US police are equally violent to all races finds study

[Nessie]

Research by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland finds that the amount of times people are arrested determines how often the situation turns violent and the race which gets stopped the most is the most likely to encounter violence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/26/black-men-minorities-killed-police-encounters-study

“What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said."

This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study;

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal.

 

[Newtons Bit]

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

..... what?

 

[Nessie]

I know, that figure needs checking.

 

[caveman1917]

Why do you think that figure needs checking? Suppose police hospitalize someone 50 times more than they kill someone, they kill someone every 7 hours so they hospitalize someone every 8 minutes. They do about 300 times more stops than hospitalizing people, so that makes it about 200 simultaneous stops on average (assuming a stop lasts 5 minutes). Is this number so wrong, about 200 simultaneous ongoing stops on average in the US?

 

[Nessie]

It is also reported here

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-injuries-police-arrests-idUSKCN1052G1

"(Reuters Health) - An estimated 55,400 people were injured as a result of legal police interventions in the U.S. in 2012, a study found.......That year, according to the website of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, law enforcement made an estimated 12.2 million arrests, including more than half a million for violent crimes.
Miller and colleagues pooled information from several nationwide databases to estimate nonfatal injuries resulting from legal police interventions.
An estimated 1 in every 291 stops or arrests resulted in a death or medically treated injury, and this rate did not differ significantly between racial or ethnic groups, according to the researchers."

 

[Nessie]

Why do you think that figure needs checking? Suppose police hospitalize someone 50 times more than they kill someone, they kill someone every 7 hours so they hospitalize someone every 8 minutes. They do about 300 times more stops than hospitalizing people, so that makes it about 200 simultaneous stops on average (assuming a stop lasts 5 minutes). Is this number so wrong, about 200 simultaneous ongoing stops on average in the US?

I wanted to check it because it seems very high.

 

[caveman1917]

I wanted to check it because it seems very high.

How many experiences (stops/arrests/...) have you had with cops? That number really doesn't seem to be particularly high to me.

 

[Pup]

Are they including the target of the stop as a bystander? Couldn't tell from the article, but that's not what I'd think.

If they mean the normal definition of bystander, such as a witness, or a person passing by in a car or bicycle, or a passenger in the car, or a neighbor--somebody nearby but not the focus of the police stop--that's astounding. Why? How? Bad aim? Did the bystanders start attacking the police? The number should be close to zero, if the bystanders are just hanging out being bystanders.

 

[Nessie]

How many experiences (stops/arrests/...) have you had with cops? That number really doesn't seem to be particularly high to me.

Well it seems high to me as I do not know of anyone hospitalised or killed during a stop check in Scotland and there are few reports of hospitalisations during arrests. I also cannot find any reports of deaths during arrests.

 

[caveman1917]

Well it seems high to me as I do not know of anyone hospitalised or killed during a stop check in Scotland and there are few reports of hospitalisations during arrests. I also cannot find any reports of deaths during arrests.

But these are numbers on US police, they are probably much less likely to shoot people in Scotland. In the US they shoot and kill more than 3 people per day, even accounting for population difference police in Belgium do not come even remotely close. I guess the same is true for Scotland.

 

[cullennz]

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

Be interesting to know how many of these were found to be totally innocent

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Be interesting to know how many of these were found to be totally innocent

It would be difficult to judge. Dead people don't get trials. A civil trial directed at the LEO(s) might find them culpable in some way, and that still wouldn't exonerate the offender. Scary all around.

 

[deadrose]

It would be difficult to judge. Dead people don't get trials. A civil trial directed at the LEO(s) might find them culpable in some way, and that still wouldn't exonerate the offender. Scary all around.

That would only happen if states hadn't passed laws making it nearly impossible to prosecute an officer for anything involving their jobs. Here in Washington state, they can get away with murder (and do) as long as it can't be proven that they planned it ahead of time.

As far as civil trials go, people frequently win quite a lot of money - but it comes with a nondisclosure order, so the findings are sealed and so are everyone's lips.

 

[fuelair]

I wanted to check it because it seems very high.

Except for republickers, we wish it could be considered high!!!!! republickers are cool with it until it is them.

