Terence Crutcher

[cannon_fodder]

But this doesn't happen in other countries in the world.  Why is it that our police see no option but to kill hundreds of people per year, but other nations on the planet don't?  Seriously, in no other advanced country does an investigation into a hit and run end with police shooting someone, and it seems perfectly normal. It is not common in other countries for government agents to confront a citizen and it end with the government agent killing the citizen.  That happens more times per day in the US than all year in most countries.

I'm tired of debating individual cases.  Many are likely to either always believe the "he's coming right for us" defense or that all police set out to murder black/poor/mentally ill people.  I've seen cases where I can't believe the officer decided to kill someone, I've seen scenarios where I can't believe the person put an officer in a position where they had to.  We could have the same conversation a dozen times a month, and some do.  That hasn't led anywhere.

But when you look at the macro statistics, it is undeniable that police in the United States kill magnitudes more people than any other advanced nation (even as a percent of population).  I think most people would agree that it isn't a good thing (for police or for the community). So we need to ask the questions:

1) WHY?

and

2) Is there anything we can do about it?

Then we can discuss the risks and rewards of the potential actions. 

[erfalf]

You are only considering that the police could be the only variable. I doubt that's it. There are a multitude of reasons that things are different here.

[patric]

But this doesn't happen in other countries in the world.  Why is it that our police see no option but to kill hundreds of people per year, but other nations on the planet don't?  Seriously, in no other advanced country does an investigation into a hit and run end with police shooting someone, and it seems perfectly normal. It is not common in other countries for government agents to confront a citizen and it end with the government agent killing the citizen.  That happens more times per day in the US than all year in most countries.

I'm tired of debating individual cases.  Many are likely to either always believe the "he's coming right for us" defense or that all police set out to murder black/poor/mentally ill people.  I've seen cases where I can't believe the officer decided to kill someone, I've seen scenarios where I can't believe the person put an officer in a position where they had to.  We could have the same conversation a dozen times a month, and some do.  That hasn't led anywhere.

But when you look at the macro statistics, it is undeniable that police in the United States kill magnitudes more people than any other advanced nation (even as a percent of population).  I think most people would agree that it isn't a good thing (for police or for the community). So we need to ask the questions:

1) WHY?

and

2) Is there anything we can do about it?

Then we can discuss the risks and rewards of the potential actions.  

One idea floated around:

Police can, and should be required to protect themselves from claims against poor behavior in the same way other professionals do. Physicians, nurses and lawyers all maintain malpractice insurance, which protects them from liability associated with their doing their jobs. Unlike qualified immunity, malpractice insurance doesn't only protect the professional; it also compensates victims. And insurance companies have a strong profit incentive to monitor professionals.

Those who exhibit patterns of reckless or abusive behavior would see their insurance premiums rise proportionally. The result would be that the "bad apples" would simply become too expensive to insure, and they would have to find work in other industries more in keeping with their capabilities.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/civil-wars/articles/2017-09-07/how-to-hold-police-accountable-to-the-public



Another might be to look at the influences that affect outcomes of what should otherwise be unremarkable police encounters.

Police officers need to make instantaneous high-pressure decisions. If we insist on punishing them for sometimes making the wrong call, we'll hinder their ability to do their jobs. The logical conclusion of this line of argument, then, is that we have to tolerate a few bad, even fatal, decisions in order to make it possible for police to make good ones.

That's the theory. The facts on the ground are that, according to the Washington Post, 963 people—including 44 who had toy weapons, 48 who were unarmed, and 241 who were known to suffer from mental illness—were shot and killed by police in the United States last year. It may be true that some of those shootings happened because well-intentioned, well-trained officers were forced into impossible situations. It's also true that a lot of those shootings might have been avoided if American police officers weren't trained to be so afraid of the citizens they're supposed to be protecting.

It's a police officer's job to take risks the rest of us are unable or unwilling to take. That is why the vast majority of police officers, the ones who perform their duties admirably and selflessly, deserve our respect and admiration. The reason we revere cops isn't their dedication to protecting their own lives. It's their dedication to protecting ours.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2017/09/police_officers_need_to_accept_the_risk_that_comes_with_showing_restraint.html

You left off the part where the deaf man was coming at police with a metal pipe that had a leather grip strap. Now, proceed with your regularly scheduled anti-police diaper wetting.

It was mentioned twice in the article (Guido didnt bother reading):

He said Sanchez was holding a metal pipe that was approximately 2 feet (0.6 meters) long and that had a leather loop on one end for wrapping around one's wrist. Lindsey called for backup and Barnes arrived, at which point Sanchez left the porch and began to approach the officers, Mathews said.
"He always had a stick that he would walk around with, because there's a lot of stray dogs," Guebara said.

[TeeDub]

I bet he read it... 

Do you grab a pipe off the porch when you go talk to cops?

[swake]

You are only considering that the police could be the only variable. I doubt that's it. There are a multitude of reasons that things are different here.

