Deadliest month for Baltimore in 40 yrs:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-shootings-20150531-story.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-shootings-20150531-story.html
More Insight Into Baltimore's Crime Problems
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
Here are some objective stats from the DOJ about arrest related deaths that might be worth considering(bold emphasis mine):Writer Heather MacDonald hits the nail on the head with the following article, and explains the causes of the increase in crime in Baltimore and other cities. [Emphasis added]
Article below:
The New Nationwide Crime Wave
By
Heather Mac Donald
May 29, 2015 6:27 p.m. ET
The nation’s two-decades-long crime decline may be over. Gun violence in particular is spiraling upward in cities across America. In Baltimore, the most pressing question every morning is how many people were shot the previous night. Gun violence is up more than 60% compared with this time last year, according to Baltimore police, with 32 shootings over Memorial Day weekend. May has been the most violent month the city has seen in 15 years.
In Milwaukee, homicides were up 180% by May 17 over the same period the previous year. Through April, shootings in St. Louis were up 39%, robberies 43%, and homicides 25%. “Crime is the worst I’ve ever seen it,” said St. Louis Alderman Joe Vacarro at a May 7 City Hall hearing.
Murders in Atlanta were up 32% as of mid-May. Shootings in Chicago had increased 24% and homicides 17%. Shootings and other violent felonies in Los Angeles had spiked by 25%; in New York, murder was up nearly 13%, and gun violence 7%.
Those citywide statistics from law-enforcement officials mask even more startling neighborhood-level increases. Shooting incidents are up 500% in an East Harlem precinct compared with last year; in a South Central Los Angeles police division, shooting victims are up 100%.
By contrast, the first six months of 2014 continued a 20 YEAR PATTERN OF GROWING PUBLIC SAFETY. Violent crime in the first half of last year dropped 4.6% nationally and property crime was down 7.5%. Though comparable national figures for the first half of 2015 won’t be available for another year, the January through June 2014 crime decline is unlikely to be repeated.
The most plausible explanation of the current surge in lawlessness is the intense agitation against American police departments over the past nine months.
Since last summer, the airwaves have been dominated by suggestions that the police are the biggest threat facing young black males today. A handful of highly publicized deaths of unarmed black men, often following a resisted arrest—including Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y., in July 2014,Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014 andFreddie Gray in Baltimore last month—have led to riots, violent protests and attacks on the police. Murders of officers jumped 89% in 2014, to 51 from 27.
President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, before he stepped down last month, embraced the conceit that law enforcement in black communities is infected by bias. The news media pump out a seemingly constant stream of stories about alleged police mistreatment of blacks, with the reports often buttressed by cellphone videos that rarely capture the behavior that caused an officer to use force.
Almost any police shooting of a black person, no matter how threatening the behavior that provoked the shooting, now provokes angry protests, like those that followed the death ofVonderrit Myers in St. Louis last October. The 18-year-old Myers, awaiting trial on gun and resisting-arrest charges, had fired three shots at an officer at close range. Arrests in black communities are even more fraught than usual, with hostile, jeering crowds pressing in on officers and spreading lies about the encounter.
Acquittals of police officers for the use of deadly force against black suspects are now automatically presented as a miscarriage of justice. Proposals aimed at producing more cop convictions abound, but New York state seems especially enthusiastic about the idea.
The state’s attorney general,Eric Schneiderman, wants to create a special state prosecutor dedicated solely to prosecuting cops who use lethal force. New York Gov.Andrew Cuomo would appoint an independent monitor whenever a grand jury fails to indict an officer for homicide and there are “doubts” about the fairness of the proceeding (read: in every instance of a non-indictment); the governor could then turn over the case to a special prosecutor for a second grand jury proceeding.
This incessant drumbeat against the police has resulted in what St. Louis police chiefSam Dotson last November called the “Ferguson effect.” Cops are disengaging from discretionary enforcement activity and the “CRIMINAL ELEMENT IS FEELING EMPOWERED",Mr. Dotson reported. Arrests in St. Louis city and county by that point had dropped a third since the shooting of Michael Brown in August. Not surprisingly, homicides in the city surged 47% by early November and robberies in the county were up 82%.