 

[BStrong]

That would only happen if states hadn't passed laws making it nearly impossible to prosecute an officer for anything involving their jobs. Here in Washington state, they can get away with murder (and do) as long as it can't be proven that they planned it ahead of time.

As far as civil trials go, people frequently win quite a lot of money - but it comes with a nondisclosure order, so the findings are sealed and so are everyone's lips.

In the case of settlements involving municipalities defending against charges of excessive force or wrongful death, not so much.

They have been used by particular jurisdictions (Baltimore Md. first comes to mind) but in California, even out-of-court settlements are covered by the state Sunshine law (Brown Act) and many municipalities have a section of city code that specifically limits the use of NDA's - here's S.F.'s:


(3) Settlement: A policy body shall neither solicit nor agree to any term in a settlement which would preclude the release of the text of the settlement itself and any related documentation communicated to or received from the adverse party or parties. Any written settlement agreement and any documents attached to or referenced in the settlement agreement shall be made publicly available at least 10 calendar days before the meeting of the policy body at which the settlement is to be approved to the extent that the settlement would commit the City or a department thereof to adopting, modifying, or discontinuing an existing policy, practice or program or otherwise acting other than to pay an amount of money less than $50,000. The agenda for any meeting in which a settlement subject to this section is discussed shall identify the names of the parties, the case number, the court, and the material terms of the settlement. Where the disclosure of documents in a litigation matter that has been settled could be detrimental to the city”s interest in pending litigation arising from the same facts or incident and involving a party not a party to or otherwise aware of the settlement, the documents required to be disclosed by subdivision (b) of this section need not be disclosed until the other case is settled or otherwise finally concluded.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Research by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland finds that the amount of times people are arrested determines how often the situation turns violent and the race which gets stopped the most is the most likely to encounter violence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/26/black-men-minorities-killed-police-encounters-study

“What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said."

This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study;

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal.

So your rationale is, because blacks get stopped more, the police inflict more violence on them?

The OP needs editing. Your conclusion is faulty.

Did you think that was the variable in question? The issue is why are they being stopped more often. Police argue it's because they commit more crime. But the school to prison pipeline among many other things is also part of the problem, as is racial profiling as is stopping the blacks who aren't committing crimes in those crime ridden neighborhoods, the courts giving blacks longer sentences and on and on and on.

 

[Cylinder]

Here in Washington state, they can get away with murder (and do) as long as it can't be proven that they planned it ahead of time.

You've asserted that before and it is fundamentally wrong. Any law that set such a requirement would be blatantly unconstitutional via the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The statutory element is "malice" which can be defined as "evil intent." You seem to be restricting the word intent to mean only purposeful planning. That's just not the case.

Example: Angered over forum posts, you do some act -- for example, push me down stairs. That satisfies that statutory element of malice regardless of any finding of planning. It's motive and not intent. Why you acted instead of how.

Also, your characterization omits another required statutory element -- that of "a good faith belief that such act is justifiable..."

RCW 9A.16.040 -- Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.​

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.​

Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.​

So, if a police officer uses deadly force with malice (not necessary pre-planning) or acts without a good-faith belief that the force is used to prevent the enumerated threats then they are subject to prosecution.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I'm guessing this will be a very unpopular study.

 

[Ammonitida]

I'm guessing this will be a very unpopular study.

Indeed. All BLM activists have on their side are "disparity" studies that do not control for things like the mean age of the population on the road (in many of the neighborhoods where these studies are conducted, the white population is disproportionately elderly and thus less likely to behave recklessly while driving and less likely to be on the road) and the type of cars driven (studies have shown that blacks are more likely drive beat up cars, resulting in more stops for broken tail lights).

The New Jersey Turnpike study was the most rigorous done, and it did not support the notion of racial profiling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/nyregion/study-suggests-racial-gap-in-speeding-in-new-jersey.html

 

[Noztradamus]

Research by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland finds that the amount of times people are arrested determines how often the situation turns violent and the race which gets stopped the most is the most likely to encounter violence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/26/black-men-minorities-killed-police-encounters-study

“What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said."

This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study;

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal.

Why is the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation located in Maryland?

"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh"