Over 100 people were killed by the police in the US in March alone. Nearly all of them were male.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]faber541 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]autowikibot 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sex differences in crime are differences between men and women as the perpetrators and/or victims of crime.

Such studies may belong to fields such as criminology or sociobiology (which attempts to demonstrate a causal relationship between biological factors, in this case sex, and human behaviors), etc. Despite the difficulty to interpret them, crime statistics may provide a way to investigate such a relationship, whose possible existence would be interesting from a gender differences perspective. An observable difference in crime rates between men and women might be due to social and cultural factors, crimes going unreported, or to biological factors (as sociobiological theories claim). Furthermore, the nature of the crime itself must be considered.

Image ⁱ

^Interesting: ^Index ^of ^masculism ^topics ^| ^Sex ^differences ⁱⁿ ^humans ^| ^Violence ^against ^men ^| ^Crime ^fiction

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]Capitalsman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jo939 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jo939 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Number357[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To go further: What percent of men doing possibly criminal behavior are deemed "suspects" compared to women? Police stop-and-frisk men at more than 10x the rate they stop and frisk women, and in general police just harass men more than women. We assume men are guilty in situations where we don't assume women are, and are much less forgiving of a man doing something minor like selling cigarettes on a street corner; we would never think it's acceptable to use lethal force against a white woman just because maybe she was selling cigarettes illegally. It's the same problem with trying to dismiss the racial imbalance by simply saying "oh well black people commit more crimes." That might be part of it, but there is definitely a lot of sexism/racism here too.

the fact that police kill people at all is awful,

And if 97% of the people killed were women, I'm betting it would be considered awful enough for something to actually be done about it.

[–]Stephen_Morgan 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Markus148 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]jtaylor73003 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Markus148 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I don't know how you got that interpretation out of my statement.

I stated I don't like that the website places violent criminals alongside the innocent people that have been killed.

If a violent criminal is killed in the act or after the fact while evading capture, that should not be listed alongside the innocent people killed by police. The website given does not do this. They place the criminals alongside the innocent.

The site is just called "killed by police" and states every person - no matter the circumstances of his/her death- on the site that may have been, or was, killed by police.

I know I go against the anti-police circle jerk when I say things like what I said earlier, but if I shoot a person threatening another's life why would you place that alongside a little boy who what shot by mistake to use as anti-police propaganda?

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Markus148 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

We are limited on our use of deadly force. But the people listed are Violent criminals or criminals who were caught in the act and turned violent or tried to flee with weapons out causing a danger to others.

Some people are just violent and if they threaten more lives than their own, police are obligated to try to stop them from harming others, including themselves, at the cost of using deadly force. Which is also a law like presumption of innocence.

In the United States, the use of deadly force is often granted to law enforcement officers when the person or people in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man flaunting a firearm in a shopping mall without regard to the safety of those around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to protect others. The use of deadly force is also authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death. This is governed by the Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 in which the U.S. Supreme Court said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

Even civilians have this right at certain points.

A civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels that his/her own life, the lives of his/her family, or those around him/her are in legitimate and imminent danger.

If a person held a gun pointed at you when police are standing by and threatens to kill you while robbing you, would you not want police to intervene? Do you truly believe that he would not try to harm you or those that would stop him?

Why should I, or any Law enforcement, allow a criminal to live if they are infringing on another's right to life or liberty? If a criminal point his weapon at me or another person, is that not infringement upon my or their right to life? If they are holding hostages, is that not an infringement upon those peoples right to life and at the time their liberty?

You sound like one of those people who expects police to walk up to violent people with knives and guns and arrest them somehow when the criminal knows their options are fight, flee, or jail.

The time for rehabilitation and talking is not while the crime is already happening. That is past that point.

[–]jtaylor73003 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

We are limited on our use of deadly force.

Not as limited as a citizen. Are you put on trail for self defense the same as citizen is?

But the people listed are Violent criminals or criminals who were caught in the act and turned violent or tried to flee with weapons out causing a danger to others.

