patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Cops do 20,000 no-knock raids a year. Civilians often pay the price when they go wrong.

I would like to frown upon the use of the phrase "civilians" by police and media alike.

Unless there is a war going on, the correct term is "citizens", "residents" or "the public".

It certainly does not help the mindset of the police when they are talking like they are an army in a war.

Words matter.

The ACLU says SWAT raids numbered 50,000 per year by the mid 2000's.
Some estimates now are around 80,000 per year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/02/17/shedding-light-on-the-use-of-swat-teams/

Maybe you think this shit can only happen to someone else….someone a little darker, or poorer than you:

http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/dublin/2014/12/10/david-hooks-shot-twice-in-back/20213383/

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

If someone enters the home of an American without an invitation, they should fully expect to feel the fatal fury of M134 tearing them limb from limb.

Of course.

This is why cops make sure they raid houses of pathetic cases, unarmed sad sacks and infants who can be suppressed by weapon fire and grenades.

Well Apocalypse, I guess you are safe from police raids.

Dan8267 says

At this point, anyone who says it's just a few bad apples is delusional.

Its just a few bad apples.

They already are, it's called the 4th amendment.

"Turns out that it depends entirely on the prejudices of the jury."

This isn't true, and ignores the huge amount of case law surrounding the issue. In fact, the statement as it stands amounts to a lie...a complete fabrication...because of the relevant facts it ignores.

dodgerfanjohn says

This isn't true, and ignores the huge amount of case law surrounding the issue. In fact, the statement as it stands amounts to a lie...a complete fabrication...because of the relevant facts it ignores.

Another angle on this is that there is jury nullification and this alone would put an end to this nonsense.

justme says

I would like to frown upon the use of the phrase "civilians" by police and media alike.

Unless there is a war going on, the correct term is "citizens", "residents" or "the public".

I agree. It's really a misuse of the word, but it does reflect the attitude that the police are an occupying army and the public are the enemy.

I've used the word civilian for lack of a better word, but the phrase "the public" is a better term. I'd like something better though because none of the terms above really works perfectly for what we mean.

"The public" is a collective term and the persons harmed are harmed as individuals, so I'd like a term that reflects the individuality of the victims.

The word citizen applies to police officers, judges, politicians, and the president as well. Yet, with the rare exceptions like the judge in the wrong address no-knock case, people in those groups are not affected like the common citizen is. Also, the rights and safety of non-citizens should be equally protected.

The word resident would be misleading because a victim of police crime can easily be from another community, city, state, or country.

I would like a better word though. Perhaps we can think more on this. +1 for the feedback though.

Call it Crazy says

Out of 316,000,000 people in the country

= .006% Sure sounds like a epidemic to me!!

Oh, look: it's using the word "epidemic" again - so cute!

Land of the free they say... total bullshit.

dodgerfanjohn says

"Turns out that it depends entirely on the prejudices of the jury."

This isn't true, and ignores the huge amount of case law surrounding the issue. In fact, the statement as it stands amounts to a lie...a complete fabrication...because of the relevant facts it ignores.

Feel free to explain why the black guy is facing the death penalty for shooting an unannounced intruder (the cop) entering a window whereas the white guy who shot the cop coming through the door (far less suspicious) could not even be prosecuted because the grand jury didn't indict, which is to say any prosecution is clearly unreasonable. If anything, the black guy had MORE reason to believe the cop was a dangerous criminal because he was coming through the window, and perhaps even more so because of the neighborhood.

It would be understandable if both juries indicted or both juries didn't indict, but for the more justifiable case to be indicted and the other one not, can't be explained without prejudice especially since this kind of lopsided prosecution relative to race is too severe to be random chance.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me why it is just for the white guy not to stand in trial and for the black guy to stand in trial.

indigenous says

Another angle on this is that there is jury nullification and this alone would put an end to this nonsense.

I'm all for jury nullification, but it won't make much of a dent in the problems and corruption of our court system because

1. Our courts violate the First Amendment by prohibiting people from telling prospective jurors about jury nullification.

