car, they could encounter a gun. This is a characteristic of American life, which creates a unique set of hazards to police, and may lead to more killings by police.
Some context
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30311055
➥ https://killedbypolice.net/

This is a highly misleading and agenda-driven correlation, and not the first time you've suggested it. The vast, overwhelming majority of US citizens who own guns are law abiding and pose no threat to the police or anyone else. In fact, the numbers of people engaged just in the shooting sports in the US (hunting, target shooting, etc.) is said to exceed those who are involved in or follow major professional sports. In 2019 alone, over two million federal background checks required for the lawful purchase of most firearms in the US were performed each month. If you want data points, there are even stats on concealed carry permit holders which show that, as a group, they are more law-abiding than the police themselves! (easy to find but I can provide citations if you'd like).

Is there a likely correlation between police shootings and criminals with guns, namely those who have acquired & possess their guns illegally? Few would doubt it, and I further doubt there's stats showing that many of them submitted to the requisite FBI background check to purchase their guns, or agreed to submit their fingerprints as is required in most US states to obtain a concealed carry permit. Suggesting a correlation btwn police shootings and "100 million homes & 10 million cars" that may have guns inside is data manipulation at its worst. On the contrary, many LE officers are relieved when they pull someone over and a CC permit pops up on their computer before they approach the car. Then they know they are likely encountering a law-abiding citizen who submitted to the required fingerprinting & background checks.

The Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc., (ODMP) is a non-profit organization dedicated to honoring America's fallen law enforcement heroes. More than 23,000 officers have made the ultimate sacrifice in the United States since 1791.
➥ https://www.odmp.org/

Good of you to post this link.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A total 457 civilians have been fatally shot by police officers as of July 2, 2019.
Twenty-seven officers have been feloniously killed so far this year, and another 15 have died in accidents like car crashes.
17:1

That might mean something if the numbers of police and the population were the same. What is the death rate for both? I know, one year, in my agency of 2800 sworn agents, we had six killed in the line of duty. That’s a pretty rough ratio. More than a 1 in 500 chance for any of us to have been killed that year statistically.

I know a state agency of 300 sworn that had three killed one year. How you like them odds?

Figure out the death rate for police killed and civilians killed, for any year and come back.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Group9

That might mean something if the numbers of police and the population were the same...
... Figure out the death rate for police killed and civilians killed, for any year and come back.

Good point.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Group9

Figure out the death rate for police killed and civilians killed, for any year and come back.

Even then it does not take into account that a policeman's job is to Stop one civilian killing another and while putting themselves in harms way is part of the job, their training , equipment and procedures should favor them in fatalaties.

Somehow, you would need to factor in all the attempted murders stopped by police to acknowledge what a great job most of them do

What they are most vulnerable to is ambush hate killings while sitting in their cars

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A total 457 civilians have been fatally shot by police officers as of July 2, 2019.
Twenty-seven officers have been feloniously killed so far this year, and another 15 have died in accidents like car crashes.
17:1

Perfect example of why I don't like sound bite reporting.

There is so little data provided about why those fatalities happened...it tells us absolutely nothing useful...but in the modern world, media outlets will report that and then add an editorial (masquerading as fact) supporting their agenda...even if when you look more deeply, the editorial often is disproved by the details.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Perfect example of why I don't like sound bite reporting.

There is so little data provided about why those fatalities happened...it tells us absolutely nothing useful...but in the modern world, media outlets will report that and then add an editorial (masquerading as fact) supporting their agenda...even if when you look more deeply, the editorial often is disproved by the details.

To further your point, consider googling the effects of constant news googling on the brain, neurotransmitters, deleterious effects on critical thinking skills, etc, etc...it's quite profound.

I for one don't believe that there's a hidden agenda by individual reporters or by parent corporations. The agenda is blatantly obvious....if you look at the brain activity that modern news provides...the news corps are simply providing a fix that people are asking for. Like a cocaine dealer network who has done its homework, paid attention to sales trends, the news corps create a product that's in high demand...the demand which they've artificially stimulated. I don't see the news corp to be any more at fault than the person asking for the product. The news junkie gets his fix, the news provider puts food on the table and buys a bigger house. Win-win (except for the community in the longer-term). Yellow journalism in the US I think was last at a peak around 100 years ago...it seems that it takes and epoch of horrible existential crisis (economic meltdown, world war, etc) to get consumers and producers of news to more focus on stuff that really matters. It also seems that perhaps people want yellow journalism instead of actual reporting on the homeless problem, debt problem, etc, etc...such that yellow journalism could be seen as an indicator of bad things to come (for multiple reasons).

To belabor a related tangent....I don't think that the news media brainwashes people into believing certain things....rather the different outlets just resonates with peoples' underlying cognitive biases...accentuating them. Insofar as this ordinarily results in a fracturing of political cohesiveness...I see this as a byproduct at the end of an unhealthy addiction problem to a drug that really requires no particularly skill to produce. This is not the result of an agenda by guys smoking cigars in a dark room somewhere who somehow have superlative skill at manipulating people (that some erroneously call a Hegelian dialectic).

[a64pilot]

I never really understood how much the news is “steered” until the first Gulf war when I took a short wave receiver to listen to, and other nations had a completely different view than the US news services, and often brought up different slants that no US news service did.

That feeling was later reinforced when I moved to Germany, for instance, they had a completely different view about the OJ Simpson case, and were completely astonished at the verdict.

Now I’m sure that these other nations news is steered just as ours is, but if you can listen to both, it’s surprising how two completely different opinions are reported as fact, and very often news reports opinions as fact.

However I am absolutely certain that people are heavily influenced by the media and not just the news, look at all the TV programs of the 50’s like Andy Griffith and Leave it to Beaver and all the others, they were all thinly veiled lessons on how to raise children and lead a good responsible life.
The FBI used the media in the guise of the Superman radio show in its attempt to end the Klu Klux Clan for example, that is well published and isn’t conjecture.

So look at what shows are prevalent now and how the people in those shows act, and contrast them to Andy Griffith etc. it’s not at all surprising how society has changed or why it’s so violent, because it seems that nothing is more popular than violence, I believe that is why all this Zombie stuff is so popular, it gives a excuse for extreme, continuous violence.
No one is really interested in Zombies, it’s violence that’s the draw. People know that al Zombie movies are extremely violent with horrible atrocities, and apparently love to watch that.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Even then it does not take into account that a policeman's job is to Stop one civilian killing another and while putting themselves in harms way is part of the job, their training , equipment and procedures should favor them in fatalaties.

Somehow, you would need to factor in all the attempted murders stopped by police to acknowledge what a great job most of them do

What they are most vulnerable to is ambush hate killings while sitting in their cars

You’re right. It’s very hard to account for and properly weigh every variable when attempting a statistical analysis of anything. Finding the valid standard is often the toughest part.

For instance, as far as ambushes, the difference in risk for uniformed versus plainclothes would be dramatically different, and for the obvious reason.

Other variables abound. Big city versus small city. Particular asignments, physical conditioning, training, experience, they all factor in.

[dwedeking2]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I never really understood how much the news is “steered” until the first Gulf war when I took a short wave receiver to listen to, and other nations had a completely different view than the US news services, and often brought up different slants that no US news service did.

That feeling was later reinforced when I moved to Germany, for instance, they had a completely different view about the OJ Simpson case, and were completely astonished at the verdict.

Now I’m sure that these other nations news is steered just as ours is, but if you can listen to both, it’s surprising how two completely different opinions are reported as fact, and very often news reports opinions as fact.

However I am absolutely certain that people are heavily influenced by the media and not just the news, look at all the TV programs of the 50’s like Andy Griffith and Leave it to Beaver and all the others, they were all thinly veiled lessons on how to raise children and lead a good responsible life.
The FBI used the media in the guise of the Superman radio show in its attempt to end the Klu Klux Clan for example, that is well published and isn’t conjecture.

