Deaf Mute shot by Dumb cop

Sanitation Engineers have a higher assault and murder rate than police? Please provide this evidence.

Nice goalpost shift, you move from on the job deaths and injuries to now murder and assault rate. Just keep picking those cherries, one of them is sure to work out for you.
 
Do cops shoot people because some cops die in car accidents? If not, then your point is totally irrelevant. Try and actually use your intelligence here. The issue is about Cops shooting people they take to be dangerous, thus the question is, do they have a reason for this based on the number of attacks they face on the job? This has nothing to do with accidents, just deliberates.

Exactly actual stats and data are irrelevant to why they shoot people, it is all about emotion and how they feel like they are in danger regardless of any real danger or not.

But people who feel they are in danger from the cops being paranoid about everything are totally not justified in that.
 
In reality, this is the most dangerous time for a cop. If the driver gets out of the car and starts to approach the officer, 9 times out of 10 they plan to do bad things,


Where is this information collected? Can I see the source?
 
I reject the idea that being deaf makes you act aggressively and with malicious intent. I also reject the idea that being deaf makes you appear to be acting aggressively and with malicious intent.

Do you reject the idea that deaf people can act aggressively and with malicious intent? If not, what is your point?
 
Nice goalpost shift, you move from on the job deaths and injuries to now murder and assault rate. Just keep picking those cherries, one of them is sure to work out for you.

Can you show any of my posts where I have considered job deaths and injuries an acceptable metric for the dangers that might make Police more likely to believe they are in danger? If you check you'll see that I have from the very start been stating that job deaths and injuries are not an acceptable metric of this. I have also contended that merely looking at just murders is also unacceptable.

The ones that want to use just murders or all deaths whether accidental or not, are those who want to water down how dangerous it actually is by claiming that police have no reason to worry about suspects being armed and dangerous because they only have a really small 1 on 82 chance of being attacked with a deadly weapon, and besides more lumberjacks have trees fall on them so we should let them shoot trees.
 
Exactly actual stats and data are irrelevant to why they shoot people, it is all about emotion and how they feel like they are in danger regardless of any real danger or not.

But people who feel they are in danger from the cops being paranoid about everything are totally not justified in that.

The statistics fail to back you up. You're looking at about 30 out of 800+ fatal police shootings where an innocent unarmed person is shot. This is an extremely low number. The fact that less than 10% of people that attack officers with a deadly weapon end up dead also shows that your claim is totally bogus.

But hey, when it's now apparently wrong for a police officer to shoot someone with a gun pointed actually pointed at them, why should we expect people to actually put their own emotions out of the way and view these things skeptically, especially on a board of so called skeptics.
 
Can you show any of my posts where I have considered job deaths and injuries an acceptable metric for the dangers that might make Police more likely to believe they are in danger? If you check you'll see that I have from the very start been stating that job deaths and injuries are not an acceptable metric of this. I have also contended that merely looking at just murders is also unacceptable.

The ones that want to use just murders or all deaths whether accidental or not, are those who want to water down how dangerous it actually is by claiming that police have no reason to worry about suspects being armed and dangerous because they only have a really small 1 on 82 chance of being attacked with a deadly weapon, and besides more lumberjacks have trees fall on them so we should let them shoot trees.

You are not even trying to measure anything or use any statistics it is simply all about emotion. They feel that body cameras will endanger them and that makes it so. It is rather like the secret I guess.
 
The statistics fail to back you up. You're looking at about 30 out of 800+ fatal police shootings where an innocent unarmed person is shot. This is an extremely low number. The fact that less than 10% of people that attack officers with a deadly weapon end up dead also shows that your claim is totally bogus.

This all gets to how we define innocent, and if those are even accurate numbers, as no one collects data on people killed by the police. And what about innocent people killed by the police who are not shot?
 
Why does this exact phrase always come up in these threads? Is it possible to discuss police shootings without calling them executions or death sentences?

I agree. We should use the language that the professionals in the field use. I always call them a "Whoopsie!"
 
The ones that want to use just murders or all deaths whether accidental or not, are those who want to water down how dangerous it actually is by claiming that police have no reason to worry about suspects being armed and dangerous because they only have a really small 1 on 82 chance of being attacked with a deadly weapon, and besides more lumberjacks have trees fall on them so we should let them shoot trees.

1 in 82 PER YEAR, just to make it clear. Not per time he pulls someone over or anything.

If you put it into the perspective of how likely any particular incident is going to be, you have about 40 MILLION Americans over the age of 16 had some form of face-to-face time with a cop in 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. You know, a government agency, not some hippie anti-cop group.

Now many of them had more than one such contact in a year, but let's be generous with our estimates and assume only 40,000,000 INSTANCES of a cop interacting with someone. Out of those, you get those 10,000 assaults with a deadly weapon, out of which 2000 with a gun.

That would still mean that only 1 in 4000 such contacts risks resulting in an assault with a deadly weapon, and only 1 in 20,000 in an assault with a gun.

Note however that as mentioned before, the actual number of incidents is vastly larger than the number of persons involved in them, so the risks are actually lower than the generous calculation in the previous paragraph.