2. Every court asks every prospective juror if he/she believes in jury nullification -- they do this without using the actual term in order to keep their agendas and the idea as secret as possible -- and dismiss anyone who implies the answer is anything but a resounding no.

3. The vast majority of court cases don't go to trial because the system is design to make it far too risky for anyone, including innocent people, to challenge the charges. If you do, you get a far longer sentence.

4. When juries are selected, they are composed of people who believe the accused is guilty and the cops don't lie. In actuality, cops are professional perjurers and have ample training and practice in lying in criminal court cases. They are never prosecuted for perjury even when it is proven beyond any doubt that they perjured. Furthermore, many if not most jurors in America believe that even if they guy isn't guilty of the crime he's accused of, he's probably guilty of something else, so it's ok to convict him of a crime he didn't commit.

Universal surveillance and robots will replace the need for most raids.

Peter P says

Universal surveillance and robots will replace the need for most raids.

That would be a great idea. A bullet proof robot that laughs every time it gets shot at instead of shooting back.

Strategist says

Peter P says

Universal surveillance and robots will replace the need for most raids.

That would be a great idea. A bullet proof robot that laughs every time it gets shot at instead of shooting back.

Yep, the robots will simply take away the gun and man-handle the criminal away.

Of course, if the lives of bystanders are at risk, robots can shoot back with great accuracy.

Dan8267 says

Feel free to explain why the black guy is facing the death penalty for shooting an unannounced intruder (the cop) entering a window whereas the white guy who shot the cop coming through the door (far less suspicious) could not even be prosecuted because the grand jury didn't indict, which is to say any prosecution is clearly unreasonable. If anything, the black guy had MORE reason to believe the cop was a dangerous criminal because he was coming through the window, and perhaps even more so because of the neighborhood.

I can explain it. Because we allowed government to carve out instances where they can take away our rights as they please. And that allowed government to use their own personal prejudices to screw Americans on their personal level of asshole in their brain.

And if liberals fought against those kinds of injustices, instead of just whining about racism, we'd probably have a coherent fight against big brother.

Universal surveillance will also take care of the problem of so-called "lying cops."

The police will no longer have to tell the truth creatively just to prevent criminals from getting off on technicalities.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

Cops do 20,000 no-knock raids a year.

Out of 316,000,000 people in the country

= .006% Sure sounds like a epidemic to me!!

9/11 killed 4,000 people. That's 0.001%. Are you saying that the 9/11 is insignificant?

And 9/11 was a one-time event as oppose to every single year. In fact, all terrorist attacks against America kill far fewer people than cops kill every year. So we should take police terrorism just as seriously as we take Islamic terrorism. If it helps you, we can have the cops wear turbans to make them look like the terrorists they are.

FortWayne says

And if liberals fought against those kinds of injustices, instead of just whining about racism, we'd probably have a coherent fight against big brother.

I've always advocated removing the power of government to over-criminalize and selectively enforce laws. Liberalism, at its core, is the philosophy that we should be a nation of rights, not privileges and everybody has the exact same set of rights.

Peter P says

Universal surveillance will also take care of the problem of so-called "lying cops."

Universal surveillance would decrease police criminality by 99% or more. Cops hate being video recorded because it makes them accountable. However, the video must be treated as real evidence like it is when a member of the public is on trial. None of that "the video doesn't tell the whole story bullshit". That line doesn't fly when video evidence is used against the common man.

FortWayne says

And if liberals fought against those kinds of injustices, instead of just whining about racism, we'd probably have a coherent fight against big brother.

Sactly.

I say a good place to start is jury nullification and the 10th amendment.

A good place to start is a shift of focus from criminal justice to crime prevention.

Technology companies are gaining political clout. This can happen.

Peter P says

A good place to start is a shift of focus from criminal justice to crime prevention.

Sadly, it's more profitable to jail people than to prevent crimes.

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

A good place to start is a shift of focus from criminal justice to crime prevention.