Similar “Ferguson effects” are happening across the country as OFFICERS SCALE BACK ON PROACTIVE POLICING UNDER THE ONSLAUGHT OF ANTI-COP RHETORIC . Arrests in Baltimore were down 56% in May compared with 2014.
“Any cop who uses his gun now has to worry about being indicted and losing his job and family,” a New York City officer tells me. “Everything has the potential to be recorded. A lot of cops feel that the climate for the next couple of years is going to be nonstop protests.”
Police officers now second-guess themselves about the use of force. “Officers are trying to invent techniques on the spot for taking down resistant suspects that don’t look as bad as the techniques taught in the academy,” says Jim Dudley,who recently retired as deputy police chief in San Francisco. Officers complain that civilians don’t understand how hard it is to control someone resisting arrest.
A New York City cop tells me that he was amazed to hear people scoffing that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson,who killed Michael Brown, only looked a “little red” after Brown assaulted him and tried to grab his weapon: “Does an officer need to be unconscious before he can use force? If someone is willing to fight you, he’s also willing to take your gun and shoot you. You can’t lose a fight with a guy who has already put his hands on you because if you do, you will likely end up dead.”
Milwaukee Police Chief Edward A. Flynn, discussing hostility toward the police, told me in an interview on Friday: “I’ve never seen anything like it. I’m guessing it will take five years to recover.”
Even if officer morale were to miraculously rebound, POLICIES ARE BEING PUT INTO PLACE THAT WILL MAKE IT HARDER TO KEEP CRIME DOWN IN THE FUTURE. Those initiatives reflect the belief that any criminal-justice action that has a disparate impact on blacks is racially motivated.
In New York, pedestrian stops—when the police question and sometimes frisk individuals engaged in suspicious behavior—have DROPPED NEARLY 95% from their 2011 high, thanks to litigation charging that the NYPD’s stop, question and frisk practices were racially biased. A judge agreed, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, upon taking office last year, did too, embracing the resulting judicial monitoring of the police department. It is no surprise that SHOOTINGS ARE UP IN THE CITY.
Politicians and activists in New York and other cities have now taken aim at “broken windows” policing. This police strategy has shown remarkable success over the past two decades by targeting low-level public-order offenses, reducing the air of lawlessness in rough neighborhoods and getting criminals off the streets before they commit bigger crimes. Opponents of broken-windows policing somehow fail to notice that LAW ABIDING RESIDENCE of poor communities are among the STRONGEST ADVOCATES for enforcing laws against public drinking, trespassing, drug sales and drug use, among other public-order laws.
As attorney general, Eric Holder pressed the cause of ending “mass incarceration” on racial grounds; elected officials across the political spectrum have jumped on board. A 2014 California voter initiative has retroactively downgraded a range of property and drug felonies to misdemeanors, including forcible theft of guns, purses and laptops. More than 3,000 felons have already been released from California prisons, according to the Association of Deputy District Attorneys in Los Angeles County. Burglary, larceny and car theft have SURGED in the county, the association reports.
"THERE ARE NO REAL CONSEQUENCES FOR COMMITTING PROPERTY CRIMES ANYMORE", Los Angeles Police Lt. Armando Munoz told Downtown News earlier this month, “and the CRIMINALS KNOW THIS.” The Milwaukee district attorney,John Chisholm, is DIVERTING many property and drug criminals to rehabilitation programs to reduce the number of blacks in Wisconsin prisons; critics see the rise in Milwaukee crime as one result.
If these decriminalization and deincarceration policies backfire, the people most harmed will be their supposed beneficiaries: BLACKS, since they are disproportionately VICTIMIZED BY CRIME. The black death-by-homicide rate is six times higher than that of whites and Hispanics combined. The killers of those black homicide victims are overwhelmingly other black civilians, NOT THE POLICE. The police could end all use of lethal force tomorrow and it would have at most a negligible impact on the black death rate. In any case, the strongest predictor of whether a police officer uses force is whether a suspect RESISTS ARREST, NOT the suspect’s RACE.
