Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That's all fine and dandy, but that reputable source should really go a little deeper than just rates.

Using that same list but then looking into it in terms of how dangerous are these jobs are in raw numbers, it looks like this


Drivers / sales workers and truck drivers - 683
Farmers and ranchers - 300
Police and sheriff's patrol officers - 133
Industrial machinery repair and installation - 96
Aircraft pilots and flight engineers - 70
Roofers - 57
Logging workers - 59
Fishers and related fishing workers - 29
Refuse and recyclable material collectors - 26
Mining machine operators - 23


Its silly to even suggest that policing isnt a dangerous job, it really is no matter what anecdotal evidence some may want to spin. There is a reason they have to carry firearms afterall.

http://criminologycareers.about.com/...ce-Careers.htm

I didn't say it wasn't dangerous. Maybe that's the disconnect here? Sure, being a cop in the USA is a dangerous job. Not as dangerous as many others though.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

We aren't going to agree because I don't and can't agree with the assertion you're making that cops lives matter more. Because that's what you're doing.

To your second point, it's moot, because cops aren't gunned down at alarming rates. The job isn't as. Dangerous as many many other professions.


Edit: you keep saying accident. As if trying to minimize the point that these are fatalities. Jesus Christ.

Well then what do you mean by this then, since it is entirely untrue?

Originally Posted by Resurrection

No its based on data gathered by a reputable source.

Come on man. Go a little deeper than a Google search. Actually think about the data.

Go on a ride-a-long. See what what kind of tactics police use on every call, every interaction their entire shift to ensure they don't get injured or worse.

There is no other profession where being murdered is a job hazard. That reason alone presents a level of danger unequaled by any other profession.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by transplant99

. There is a reason they have to carry firearms afterall.

They don't in the UK and new zealand...

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Dan02

They don't in the UK and new zealand...

Good for them....they also dont have firearms laws that the US does....not sure what the point is?

[Senor Rinkrat]

Brown and Garner are dead due to their unlawful intransigence.When a police officer advises that you are under arrest , you obey his/her commands or you are charged with resisting arrest.Both Garner and Brown chose to resist.Garner was a career criminal with 31 prior arrests and was out on bond for 3 additional charges at the time of his last and final arrest.The cop in charge of the arresting crew was Sgt. Kizzy Adoni ,a black female and the order for Garners arrest was issued by a black Precinct Captain.Garner was hugely obese,had diabetes,asthma and had an unhealthy heart, and the coroners report stated there was no damage to his windpipe from the alleged "chokehold". Garner managed to shout "I can,t breathe 11 times before he croaked in the ambulance transporting him to hospital. As for Brown ,he was much smaller than Garner at 6 feet5 and weighing a mere 295.After committing a robbery with assault, he assaulted a police officer who had advised him that he was under arrest and attempted to disarm the officer.The proof was in his DNA in blood traces on the officers weapon and inside his squad car.I read most of the grand jury report which is available on line which found Officer Wilson innocent.The majority of black witnesses agreed with Wilson.

[Itse]

Now, this is just one study, but it's sizable and relevant to the discussion.

The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial

From Conclusions:

Based on evidencecollected in this randomized controlled field trial, our findings suggest that police body-worn-cameras reduce the prevalence of use-of-force by the police as well as the incidence of citizens’ complaints against the police. However, this is but one experiment and before this policy is considered more widely, police forces, goverments and researchers should invest further time and effort in replicating these findings.

From research limitations:

More broadly, we do not know on which party in an encounter the cameras have had an effect on, or how the two effects—on officers and on suspects—interact. This means that the estimated causal effect on officers’ use-of-force conflates these mechanisms: Do cameras affect the conduct of suspects, which then moderates the need of officers to react with force to such behavior? Or do cameras affect the conduct of officers, who might have otherwise acted with unnecessary or excessive force regardless of the suspects’ demeanor? Does it have a double effect?

Of course as far as policy goes the exact mechanism does not really matter that much, as everybody gets what they want. Less use of force by police for the people who think police are using too much force, less complaints for the people who believe the accusations are mostly groundless.

Go body cameras.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Good for them....they also dont have firearms laws that the US does....not sure what the point is?

The us should ban guns

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Itse

Now, this is just one study, but it's sizable and relevant to the discussion. Of course as far as policy goes the exact mechanism does not really matter that much, as everybody gets what they want. Less use of force by police for the people who think police are using too much force, less complaints for the people who believe the accusations are mostly groundless.

Go body cameras.

So...when people realize they are less likely to get away with it (on both sides)' they are less likely to act like idiots and instead act like civil human beings. This isn't news.It's a sad fact of life. It's also why the majority of police officers (not their unions, the actual officers themselves) are for body cams.