Ohh, please share. What are the other variables?

[TeeDub]

Ohh, please share. What are the other variables?

I have one!    In Russia the police don't have to respond to pesky domestic violence calls.


https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-10/least-12000-people-killed-domestic-violence-every-year-russias-not-even-sure

[swake]

I have one!    In Russia the police don't have to respond to pesky domestic violence calls.


https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-10/least-12000-people-killed-domestic-violence-every-year-russias-not-even-sure

Russia, seriously?

[patric]

Do you grab a pipe off the porch when you go talk to cops?

Cite your source that specifically claims he grabbed a pipe off his porch to go talk to cops, or stop obfuscating.

[cannon_fodder]

You are only considering that the police could be the only variable. I doubt that's it. There are a multitude of reasons that things are different here.

No, I didn't limit my considerations at all, I agree there are tons of factors.  Certainly the United States has more diversity than most advanced countries.  We have more firearms than any country.  We have unique development patters that tend to separate "us" and "them" more than many places.  Perhaps Americans are simply more prone to violence. Maybe police in the US just have a more dangerous job than everywhere else?  

There's a huge multitude of things that might go in to explain the "why."  And there is enough comparable data on many of the things that it can be intelligently discussed without everyone being on one side or the other.  There is no "us" or "them,"  everyone needs effective policing and no one wants to see innocent people shot (and no, this isn't an opinion on any one case or an assertion that most police shooting are of innocent people).

So to be clear, this is certainly not a case of everything being the police officers' fault.  

[TeeDub]

Cite your source that specifically claims he grabbed a pipe off his porch to go talk to cops, or stop obfuscating.

I would love to...   Since you read the article you should have seen it.... 

(From here:   http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-man-holding-stick-shot-officer-oklahoma-city-49969676)

1.    ....Sanchez was on the porch when Lindsey arrived.

2.    Lindsey called for backup and Barnes arrived, at which point Sanchez left the porch and began to approach the officers, Mathews said.

3.    He said Sanchez was holding a metal pipe that was approximately 2 feet (0.6 meters) long and that had a leather loop on one end for wrapping around one's wrist. Lindsey called for            backup and Barnes arrived, at which point Sanchez left the porch and began to approach the officers, Mathews said.
   

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have one!    In Russia the police don't have to respond to pesky domestic violence calls.

This was not domestic violence.

[heironymouspasparagus]

1) WHY?

and

2) Is there anything we can do about it?

Then we can discuss the risks and rewards of the potential actions. 

1.  Quiet little wink and nod behind the scene to eugenics.

2.  For the general population - no, not much.  For the behind the scenes players - onward - it's working!

 

[TeeDub]

This was not domestic violence.

That was a response to questions as to why we have so many shootings...   It was a response to  "What are the other variables?"    

If you lessen the police's need to respond (and thus interact with the public) then to you minimize the opportunity for violence/accidents/shootings/etc. to happen.  They should not be asked to respond to everything from fender benders to burglaries (and from allergies to packing peanuts, forgotten pass codes, and poor quality pharmaceuticals.)   We have become too much of a nanny state.

http://people.com/celebrity/911-operators-tell-all-29-of-the-dumbest-calls-theyve-ever-received/

[erfalf]

One idea floated around:

Police can, and should be required to protect themselves from claims against poor behavior in the same way other professionals do. Physicians, nurses and lawyers all maintain malpractice insurance, which protects them from liability associated with their doing their jobs. Unlike qualified immunity, malpractice insurance doesn't only protect the professional; it also compensates victims. And insurance companies have a strong profit incentive to monitor professionals.

Those who exhibit patterns of reckless or abusive behavior would see their insurance premiums rise proportionally. The result would be that the "bad apples" would simply become too expensive to insure, and they would have to find work in other industries more in keeping with their capabilities.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/civil-wars/articles/2017-09-07/how-to-hold-police-accountable-to-the-public

I think the problem with a malpractice type thing for cops is that generally speaking we ask cops to partake in inherently dangerous exercises with people that generally don't have the well being of society in mind. It's a decidedly different environment than the other industries you mentioned.

[erfalf]

No, I didn't limit my considerations at all, I agree there are tons of factors.  Certainly the United States has more diversity than most advanced countries.  We have more firearms than any country.  We have unique development patters that tend to separate "us" and "them" more than many places.  Perhaps Americans are simply more prone to violence. Maybe police in the US just have a more dangerous job than everywhere else?  

There's a huge multitude of things that might go in to explain the "why."  And there is enough comparable data on many of the things that it can be intelligently discussed without everyone being on one side or the other.  There is no "us" or "them,"  everyone needs effective policing and no one wants to see innocent people shot (and no, this isn't an opinion on any one case or an assertion that most police shooting are of innocent people).

So to be clear, this is certainly not a case of everything being the police officers' fault.  

Then please accept my sincere apologies. Maybe I too hastily read your response.