Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man

[Trigger Time]

"Politically incorrect" and "patently racist" are related, but not quite the same.



Didn't we cover this ground several times since November 2009? Or is every muslim a radical muslim to you?

No comment

 

[JTScribe]

What do four names prove? As I learned on INGO, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Those are four instances where the police were not punished for bad actions, not anecdotal but data points. I hate linking to NBC News, but they at least provide a link to their primary sources in the article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...atal-shootings-are-exception-not-rule-n982741

"Since 2005, 98 nonfederal law enforcement officers have been arrested in connection with fatal, on-duty shootings, according to the Police Integrity Research Group’s data. To date, only 35 of these officers have been convicted of a crime, often a lesser offense such as manslaughter or negligent homicide, rather than murder."

 

[Clay Pigeon]

We're still commenting on the Rodney King riots nearly 30 years later.

I talk about 68 in DC all the time, it was 52 years ago.

 

[jsharmon7]

Those are four instances where the police were not punished for bad actions, not anecdotal but data points. I hate linking to NBC News, but they at least provide a link to their primary sources in the article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...atal-shootings-are-exception-not-rule-n982741

"Since 2005, 98 nonfederal law enforcement officers have been arrested in connection with fatal, on-duty shootings, according to the Police Integrity Research Group’s data. To date, only 35 of these officers have been convicted of a crime, often a lesser offense such as manslaughter or negligent homicide, rather than murder."

The question I have is why judges and juries would want to let cops off the hook? People seem to think there’s some conspiracy to protect police. Could it be that it’s just really complicated to determine whether force was reasonable? Some of these cases are easy, but most are not.

 

[chipbennett]

Those are four instances where the police were not punished for bad actions, not anecdotal but data points. I hate linking to NBC News, but they at least provide a link to their primary sources in the article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...atal-shootings-are-exception-not-rule-n982741

"Since 2005, 98 nonfederal law enforcement officers have been arrested in connection with fatal, on-duty shootings, according to the Police Integrity Research Group’s data. To date, only 35 of these officers have been convicted of a crime, often a lesser offense such as manslaughter or negligent homicide, rather than murder."

This is data. Four names are anecdote.

Now: how many fatal, on-duty shootings happen? I believe the number is on the order of 1,000 per year. So, we're talking about on the order of 15,000 such shootings in this time frame.

And how many of those shootings were justified vs unjustified? And of the unjustified shootings, how many had sufficient evidence to sustain a charge, prosecution, and conviction of the officer involved? (And side note: I wonder how the percentage of unjustified police shootings that have sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution compares to the percentage of unjustified non-police shootings that have sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution?)

It would seem that the starting point is 98, or roughly 100 out of 15,000, about 0.67%. Of those, 35 have been convicted (and per your article, another 21 are still pending).

I will start from the presumption that the vast majority of police-involved killings are justified use of deadly force in apprehending violent criminals and/or self-defense in the performance of their duties as police officers. I will certainly entertain arguments to counter that presumption.

How do we even start to determine what number of police killings are justified vs unjustified? One starting point might be to look at the subset of police killings that involve "unarmed" persons, since it is unlikely that police killing of an armed person is going to be unjustified. According to this study, approximately 10% of police killings involve "unarmed" persons. That brings the pool of possibly unjustified police killings down from 15,000 to 1,500, and increases the percentage of those charged up to 6.7%.

But keep in mind, "unarmed" does not mean "unjustified". (Anecdotally, Michael Brown was "unarmed", but his killing was 100% justified.) Per the same study, some 11% of officer deaths occurred by persons who were "unarmed" (either the officer was beaten to death, or the offender took the officer's gun and used it to shoot/kill the officer). So, we can't assume that all police killings of "unarmed" persons were unjustified. I'm unsure how to drill down farther here.

 

[jamil]

What do four names prove? As I learned on INGO, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Just to give credit where credit is due, I got that from Tim Pool.

 

[T.Lex]

In my real life discussions, I ask people to sketch out how a use-of-force policy should be framed. Just what concepts should come into play.

Having been in groups that draft/revise those kinds of things, it is REALLY difficult.

Extreme cases of doing it wrong (like the George Floyd case) don't help, but when people try to figure out how to apply something to a wide range of situations, they realize how difficult it is.

Now, there will always be training issues or heat-of-the-moment issues on the PD side. Agencies just need to do their best to provide complete and regular training on this kind of thing and cultivate a culture that weeds out officers that have aggressiveness problems. But, that's not easy, either.

 

[jamil]

In my real life discussions, I ask people to sketch out how a use-of-force policy should be framed. Just what concepts should come into play.

Having been in groups that draft/revise those kinds of things, it is REALLY difficult.

Extreme cases of doing it wrong (like the George Floyd case) don't help, but when people try to figure out how to apply something to a wide range of situations, they realize how difficult it is.

Now, there will always be training issues or heat-of-the-moment issues on the PD side. Agencies just need to do their best to provide complete and regular training on this kind of thing and cultivate a culture that weeds out officers that have aggressiveness problems. But, that's not easy, either.

I don't think even the best policy/training can stop mistakes completely. We're still going to have things like this happen even with the best policies in place, and the best training. A significant reduction would be great. And maybe to get there we have to eliminate some tactics. Like the no-knock raids. The cost of not catching the crooks with the goods is possibly lower than the cost of distrust in police when bad things come of it.

 

[T.Lex]

There's a place for no-knock raids, but it should require a showing of special circumstances to justify it, and if those circumstances end up being based on faulty information, then the fruit of the poisonous tree would apply to deny any evidence recovered.

That puts a serious burden and significant downside risk to getting it wrong.

 

[jamil]

There's a place for no-knock raids, but it should require a showing of special circumstances to justify it, and if those circumstances end up being based on faulty information, then the fruit of the poisonous tree would apply to deny any evidence recovered.

That puts a serious burden and significant downside risk to getting it wrong.

That’s a hard no. The poisonous tree isn’t involved when they serve a valid warrant on a wrong address and innocent people get killed.

 

[T.Lex]

That’s a hard no. The poisonous tree isn’t involved when they serve a valid warrant on a wrong address and innocent people get killed.

Wait. That's not what you said!

You said "no no-knock raids." My point was addressed to that.

Given the vagaries of human accuracy, serving a valid warrant on a wrong address will always be a risk. Hopefully a small risk, because it is also the stuff of nightmares for LEOs.

If the position is to get rid of no knock warrants because of the risk of the wrong address, then might as well get rid of forced entry for warrants at all. Even with a "normal" warrant, police are allowed to force entry if there is no answer within a reasonable amount of time (or it appears that evidence is being destroyed).

 

[JTScribe]

That’s a hard no. The poisonous tree isn’t involved when they serve a valid warrant on a wrong address and innocent people get killed.

Agreed. No-knock should be restricted for hostage situations, etc.

 

[JTScribe]

This is data. Four names are anecdote.

Now: how many fatal, on-duty shootings happen? I believe the number is on the order of 1,000 per year. So, we're talking about on the order of 15,000 such shootings in this time frame.

And how many of those shootings were justified vs unjustified? And of the unjustified shootings, how many had sufficient evidence to sustain a charge, prosecution, and conviction of the officer involved? (And side note: I wonder how the percentage of unjustified police shootings that have sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution compares to the percentage of unjustified non-police shootings that have sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution?)

It would seem that the starting point is 98, or roughly 100 out of 15,000, about 0.67%. Of those, 35 have been convicted (and per your article, another 21 are still pending).

I will start from the presumption that the vast majority of police-involved killings are justified use of deadly force in apprehending violent criminals and/or self-defense in the performance of their duties as police officers. I will certainly entertain arguments to counter that presumption.

How do we even start to determine what number of police killings are justified vs unjustified? One starting point might be to look at the subset of police killings that involve "unarmed" persons, since it is unlikely that police killing of an armed person is going to be unjustified. According to this study, approximately 10% of police killings involve "unarmed" persons. That brings the pool of possibly unjustified police killings down from 15,000 to 1,500, and increases the percentage of those charged up to 6.7%.

But keep in mind, "unarmed" does not mean "unjustified". (Anecdotally, Michael Brown was "unarmed", but his killing was 100% justified.) Per the same study, some 11% of officer deaths occurred by persons who were "unarmed" (either the officer was beaten to death, or the offender took the officer's gun and used it to shoot/kill the officer). So, we can't assume that all police killings of "unarmed" persons were unjustified. I'm unsure how to drill down farther here.

Fair, and mostly agreed, but I'd say that restricting it just to shootings and convictions understates some of the issue.

Bounkham Phonesavanh had a flash bang thrown into his crib on a botched no-knock raid. His face was horrifically injured. DA refused to indict, and the taxpayers are out a multi-million dollar settlement. And yes, that's not data, but I wonder just how much money in legal settlements police departments are paying out year over year.

 

[T.Lex]

And yes, that's not data, but I wonder just how much money in legal settlements police departments are paying out year over year.

Not as much as you'd think.

Many are insured for that. So, they are out their premiums.

 

[chipbennett]

Fair, and mostly agreed, but I'd say that restricting it just to shootings and convictions understates some of the issue.

Bounkham Phonesavanh had a flash bang thrown into his crib on a botched no-knock raid. His face was horrifically injured. DA refused to indict, and the taxpayers are out a multi-million dollar settlement. And yes, that's not data, but I wonder just how much money in legal settlements police departments are paying out year over year.

The issue of overuse/abuse of police authority/power/use of force is a separate-but-related issue. You won't find much/any disagreement from me in terms of overuse of SWAT teams, no-knock raids, etc. and the unnecessary injury and loss of life that results from that overuse. That issue also involves the overbroad application of qualified immunity, which may also be a separate-but-related issue to police use of deadly force during interactions with violent crime/criminals.

 

[nonobaddog]

This is data. Four names are anecdote.

Now: how many fatal, on-duty shootings happen? I believe the number is on the order of 1,000 per year. So, we're talking about on the order of 15,000 such shootings in this time frame.