So look at what shows are prevalent now and how the people in those shows act, and contrast them to Andy Griffith etc. it’s not at all surprising how society has changed or why it’s so violent, because it seems that nothing is more popular than violence, I believe that is why all this Zombie stuff is so popular, it gives a excuse for extreme, continuous violence.
No one is really interested in Zombies, it’s violence that’s the draw. People know that al Zombie movies are extremely violent with horrible atrocities, and apparently love to watch that.

Being stationed in Europe during gulf war 1 I noticed that as well

Government propaganda being part of the national news message since WWII is a documented and factual occurance.

Whenever I visit my dad (who watches network news regularly) it's amazing to see the ramp up in blood pressure and emotion.

[a64pilot]

I’d say that new media has an addenda, maybe it’s the owners agenda or the advertisers or maybe it’s just split what gets the most reaction and increases circulation and therefore profits, or maybe all of the above, but it’s certainly not middle of the road reporting.

It may have started or gained experience during wars, but it’s way past that now. Do people really care about the Kardashians or do you think the media made that a concern?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Singularity

To belabor a related tangent....I don't think that the news media brainwashes people into believing certain things....rather the different outlets just resonates with peoples' underlying cognitive biases...accentuating them. Insofar as this ordinarily results in a fracturing of political cohesiveness...I see this as a byproduct at the end of an unhealthy addiction problem to a drug that really requires no particularly skill to produce. This is not the result of an agenda by guys smoking cigars in a dark room somewhere who somehow have superlative skill at manipulating people (that some erroneously call a Hegelian dialectic).

I think it's some of both. There is some blatant manipulation, and there is some bias that the reporting organization doesn't even realize. It's their truth, so they don't even realize the assumptions they're making. They accept it as truth, and report it as such.

Even when what's being reported is mostly factual, there is a selection bias (what is important enough to report), as well as the attitudes of the journalists, editors, and producers which do slant the story.

Then there is the subtle blending of opinion pieces and news stories. News organizations claim that they clearly delineate it, but it's not so apparent to the consumer sometimes.

I've sometimes had first hand experience with a news event, and was sort of surprised at how it got reported. That's when you see the real slant.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I never really understood how much the news is “steered” until the first Gulf war when I took a short wave receiver to listen to, and other nations had a completely different view than the US news services, and often brought up different slants that no US news service did........

I bounce around every month or two between the states and various foreign countries. Makes it really easy to see when you see the same story reported by liberal vs conservative in the USA and then a couple of foreign news agencies with different agendas. You would think there were 3 or 4 completely unrelated events being reported on.

It's not purely a US phenomenon. It's alive and well in just about every country. Don't think for a second that just because it's the BBC its' somehow fair and impartial.

I'm not sure if there ever was a day when the media actually lived up to the journalistic standards taught in highschool journalism classes. I suspect not but it was much harder to detect when the local small town newspaper was your primary source of news with little or no other sources to compare it to. Look at the old spiderman comics from decades ago...did that present a newsroom focused on fair and balanced coverage?

If there is a difference, I think it's become more extreme and blatant as they know they won't get 100% (or even 50%) of the market, so they target those who agree with their agenda and don't even bother to try to win over those who don't already agree with their agenda. If you read online articles, it's funny to see people who pile onto the agenda put forth in the headline and spout comments that conflict with actual facts buried in the story.

[dwedeking2]

I think you would have to go back to pre-1920s to see any balance in journalism.

It wouldn't be so much that the reporting was without an angle, but rather there were enough different sources you could weigh the option sections to get a more accurate picture.

Now we have the following:

- consolidation of the media world. Everyone repeats the same plot line.

- organized agenda from the ruling class

- mass media (single voice can reach a larger audience)

- people are on information overload so only read the tagline not the underlying facts

- 24/7 news cycle. Repetitive hearing of the same agenda every hour makes it fact