Contrary to the claims of the “black lives matter” movement, NO GOVERNMENT POLICY IN A QUARTER CENTURY HAS DONE MORE FOR URBAN RECLAMATION THAN PROACTIVE POLICING. Data-driven enforcement, in conjunction with stricter penalties for criminals and “broken windows” policing, has SAVED THOUSANDS OF BLACK LIVES, brought lawful commerce and jobs to once drug-infested neighborhoods and allowed millions to go about their daily lives without fear.
To be sure, police officers need to treat everyone they encounter with courtesy and respect. Any fatal police shooting of an innocent person is a horrifying tragedy that police training must work incessantly to prevent. But unless the DEMONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ends, the liberating gains in urban safety over the past 20 years will be lost.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-nationwide-crime-wave-1432938425
Considering that LEOs are human some will make mistakes, some will have accidents and some will be corrupt, others will be criminals themselves like the cop in SC that shot the guy in the back as he was running away. Even taking all that into consideration, the percentage of arrest related deaths during the above period was .00005 - that's five one-thousandths of one percent.
The issues isn't the .00005, the issue is, what percentage of those arrest-related deaths should not have happened. 4800 deaths over a 6 year period is a ridiculously high number by any standard you choose. In 2011 law enforcement officers in Germany fired 85 bullets. That's for the whole year. In the US, cops use more than that for one guy.
Here's another interesting tid bit.
Black Americans killed by police twice as likely to be unarmed as white people
"32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed."
Another interesting finding is that "local and state police and federal law enforcement agencies are killing people at twice the rate calculated by the US government’s official public record of police homicides."
And to think, there many people, some right here on EO, that doesn't think this is a problem, much less something to be concerned about.
Here's another interesting tid bit.
Black Americans killed by police twice as likely to be unarmed as white people
"32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed."
Another interesting finding is that "local and state police and federal law enforcement agencies are killing people at twice the rate calculated by the US government’s official public record of police homicides."
And to think, there many people, some right here on EO, that doesn't think this is a problem, much less something to be concerned about.
golfournut
Veteran Expediter
I'm waiting for you to show me how all those items on your list is the problem of anyone other than the individuals. How are those problems the problems of the rich? How are those problems my problems?
By the way, I wasn't blaming the victims, but I was putting the responsibility back on the victims. It's up to each and every person of the WORLD as an individual to fix their own life. It's not anyone's RIGHT to get anything handed to them. There is no such RIGHT.
golfournut
Veteran Expediter
And your solution is?
Address and evaluate the problem honestly and without bias, rather than trying to come to quick, feel-good solutions.
golfournut
Veteran Expediter
By whom?
By everyone concerned, citizens, government, liberals and conservatives. You can't work a problem unless you can honestly and accurately identify the problem, and this isn't a simple problem with a simple answer.
I think it really started , way way back...1670 is a good place to start, although the 1500's is good also. Americans had no sense in participating in the slave trade..now look at how much fun we are having because of it or at least repercussions ..
The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke it changed the legal status, as recognized by the United States federal government, of 3 million slaves in the designated areas of the South from "slave" to "free." It had the practical effect that as soon as a slave escaped the control of the Confederate government, by running away or through advances of federal troops, the slave became legally free. Eventually it reached and liberated all of the designated slaves. It was issued as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all of the areas in rebellion and all segments of the executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States.[2]
It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion.[3] Because it was issued under the President's war powers, it necessarily excluded areas not in rebellion - it applied to more than 3 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[4] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not outlaw slavery, and did not grant citizenship to the ex-slaves (called freedmen). It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[5]
Around 20,000 to 50,000 slaves in regions where rebellion had already been subdued were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.[6]
On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect. The Emancipation Proclamation outraged white Southerners (and their British sympathizers) who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and undermined forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.[7] The Proclamation lifted the spirits of African Americans both free and slave. It led many slaves to escape from their masters and get to Union lines to obtain their freedom.