Also note again that "assault" is NOT equivalent to "attempted battery". While assault with a gun sounds scary -- and it IS scary -- it does NOT mean 2000 people in a year actually SHOT at a cop. Most of those are people just waving a gun around or verbally threatening to use a gun.

It's hard to water that down any more than it already is, really. It's hardly the kind of lawless wild-west no-mans-land that justifies shooting someone as soon as they act funny.

And generally, the chance of dying each year is almost 4 times lower as a cop than as a motorcyclist in the USA. And people do the latter for fun, so it's not exactly the pants-crapping kind of terror that being a cop is made out to be.
 
Well, if we're talking cameras, yes, that would be my ideal solution. Make at the very least the dashboard camera impossible to turn off, and fit all guns with a gun cam that turns on as soon as that gun leaves the holster. It's actually not much of a technical challenge.

And it seems to me like win-win. Good cops no longer have to fear some lawsuit or libel when the shooting was justified, and the few bad cops might think twice. Plus, if someone assaults a cop, it's on cam.
 
Also, if number of assaults is now the gold standard, may I dirrect everyone's attention to the humble profession of mail carrier? There are about 300,000 in the USA, and from the USPS alone some 6000 per year are attacked by dogs alone.
 
Do you reject the idea that deaf people can act aggressively and with malicious intent? If not, what is your point?

My point is that a failure to respond to verbal orders isn't of overwhelming value in a world with deaf people or people who don't speak English. It shouldn't be the deciding factor when considering the use of deadly force.
 
You are not even trying to measure anything or use any statistics

Seriously? Have you been reading another thread?

it is simply all about emotion.

Yes, you arguments are all about emotion, or perhaps you didn't really mean that anyone that disobeys or resists the police gets shot?

They feel that body cameras will endanger them and that makes it so. It is rather like the secret I guess.

Have you ever seen me advocate against body cams?
 
1 in 82 PER YEAR, just to make it clear. Not per time he pulls someone over or anything.

I guess with those odds you'd be quite happy to sit in a chair that has a 1 in 82 chance of electrocuting you once a year?

If you put it into the perspective of how likely any particular incident is going to be, you have about 40 MILLION Americans over the age of 16 had some form of face-to-face time with a cop in 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. You know, a government agency, not some hippie anti-cop group.

Now many of them had more than one such contact in a year, but let's be generous with our estimates and assume only 40,000,000 INSTANCES of a cop interacting with someone. Out of those, you get those 10,000 assaults with a deadly weapon, out of which 2000 with a gun.

That would still mean that only 1 in 4000 such contacts risks resulting in an assault with a deadly weapon, and only 1 in 20,000 in an assault with a gun.

Note however that as mentioned before, the actual number of incidents is vastly larger than the number of persons involved in them, so the risks are actually lower than the generous calculation in the previous paragraph.

Also note again that "assault" is NOT equivalent to "attempted battery". While assault with a gun sounds scary -- and it IS scary -- it does NOT mean 2000 people in a year actually SHOT at a cop. Most of those are people just waving a gun around or verbally threatening to use a gun.

It's hard to water that down any more than it already is, really. It's hardly the kind of lawless wild-west no-mans-land that justifies shooting someone as soon as they act funny.

Wow, you go from noting that there are 40 million encounters with cops in a year to rushing claim that the Police just shoot people for acting funny. Yet somehow the streets aren't running red with the blood of the thousands if not tens of thousands of those 40 million who likely acted funny, instead we're talking a handful, most likely 30 odd given the numbers reported in the news, but hey let's be generous and say 100 out of the 40 million where something goes terribly wrong. That is hardly the police just shooting everyone who acts funny.


And generally, the chance of dying each year is almost 4 times lower as a cop than as a motorcyclist in the USA. And people do the latter for fun, so it's not exactly the pants-crapping kind of terror that being a cop is made out to be.

And yet with the odds (assuming they were just shooting random people they meet) of being killed by a cop is around 1 in 40,000 each year. Yet some how this converts to people needing to be terrified of the super bad bully boys that go around shooting everyone.

In reality, the odds of getting shot actually increase with your own behavior.

You know, like running from them, getting out of your car without being instructed to. Failing to comply with orders. Continuing to approaching them when told not to. Fumbling about in pockets or waistbands, quickly reaching into glove boxes and centre consoles. Saying, "I have a gun," and then reaching for it.

Time and time again when these incidents occur we see these same things happening, and we also see the same crowd leaping up and down about how terrible the cops are because they can't distinguish between behaviour that often leads to attacks on cops and just someone acting strange.

This is the thing. The reason that most of those in the 40 million don't get shot for "acting strangely" is that their "acting strangely" doesn't mimic the behaviour of those that are acting with malicious intent against the cop.

If you act like someone planning to attack a cop and then move in a way that looks like going for a weapon, don't be surprised if you end up on the wrong side of a bullet.

It takes two people to cause these situations, but in the minds of the Cop haters, the victim can never have done anything wrong at all. Nope the cop was suppose to be a mind reader, the actions of the victim are totally irrelevant to it all cause the cop should have know that despite how he acts, he's not actually a threat.

Hey, here's an idea. How about we make it so that cops aren't allowed to fire until fired on? Might mean more dead cops and criminals able to go on and kill other people instead of being stopped, but who cares if it save a few civilians from being shot by cops. Right?
 

Back
Top Bottom