Sadly, it's more profitable to jail people than to prevent crimes.

Pre-crime technologies can be just as profitable. ;-)

No psychics needed.

Dan8267 says

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

Cops do 20,000 no-knock raids a year.

Out of 316,000,000 people in the country

= .006% Sure sounds like a epidemic to me!!

9/11 killed 4,000 people. That's 0.001%. Are you saying that the 9/11 is insignificant?

And 9/11 was a one-time event as oppose to every single year. In fact, all terrorist attacks against America kill far fewer people than cops kill every year. So we should take police terrorism just as seriously as we take Islamic terrorism. If it helps you, we can have the cops wear turbans to make them look like the terrorists they are.

Nice stats Dan. Allow me to further your knowledge.
458 people died at the hands of cops last year, most of them probably criminals who deserved to die.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21636044-americas-police-kill-too-many-people-some-forces-are-showing-how-smarter-less

Around 14 thousand a year get murdered in the US each year and all you can do is focus on cops doing their job, and calling them murderers. How many people do you think would get murdered if there were no cops to protect them?
Can you start getting real for a change?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Strategist says

458 people died at the hands of cops last year, most of them probably criminals who deserved to die.

You are too easily fooled, and the second part of your statement indicates that you don't give a damn about human life.

I entered the following search into Google: how many people die from cops in america each year. A simple question with no confirmation bias. I then took the top five Google results excluding Wikipedia, which I always exclude because it's full of lies and propaganda, to ensure no confirmation bias. Here are the results.

Another (Much Higher) Count Of Homicides By Police

Last week, we wrote about the fact that the U.S. government doesn’t track how many people are killed by the police. The FBI tracks “justifiable” police homicides, which it reports to be about 400 per year, but that tally is an undercount.

Killed by Police had listed more than 1,450 deaths caused by law-enforcement officers since its launch, on May 1, 2013, through Sunday. That works out to about three per day, or 1,100 a year.

The page doesn’t claim that this is a comprehensive count, but it could be useful — like the count from the FBI’s annual Supplementary Homicide Report is useful — for setting a baseline number of police killings, as long as important caveats are acknowledged.

That places a lower limit that's over 300% of your stated figure and it's only counting what makes the press and then even not necessarily all of that.

Nobody Knows How Many Americans The Police Kill Each Year

The statistic might seem solid at first glance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics — independently of the FBI — also estimate the number of police homicides per year at around 400.

But these estimates can be wrong. Efforts to keep track of “justifiable police homicides” are beset by systemic problems. “Nobody that knows anything about the SHR puts credence in the numbers that they call ‘justifiable homicides,’” when used as a proxy for police killings, said David Klinger, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri who specializes in policing and the use of deadly force. And there’s no governmental effort at all to record the number of unjustifiable homicides by police. If Brown’s homicide is found to be unjustifiable, it won’t show up in these statistics.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, which compiles the SHR, relies on voluntary involvement of state and local police agencies — a fact that may raise some questions about the integrity of the data.

The “400 justifiable police killings” figure comes from these SHR forms. This is a problem, for four main reasons:

Fewer local police agencies report SHR data than report standard UCR data.
“Felon killed by police” refers narrowly to justifiable police homicides, and “unjustifiable homicide by police” is not a classification. This means it’s difficult to combine unjustifiable police homicides — which could be listed as crimes elsewhere in the database — with “justifiable” police homicides.
If the legality of a police homicide is in question, it may not be reported to the FBI SHR until the investigation is resolved. If the investigation concludes in a new reporting year, the old SHR data may not be updated, regardless of whether the killing was found to be justifiable or not. Criminology professor Geoff Alpert of the University of South Carolina, an expert on police violence, said he has “never seen a department go back and audit their numbers and fix them.” (In a statement provided in response to emailed questions, the FBI confirmed that it generally does not reopen master data files to add or correct reports.)
Killings in federal jurisdictions, such as federal prisons or military bases, are not included in the database.

Emphasis added. Not including killings in federal prison is utterly ridiculous and makes the statistics worthless.

What America’s police departments don’t want you to know

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, in 2013 there were 461 “justifiable homicides” by police — defined as “the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.” In all but three of these reported killings, officers used firearms.

The true number of fatal police shootings is surely much higher, however, because many law enforcement agencies do not report to the FBI database. Attempts by journalists to compile more complete data by collating local news reports have resulted in estimates as high as 1,000 police killings a year. There is no way to know how many victims, like Brown, were unarmed.

By contrast, there were no fatal police shootings in Great Britain last year. Not one. In Germany, there have been eight police killings over the past two years. In Canada — a country with its own frontier ethos and no great aversion to firearms — police shootings average about a dozen a year.

You Won’t Believe How Many People Are Killed by the Police Every Year

According to the FBI, police kill around 400 people per year, and that is only the number of “justified homicides”. If you can believe it, the government doesn’t bother to report “unjustified” homicides, and they also don’t report ‘arrest related’ deaths. As in, people killed by tasers or having a heart attack during a swat raid, etc.

So if we want to know how many people the police kill every year, justified or not, we’ll never get a straight answer from the government (big surprise there).

Police shootings in U.S. out of hand

The FBI, compiling voluntarily submitted data from 750 out of 17,000 law enforcement agencies, reports about 400 "justifiable homicides" by police each year. That figure, of course, is incomplete and does not include killings deemed "unjustifiable," or shootings that do not result in death.

In other words, the statistics given by the government are deliberately misleading -- thinly veiled outright lies -- for political purposes, just like the CPI and the unemployment figures.

But you know what statistics will be accurate? The number of cops killed each year. That stat won't be undercounted. And here it is.

National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund

A total of 1,501 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 58 hours or 150 per year. There were 100 law enforcement officers killed in 2013.

So at least 1450 people are killed by cops and make the news -- that's excluding those who die in prison and excluding those that don't make the news -- compared to 150 cops killed by the public. That's a freaking 10:1 ratio, and if we had real stats it would be much higher.

Mathematically, the public should be the ones with body armor and the cops without.

And, of course, none of these stuff includes the vast majority of crimes committed by the police including
- false arrest
- false imprisonment
- sexual assault
- rape
- non-sexual assault
- torture (yes, cops have been caught torturing people)
- conspiracy
- obstruction of justice
- destroying evidence
- planting false evidence
- perjury
- theft
- terrorist threats such as making death threats by pointing guns at unarmed, non-violent people including children at schools. Yes, that's a felony.

Dan8267 says

I've always advocated removing the power of government to over-criminalize and selectively enforce laws. Liberalism, at its core, is the philosophy that we should be a nation of rights, not privileges and everybody has the exact same set of rights.

That'll never work.

Just look at "Gay marriage" thing that liberals spend fighting for? Marriage isn't a right, it's a human invention designed to help formfamilies that can bear healthy children (future taxpayers). Somehow every abnormality now thinks marriage is a right to marry anyone and anything they please.

Liberals spent almost no time at all fighting police brutality or real economic burdens, but they sure spent all their time carving out special non event interest loopholes.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

I've always advocated removing the power of government to over-criminalize and selectively enforce laws. Liberalism, at its core, is the philosophy that we should be a nation of rights, not privileges and everybody has the exact same set of rights.

That'll never work.

Just look at "Gay marriage" thing that liberals spend fighting for? Marriage isn't a right, it's a human invention designed to help formfamilies that can bear healthy children (future taxpayers). Somehow every abnormality now thinks marriage is a right to marry anyone and anything they please.

If humans made it, humans can change it. You should lead, follow, or get out of the way.
I don't know why you have such a hard on for 2 adults doing what they want. It does not hurt you in any way.

Strategist says

If humans made it, humans can change it. You should lead, follow, or get out of the way.

I don't know why you have such a hard on for 2 adults doing what they want. It does not hurt you in any way.

Until those 2 adults go into public and try to disrupt the society just because they have a right and exposure makes them money on television.

Today it's gay parades demanding marriage, tomorrow it'll be incest parades... we already drew a line, and it ain't moving. No gay marriage.

FortWayne says

Today it's gay parades demanding marriage, tomorrow it'll be incest parades

Well, say yes to gay parades, and no to incest parades.

FortWayne says

we already drew a line, and it ain't moving. No gay marriage.

Who is "we"?? The line is moving because the majority of the "we" says it will move. There is no way for you to stop it.

Dan8267 says

1. Our courts violate the First Amendment by prohibiting people from telling prospective jurors about jury nullification.

Again, please please educate yourself before you continue to spout off on matters to this level of detail. Audit a crim pro and civ pro class at your local law school.

Also, get a westlaw account and read Heicklen 10 CR 1154 (SDNY 2012).

Strategist says

Who is "we"?? The line is moving because the majority of the "we" says it will move. There is no way for you to stop it.

Majority voted against it, you remember the prop. Why don't you ask CA to vote for it again, see how that turns out?

FortWayne says

Today it's gay parades demanding marriage, tomorrow it'll be incest parades...

Incest between two consenting adults is not a crime in some advanced countries such as France. It is really no big deal.

sbh says

Strategist says

FortWayne says

Today it's gay parades demanding marriage, tomorrow it'll be incest parades

Well, say yes to gay parades, and no to incest parades.

FortWayne says

we already drew a line, and it ain't moving. No gay marriage.

Who is "we"?? The line is moving because the majority of the "we" says it will move. There is no way for you to stop it.

Dammit! Sometimes you're not an asshole! Stop doing that!

Don't worry, I guarantee you will quickly change your mind. I need to give an equal opportunity to FortWayne too.

The prohibition against incest is entirely arbitrary. Single welfare moms are far worse in my book.

They should send in Dog the bounty hunter.

It could be a start up cottage industry. Bringing fugitives to justice.
Police can get back to consuming donuts and listening to people's grievances with their neighbors.

Dan8267 says

2. Every court asks every prospective juror if he/she believes in jury nullification -- they do this without using the actual term in order to keep their agendas and the idea as secret as possible

Nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege.

156 US 51.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

458 people died at the hands of cops last year, most of them probably criminals who deserved to die.

You are too easily fooled, and the second part of your statement indicates that you don't give a damn about human life.

Correction. I don't give a damn for terrorist lives. The greater the terrorist, the less I care. You, my dear friend, don't care for innocent lives, because you are not willing to do what it takes to save them.

Dan8267 says

I entered the following search into Google: how many people die from cops in america each year. A simple question with no confirmation bias. I then took the top five Google results excluding Wikipedia, which I always exclude because it's full of lies and propaganda, to ensure no confirmation bias. Here are the results.

Ha ha ha. I guess you found something on Wikipedia that would confirm your bias. Your argument is now contaminated.

Dan8267 says

Emphasis added. Not including killings in federal prison is utterly ridiculous and makes the statistics worthless.

Killings in prison ia a different animal, therefore must be excluded. You are not allowed to make your own biased rules.

Dan8267 says

In other words, the statistics given by the government are deliberately misleading -- thinly veiled outright lies -- for political purposes, just like the CPI and the unemployment figures.

More bull plus more shit = lots of bullshit.

Dan8267 says

So at least 1450 people are killed by cops and make the news -- that's excluding those who die in prison and excluding those that don't make the news -- compared to 150 cops killed by the public. That's a freaking 10:1 ratio, and if we had real stats it would be much higher.

If I made my own rules, I could make those numbers look 10 times as worse. You are not good with Stats, Dan.
By the way what's the ratio of criminals to cops?

I heard a while back that in Uruguay, after the dictatorship there, police are basically forbidden from serving any warrants at night, or from carrying anything but their regular service weapons. Exceptions to this require judicial review and is seldom granted.

This is because during the dictatorship, Uruguay's finest refused to cooperate with the authorities and terrorize people, being on the side of Democracy and Freedom -- not.