And how many of those shootings were justified vs unjustified? And of the unjustified shootings, how many had sufficient evidence to sustain a charge, prosecution, and conviction of the officer involved? (And side note: I wonder how the percentage of unjustified police shootings that have sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution compares to the percentage of unjustified non-police shootings that have sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution?)

It would seem that the starting point is 98, or roughly 100 out of 15,000, about 0.67%. Of those, 35 have been convicted (and per your article, another 21 are still pending).

I will start from the presumption that the vast majority of police-involved killings are justified use of deadly force in apprehending violent criminals and/or self-defense in the performance of their duties as police officers. I will certainly entertain arguments to counter that presumption.

How do we even start to determine what number of police killings are justified vs unjustified? One starting point might be to look at the subset of police killings that involve "unarmed" persons, since it is unlikely that police killing of an armed person is going to be unjustified. According to this study, approximately 10% of police killings involve "unarmed" persons. That brings the pool of possibly unjustified police killings down from 15,000 to 1,500, and increases the percentage of those charged up to 6.7%.

But keep in mind, "unarmed" does not mean "unjustified". (Anecdotally, Michael Brown was "unarmed", but his killing was 100% justified.) Per the same study, some 11% of officer deaths occurred by persons who were "unarmed" (either the officer was beaten to death, or the offender took the officer's gun and used it to shoot/kill the officer). So, we can't assume that all police killings of "unarmed" persons were unjustified. I'm unsure how to drill down farther here.

This kind of skips over one of the issues. Sometimes a shooting is determined to be justified and the people involved are like "WTF? That wasn't justified." And the department comes back with "Yes, it was justified, we determined it to be justified because of blah, blah, blah." Some cases like this will be justified in reality and some will not but they will all go down as justified. This leaves a very bad taste on the communities involved.

 

[smokingman]

Video of ANTIFA meetings and classes in Portland.

https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1268527969586360320

 

[MCgrease08]

"Politically incorrect" and "patently racist" are related, but not quite the same.

Didn't we cover this ground several times since November 2009? Or is every muslim a radical muslim to you?

There is a thread for that.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-discussion/439859-what-radical-islamist.html

 

[Twangbanger]

Well, thanks for that. Let me throw in one more percentage.

The richest 1% own over 1/2 the world's wealth. You can't burn the 1% out. You can't loot the 1%. Most of the time, you'll never find most of the people in the 1%.

So, that leaves 50% of the wealth to the rest of the folks....mostly those at the top end of the spectrum who would be pleased to be 1%ers. And if you **** these folks off, they leave and you end up with...Detroit. Or Baltimore. Take it. They don't want it.

What's left over is what is really being fought for. How much is that? Just enough to keep the working middle class somewhat satisfied that they can feed their family, put a roof over their heads and get them educated or trained for a life better than they have.

So, yeah, when you push as a group to get out of the box, you are gonna get a lot of push back from people who climbed out of the box on their own...or who did it over generations of sacrifice and hard work. And you aren't going to take it away from the "outside" folks. You are just gonna make them angry when you burn their cities or businesses and steal stuff you don't need just to be *******s.

It isn't racism. YOU make it racism by saying whitey be keepin you down. Whitey is just the working stiff. He ain't the man. The MAN is the 1%er. And you can't find him. But that's who you should be talking to.

I liked your post and can't rep you anymore, but I disagree with your last line. Taking it up with the 1% is not an action plan in my opinion. (However, the Antifa types do have an angle on it). You, I, and the protesters are not completely redistributing the wealth of the world in our lifetimes. Unless I'm reading the Democratic Primary results wrongly (PS - didn't you place your support on the eventual winning side on that one?)

The problem is The 1% either A) nominally supports and defends BLM, or B) finds it politically expedient to _pretend_ they do, which ends up being the same thing.

What we are unfortunately left with as an actionable plan, is that we need A) middle class cops to stop doing this crap and adding fire to BLM in so doing, and B) slightly higher middle class prosecutors to PROSECUTE them when they do. And not just when there are 3 different citizen cell-phone angles circulating the previous 3 days, and the effing city is already on fire.

That press conference last Thursday looked like Nero Fiddling. That was the problem. The people in that conference werent 1%'ers. Antifa wasn't running that show. They were the middle managerial class just like us. Managerial middle classers need to take responsibility for the sliver of the problem they actually own, for holding their peers accountable, for the things they are accountable for. And do it with professionalism and a sense of urgency, and stop making BLM look like they have a point, to the average person.

 

[MCgrease08]

In my real life discussions, I ask people to sketch out how a use-of-force policy should be framed. Just what concepts should come into play.

Having been in groups that draft/revise those kinds of things, it is REALLY difficult.

Extreme cases of doing it wrong (like the George Floyd case) don't help, but when people try to figure out how to apply something to a wide range of situations, they realize how difficult it is.

Now, there will always be training issues or heat-of-the-moment issues on the PD side. Agencies just need to do their best to provide complete and regular training on this kind of thing and cultivate a culture that weeds out officers that have aggressiveness problems. But, that's not easy, either.

All of this assumes people are wiling to have a good faith discussion around examining use of force and putting guidelines around it. In my view, a vast majority of those looting and rioting, and a significant percentage of those protesting, don't want to allow any amount of force at all.