Was there a trail to prove these so called facts? I do not take statements from the police, because I do not recognize them as an impeachable authority. Impeachable means beyond the ability to lie. Proof judges repeatly rule cops can lie.

Some people are just violent and if they threaten more lives than their own, police are obligated to try to stop them from harming others, including themselves, at the cost of using deadly force. Which is also a law like presumption of innocence.

In the United States, the use of deadly force is often granted to law enforcement officers when the person or people in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man flaunting a firearm in a shopping mall without regard to the safety of those around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to protect others. The use of deadly force is also authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death. This is governed by the Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 in which the U.S. Supreme Court said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

Even civilians have this right at certain points.

A civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels that his/her own life, the lives of his/her family, or those around him/her are in legitimate and imminent danger.

I didn't say you didn't have the right use deadly force, I said it should be as limited as that private citizen. To say I said otherwise is to lie, but what could I expect from someone who's job is it do so. I know cheap shot, but you left yourself open for it.

If a person held a gun pointed at you when police are standing by and threatens to kill you while robbing you, would you not want police to intervene? Do you truly believe that he would not try to harm you or those that would stop him?

Wow this one is funny. If Democrats and Republicans wouldn't keep hampering my 2nd amendment right to bear arm and self defense, then your question is mute. So to clearly answer your question I would expect to protect myself. I would only need cops like I need them now after something happens to report it. Again cops should limited on deadly force same as a citizen is. You want more authority to use deadly force, then start campaign the right of the citizens to use deadly force as self defense.

You sound like one of those people who expects police to walk up to violent people with knives and guns and arrest them somehow when the criminal knows their options are fight, flee, or jail.

Another lie, no surpise. I said you have no more right to use force then I do. Your superioty complex is starting to show.

The time for rehabilitation and talking is not while the crime is already happening. That is past that point.

You have a point. That is why I should be allowed to defend myself without restriction, even if it is against the cops. Now don't try and lie that cops never make mistakes or kill people who are truly innocent. You have already admitted it happens. I apologize you aren't written a blank check to kill me, because you think I was guilty. Now time to really piss you off.

My right to go home, overrules your right to kill me.

[–]Markus148 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Not as limited as a citizen. Are you put on trail for self defense the same as citizen is?

We go through training that citizens don't which allows us to have more authority than citizens. Hence having trained LE instead of local militias handle crimes. And yes, we are held the same investigation processes as citizens. Do you honestly think if an officer kills someone they go out and work the next day? It's usually handled by people like Internal Affairs and other outside investigators. Justified self defense shootings for civilians and police get dropped by investigators all the time. It all depends on if the DA chooses to prosecute. If there is a preponderance of evidence that the shootings are justified they choose not to prosecute and it never goes to trial.

Was there a trail to prove these so called facts? I do not take statements from the police, because I do not recognize them as an impeachable authority. Impeachable means beyond the ability to lie. Proof judges repeatly rule cops can lie.

First, Impeachable does not mean that.

Impeachable adjective 1. making one subject to impeachment, as misconduct in office. 2. liable to be impeached

The word you were looking for I believe was Infallible

Infallible adjective 1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule. 2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy. 3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.

So you won't take a "statement" from police as fact because of the fact that they can lie. So can a civilian witness. Judges also allow those statements in court. Physical evidence is can also be tampered with by others other than law enforcement which is why court systems have "Beyond a reasonable doubt" for a burden of proof. Your logic is flawed here as no court will rely upon only one statement of one officer for 100% of a trial. Witnesses and physical evidence needs to collaborate with the story.

The second point of this being a flawed argument against police is that you are arguing against the court system. Not the police system. Two different phases of the legal system.

I didn't say you didn't have the right use deadly force, I said it should be as limited as that private citizen. To say I said otherwise is to lie, but what could I expect from someone who's job is it do so. I know cheap shot, but you left yourself open for it.