The Emancipation Proclamation broadened the goals of the Civil War. While slavery had been a major issue that led to the war, Lincoln's only mission at the start of the war was to maintain the Union. The Proclamation made freeing the slaves an explicit goal of the Union war effort, and was a step toward abolishing slavery and conferring full citizenship upon ex-slaves. Establishing the abolition of slavery as one of the two primary war goals served to deter intervention by Britain and France.[8]
The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke it changed the legal status, as recognized by the United States federal government, of 3 million slaves in the designated areas of the South from "slave" to "free." It had the practical effect that as soon as a slave escaped the control of the Confederate government, by running away or through advances of federal troops, the slave became legally free. Eventually it reached and liberated all of the designated slaves. It was issued as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all of the areas in rebellion and all segments of the executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States.[2]
It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion.[3] Because it was issued under the President's war powers, it necessarily excluded areas not in rebellion - it applied to more than 3 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[4] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not outlaw slavery, and did not grant citizenship to the ex-slaves (called freedmen). It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[5]
Around 20,000 to 50,000 slaves in regions where rebellion had already been subdued were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.[6]
On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect. The Emancipation Proclamation outraged white Southerners (and their British sympathizers) who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and undermined forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.[7] The Proclamation lifted the spirits of African Americans both free and slave. It led many slaves to escape from their masters and get to Union lines to obtain their freedom.
The Emancipation Proclamation broadened the goals of the Civil War. While slavery had been a major issue that led to the war, Lincoln's only mission at the start of the war was to maintain the Union. The Proclamation made freeing the slaves an explicit goal of the Union war effort, and was a step toward abolishing slavery and conferring full citizenship upon ex-slaves. Establishing the abolition of slavery as one of the two primary war goals served to deter intervention by Britain and France.[8]
Heather MacDonald doesn't advocate racial profiling by police, she advocates PROACTIVE POLICING. She also has stated that a police officer can sometimes be lazy with their police work and use race against a citizen, but police are also often accused of racism erroneously . The DOJ looks at black arrest statistics relative to their population, and makes the assumption that there is racial profiling going on. Instead of acknowledging that police do target HIGH CRIME AREAS for extra policing and these areas happen to be predominately black communities. When arrests are made,overwhelmingly they will be black perpetrators who are victimizing other blacks. For the most part, it isn't any more complicated than that.
The under reported story in all of this is that the silent majority of black citizens DO WANT MORE POLICING. To protect their families from being victims of crime themselves.
The statistic of unarmed people killed by police is misleading. Blacks and even Hispanics are statistically more likely to resist arrest and have a violent altercation with police. So this would explain to a very large degree why officers would shoot them in self defense , even when they are unarmed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...icing-not-racial-profiling-heather-mac-donald
The under reported story in all of this is that the silent majority of black citizens DO WANT MORE POLICING. To protect their families from being victims of crime themselves.
The statistic of unarmed people killed by police is misleading. Blacks and even Hispanics are statistically more likely to resist arrest and have a violent altercation with police. So this would explain to a very large degree why officers would shoot them in self defense , even when they are unarmed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...icing-not-racial-profiling-heather-mac-donald
She calls in proactive policing instead of racial profiling, but it's the same thing regardless of its label.
"Blacks and even Hispanics are statistically more likely to resist arrest and have a violent altercation with police."
You can't say that with any certainty. Well, not with any valid certainty, anyway. A more accurate statement would be, "Blacks and even Hispanics are statistically more likely to be charged with resist arrest and have a violent altercation with police be alleged by the police."
The reason the story of blacks wanting more policing to protect them from being victims of crimes is under-reported is because they don't. Oh, sure, some probably do, but as a group, not so much.
There are a lot of people, you apparently among them, who think the problem blacks have with the police are the fault of the blacks, for one reason or another, that blacks have only themselves to blame for the presence and behavior of cops in their neighborhoods. If blacks would get serious about cleaning up the problems in their own communities, police would not be arresting or killing so many black people.
There's an element of truth to this line of logic, as the statistics clearly show violent crime rates are higher among blacks than among whites and other groups, therefore one reason cops have a disproportionate number of interactions with black males is that these men commit a disproportionate number of offenses.
Where the argument fails is in its assumption that blacks are complacent about these realities and that whites are blameless. The gist of the message is that blacks created the problem and blacks need to solve it.
This is hardly a new view. It dates directly back to the 1950s when blacks began in earnest to integrate themselves into American society (and white didn't want any of it). In 1958, a time of lynchings, universal discrimination and legal segregation, TIME magazine reported, the "biggest and most worrisome problem is the crime rate among Negroes" and said Negro leaders and civil rights groups should start "accepting responsibility in an area where they habitually look the other way."
Of course, the crime rate among Negroes skyrocketed at the same time the police, almost universally white, started cracking down on blacks, literally get the to know their place and to stay there. The common impulse of whites, then and now, was to blame blacks for thoughts and actions of blacks that whites played a central role in creating.
When polled, the overwhelming majority of white people say the police and the criminal justice system treats everyone fairly, that there is no bias against blacks or other minorities. The overwhelming majority of black people say the exact opposite. The truth most likely resides in the middle.
One one hand, you have the blacks (and most liberals) screaming racism over every little thing, and on the other hand you have whites (mostly conservatives) saying black people problems are caused by black people and the police are just doing their jobs, and doing it correctly, and when the police don't, it's an isolated incident that gets blown out of proportion. The truth mostly likely resides in the middle.
"Blacks and even Hispanics are statistically more likely to resist arrest and have a violent altercation with police."
You can't say that with any certainty. Well, not with any valid certainty, anyway. A more accurate statement would be, "Blacks and even Hispanics are statistically more likely to be charged with resist arrest and have a violent altercation with police be alleged by the police."
The reason the story of blacks wanting more policing to protect them from being victims of crimes is under-reported is because they don't. Oh, sure, some probably do, but as a group, not so much.
There are a lot of people, you apparently among them, who think the problem blacks have with the police are the fault of the blacks, for one reason or another, that blacks have only themselves to blame for the presence and behavior of cops in their neighborhoods. If blacks would get serious about cleaning up the problems in their own communities, police would not be arresting or killing so many black people.
There's an element of truth to this line of logic, as the statistics clearly show violent crime rates are higher among blacks than among whites and other groups, therefore one reason cops have a disproportionate number of interactions with black males is that these men commit a disproportionate number of offenses.
Where the argument fails is in its assumption that blacks are complacent about these realities and that whites are blameless. The gist of the message is that blacks created the problem and blacks need to solve it.
This is hardly a new view. It dates directly back to the 1950s when blacks began in earnest to integrate themselves into American society (and white didn't want any of it). In 1958, a time of lynchings, universal discrimination and legal segregation, TIME magazine reported, the "biggest and most worrisome problem is the crime rate among Negroes" and said Negro leaders and civil rights groups should start "accepting responsibility in an area where they habitually look the other way."
Of course, the crime rate among Negroes skyrocketed at the same time the police, almost universally white, started cracking down on blacks, literally get the to know their place and to stay there. The common impulse of whites, then and now, was to blame blacks for thoughts and actions of blacks that whites played a central role in creating.
When polled, the overwhelming majority of white people say the police and the criminal justice system treats everyone fairly, that there is no bias against blacks or other minorities. The overwhelming majority of black people say the exact opposite. The truth most likely resides in the middle.
One one hand, you have the blacks (and most liberals) screaming racism over every little thing, and on the other hand you have whites (mostly conservatives) saying black people problems are caused by black people and the police are just doing their jobs, and doing it correctly, and when the police don't, it's an isolated incident that gets blown out of proportion. The truth mostly likely resides in the middle.