[llwhiteoutll]

Body cameras would be a good idea. Give the bad apple cops pause before acting foolishly, make the people they interact with pause before acting foolishly and keep the creatively edited videos from popping up that always seem to.

Originally Posted by Dan02

The us should ban guns

Please expand on this. Since banning something evidently makes criminals stop doing it, shouldn't we ban murder, assault, rape and other crimes? Or do criminals only obey firearms bans and prohibitions?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Body cameras would be a good idea. Give the bad apple cops pause before acting foolishly, make the people they interact with pause before acting foolishly and keep the creatively edited videos from popping up that always seem to.



Please expand on this. Since banning something evidently makes criminals stop doing it, shouldn't we ban murder, assault, rape and other crimes? Or do criminals only obey firearms bans and prohibitions?

Ok, lets take this idea to the other side. Would making murder, rape, and assault no longer illegal increase their occurrence? I'm guessing the ban on those crimes, while not removing them entirely, did reduce the frequency that they occur.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Ok, lets take this idea to the other side. Would making murder, rape, and assault no longer illegal increase their occurrence? I'm guessing the ban on those crimes, while not removing them entirely, did reduce the frequency that they occur.

It's an admittedly poor argument and one I shouldn't have made.

A better way of putting it is that putting a law in place that "bans" a method one might use to commit a crime isn't going to do a lot to keep that crime from occurring. You're dealing with someone who has already made the decision to take someone's life or commit a serious assault, telling them that they are breaking a law prohibiting guns isn't going to deter them.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It's an admittedly poor argument and one I shouldn't have made.

A better way of putting it is that putting a law in place that "bans" a method one might use to commit a crime isn't going to do a lot to keep that crime from occurring. You're dealing with someone who has already made the decision to take someone's life or commit a serious assault, telling them that they are breaking a law prohibiting guns isn't going to deter them.

You're never going to get rid of crime completely, but the more we reduce the firepower behind it the better. Arming everyone for protection has time and time again proven to work backwards in the states but they just bury their head and deny it.

Will some criminals still get their hands on guns? for sure. Will it be a lot harder for criminals to get their hands on guns? for sure.

People who are pro guns for personal protection are right up there with climate change denialists and anti vaxxers, just bury your head and ignore the science.

[PIMking]

the city of Chitcago you couldn't have guns but people were murdered on a regular basis with illegal guns...

gang bangers will be gang bangers.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PIMking

the city of Chitcago you couldn't have guns but people were murdered on a regular basis with illegal guns...

gang bangers will be gang bangers.

It doesn't work when you can get guns everywhere just outside the city.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by flameswin

It doesn't work when you can get guns everywhere just outside the city.

not until recently, in Illinois it was extremely hard to get a gun and you had to have a permit just to buy ammo...

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by PIMking

not until recently, in Illinois it was extremely hard to get a gun and you had to have a permit just to buy ammo...

And yet Wisconsin and Indiana are within 30 minute drive of Chicago downtown. (32 minutes to East Chicago with traffic according to google maps, 40 minutes to Gary Indiana, and 1 hour to Kenosha Wisconsin). Indiana is even closer to the South Side, which is where the worst gang violence is from what I've heard.

Indiana is an open carry state with almost no restrictions on handgun purchase according to wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Indiana

If you don't have a car, you can take mass transit from Chicago to East Chicago, Indiana. Takes 49 minutes according to google maps, and costs $5.25 one way as far as I can tell.
http://www.nictd.com/riding-the-train/fares/fare-tables

[PIMking]

You cant do an interstate pistol purchase, plus you still have to have all kinds of permits to have them in Illinois.... What you're missing is that the strict rules didn't stop anything.


You can't just go to another state and buy a pistol.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by PIMking

You cant do an interstate pistol purchase, plus you still have to have all kinds of permits to have them in Illinois.... What you're missing is that the strict rules didn't stop anything.


You can't just go to another state and buy a pistol.

Just get a fake Indiana ID, or just pay someone in that state to buy your guns for you. With no handgun registration in that state, do you really think it would be that hard for someone in Chicago to buy a gun? The only way gun restrictions work is if they're enforced country wide, as shown by virtually every country that has done so. It has no effect if it's as simple as getting in your car and driving a few miles to a state with zero restrictions

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by PIMking

You cant do an interstate pistol purchase, plus you still have to have all kinds of permits to have them in Illinois.... What you're missing is that the strict rules didn't stop anything.


You can't just go to another state and buy a pistol.

So what's your opinions on vaccinations, climate change and 9/11???

But seriously if you can't comprehend how having basically a unrestricted supply of guns as far away from calgary as Okotoks will make enforcing gun control laws almost impossible then there's no point in us having a conversation because you're just going to ignore the evidence.