See my first point about training for why we have more authority than private citizens. Also, I never you a liar or said you said otherwise. I only stated that LEO's have more authority from the legal system due to said training and previous cases. Calling me a liar is just ad hominem.

Wow this one is funny. If Democrats and Republicans wouldn't keep hampering my 2nd amendment right to bear arm and self defense, then your question is mute. So to clearly answer your question I would expect to protect myself.

I also believe very firmly in the 2nd Amendment, however self defense is NOT a part of the 2nd Amendment. What you are suggesting is arming everyone and having them defend themselves which is an archaic law system that has been proven to not work. As you pointed out people (Not just LEO's) are fallible.

NOTE: I am not saying I do not believe in self defense. Just that some things are better handled by Police who are trained, than armed civilians who want to take the law into their own hands.

Example: George Zimmerman should have called the police instead of confronting Trayvon Martin. Actions after were a result of him not doing that and I will not comment on this further.

I would only need cops like I need them now after something happens to report it.

What most people don't realize is that LE is mostly about prevention, not response. The more patrols you see in a neighborhood, the less likely crime is going to be committed. Its why people naturally slow down when they see a cop on the side of a road. They know they shouldn't be breaking the law and adjust themselves accordingly.

Also, many people do not like to carry guns and do not feel comfortable around them. They rely on LEO's to protect them.

Again cops should limited on deadly force same as a citizen is.

See my training point again.

You want more authority to use deadly force, then start campaign the right of the citizens to use deadly force as self defense.

There is no need for a campaign to use deadly force for self defense. This law already exists. A campaign would be pointless.

You sound like one of those people who expects police to walk up to violent people with knives and guns and arrest them somehow when the criminal knows their options are fight, flee, or jail.

Another lie, no surpise. I said you have no more right to use force then I do.

This was my opinion of how you sounded. This is not a lie even if it was untrue because it was an opinion. But I do have more right then you to use force as I have been trained to do LE and it's my job. You likely have no LE training.

Your superioty complex is starting to show.

Another Ad Hominem attack on me.

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

First thanks for correcting me about the word use. The point is your job is to lie. It is to show that your motives against that of a citizen is always in the negative. Would consider the statement of a citizen with clear motives to lie as doing anything else than lie?

How is it an ad homien? An ad homien is to attack your character falsey to state that argument holds no water. You stated they were all violent criminals, you failed to present any facts beyond your word. I showed that your word isn't fact because you are a professional lair.

Now you state that you are trained so you have more rights then I do as a citizen. This is a superioty complex. If we held cops to the same standards we do the military, you find that since you are trained you have less right to use deadly force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement

Now my point about wanting regular citizens to have an increase right to use deadly force. In some states you have a right to open carry, yet cops are always harassing these individuals. Under the 2nd Amendment all 50 states should be open carry states, yet cops like you don't want this. Again your superioty complex that cops are just better than regular citizens.

Yes the cops are for prevention. Incorrect that are there to investagate disputes between citizens. If I wanted to prevent something happening to me I would: 1. Provide for my own self defense, such as gun like the 2nd amendment says I could. Oh wait I can't do that because Democrats and Republicans have strip of this right, and cops like you enforce it. 2. I hire personal private security. This is still possible, but highly inflated due to Democrat and Republican meddling.

Sorry but cops and you are for after the fact, not prevention. All security prevents the opputunist not the determined. All efforts to say otherwise are lies.

Now you opinion of how I sounded. Well since it was my opinion then can't be lie is bullshit. You never question me in anyway to give you this opinion. I made a statement to people are innocent till proven guilty, hence that you can't claim that those posted on the website were all criminals. I stated you had no more right to use deadly force then a citizen. Which if you had been honest about my statement you know I wasn't saying you couldn't use deadly force at all. Since you said I did say that you lied. Again no big surprise since you are a professional lair.