When neighborhoods experience chronic problems with crime, people vote with their feet. They move. Statistics aside, large segments of the American population fled inner cities in the 1950's, 60's and 70's. White flight. Once vibrant cities now resemble checkerboards of self-segregation.
Some of is was motivated by crime, especially the race riots in Detroit, Chicago, DC and Philly, which caused whites to exodus en mass to the suburbs in cities all over the country, including cities that had relatively little crime and no race riots. But the two biggest impetuses for the creation of the suburbs was the returning veterans in the post-WWII economic expansion who were looking to start a quiet, settled life to raise children, and the well-off white city dwellers who didn't like the sudden influx of blacks (and stupid white southerners) who flooded the north looking for better work opportunities. The self-segregation that resulted is nearly a direct result (the backlash) of unnatural, forced integration.
golfournut
Veteran Expediter
So actually you got nothing!
You asked me what my solution was, and you didn't like it, therefore I got nothing? Seriously? The first step in arriving at a solution is to honestly identify the problem. You, apparently, want to enact a solution to solve a symptom instead of the problem, likely because you see the symptom as the problem. My immediate solution would be to look to cities who have reversed the problems, starting with how the police interact with the public and in how the police are trained.
As an example, what Cincinnati did is a good start.
I[URL='http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~pgarb/istudies/applied/presentations/site/media/printarticles/wy7-p.html']mproving Police-Community Relations in Cincinnati: A Collaborative Approach[/URL]
and...
How to Fix a Broken Police Department
No it isn't. In a perfect world none of them should have happened; unfortunately, that's not the case in a country with a population of over 324 million people whose culture is becoming more balkanized by the day. It averages to just over 2 per day over the 6 year period. Actually, it's ridiculously low when taken in context of the statistics provided by the DOJ. What's ridiculously high is the number of black victims of black criminals; do you think maybe there's a culture problem going on? We sure don't see members of the Asian-American community killing each other in similar numbers.
That's comparing apples and oranges. I'll bet the shots-fired number for LEOs in Iceland were even lower.
It's not really apples and oranges. Germany has a population of 82.6 million as of 2014. The US has a population of, let's go with 318.9 million as of 2014. The US is 3.86 times the size of Germany. so, 3.86 x 85 bullets = 328 bullets fired in a year adjusted for population. The Cleveland police went through 137 bullets in 8 seconds while killing Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams. I wonder how many bullets the US police expend in the other 31,535,992 seconds of the year.
Incidentally, police officers in Iceland have killed exactly one man in that country's entire history.
I'm not sure why you bring up the black on black crime figures as being high, since that has nothing to do with the 4800 arrest-related deaths. But OK, the number of white victims of white criminals is high, too. That might be a cultural problem, as well. No, we don't see those kinds of numbers in the Asian-American community, but they're a "Model Minority" which by definition isn't normal, it's the exception to the rule.
Incidentally, police officers in Iceland have killed exactly one man in that country's entire history.
I'm not sure why you bring up the black on black crime figures as being high, since that has nothing to do with the 4800 arrest-related deaths. But OK, the number of white victims of white criminals is high, too. That might be a cultural problem, as well. No, we don't see those kinds of numbers in the Asian-American community, but they're a "Model Minority" which by definition isn't normal, it's the exception to the rule.
The DOJ statistic puts into perspective the amount of arrests police officers do make without resorting to deadly force. The overwhelming vast majority of arrests are done safely.
It is apples to oranges regarding other countries like Germany. Officers there don't have to face the same level of violence as officers in the U.S. Germany had ONE officer fatality at the hands of criminals in 2014 compared to FIFTY EIGHT in the U.S.
Like I said, what matters is not the arrests performed without resorting to deadly force, what matters is the ones that do. You have to get down to a figure that in an acceptable number of wrongful deaths. I'm quite sure that if all of those 4800 deaths were white people, the attitudes of a great many people would be very different.