Now you say my opinion is invalid, because I am not a cop. More bullshit because since I am private citizen I am your boss. I don't like how you get to your job it is my business to say so. Your so call training doesn't make you better than me. Democrats and Republicans have given cops to much power to decide who lives and dies. Once we as citizens, the owners of this country, replace these horrible leaders for better ones, then we want cops power to decide who lives and who dies to be limited to that of a citizen. Don't like that, then you are just a Gang Member wanting to stay in power. That is a superioty complex.

I will say again. MY RIGHT TO GO HOME TRUMPS RIGHT TO KILL ME.

[–]autowikibot 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rules of engagement:

Rules of Engagement (ROE) are rules or directives to military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities. In some nations, ROE have the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE are lawful commands. Rules of Engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.

Image ⁱ - Rules of Engagement for Operation Provide Relief, 1992.

^Interesting: ^Rules ^of ^Engagement ^(Star ^Trek: ^Deep ^Space ^Nine) ^| ^Rules ^of ^Engagement ^(Star ^Trek ^novel) ^| ^Rules ^of ^Engagement ^(TV ^series)

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]Markus148 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Part 1/2 to this reply since this is as long as the last reply

How is it an ad homien? An ad homien is to attack your character falsey to state that argument holds no water

The point is your job is to lie.

Your superioty complex is starting to show.

To say I said otherwise is to lie, but what could I expect from someone who's job is it do so. I know cheap shot, but you left yourself open for it.

All of those are attacks on my character and are false with no contribution to the argument other than a skewed opinion you have of my job. Hence Ad Hominem.

It is to show that your motives against that of a citizen is always in the negative.

The point is your job is to lie. It is to show that your motives against that of a citizen is always in the negative.

Wrong. You have no clear concept of what a LEO does.

Would consider the statement of a citizen with clear motives to lie as doing anything else than lie?

I have no idea what this sentence is trying to convey

How is it an ad homien? An ad homien is to attack your character falsey to state that argument holds no water.

I covered this above. Stop attacking my personal character with whatever bias you may have of me because of my job.

You stated they were all violent criminals, you failed to present any facts beyond your word. I showed that your word isn't fact because you are a professional lair.

I didn't state all of them were violent criminals.

A direct quote from my first post is

over half of the list is violent crimes that were interrupted by police that ended with a death.

Which is true even if you go through and try to find ones that disprove this, it's nitpicking because they don't release all the information on what happened due to investigation. Some of them are accidental but still justified

Now you state that you are trained so you have more rights then I do as a citizen. This is a superioty complex. If we held cops to the same standards we do the military, you find that since you are trained you have less right to use deadly force.

It's not a superiority complex. If you want to train and become a LEO you have that right. Until you are hired by the federal or state government to do that job you don't have as much authority as a LEO.

I wouldn't try to tell a doctor how to treat patients or tell an engineer how to build things. I wouldn't even try to tell a waitress how to ring up an order because I was not trained for those jobs. That's how the world works.

And it's not that we have less right to use lethal force (I served in the military, as Military Police no less) It's that we are expected to know when to apply it and when to escalate or deescalate the levels of force and are held under higher scrutiny when lethal force is applied. ROE has the basic guideline of Minimal force necessary, unless your life is in immediate danger. Mot LEO have to determine not only if their life is in danger, but the lives of other civilians.

Now my point about wanting regular citizens to have an increase right to use deadly force. In some states you have a right to open carry, yet cops are always harassing these individuals.

I have never seen anyone harassed for open carry until they attempt to walk onto private land that is not theirs. Businesses are the vast majority of these places.

Under the 2nd Amendment all 50 states should be open carry states, yet cops like you don't want this.

When did I sate that I don't want this? Quote me back where I sate this. Until then it is a blatant lie to figuratively put words in my mouth.

I stated that not everyone is comfortable with guns, or carrying them, and people shouldn't try to take the law into their own hands.

Again your superioty complex that cops are just better than regular citizens.

See above.

Yes the cops are for prevention.

Glad we agree on this.

Incorrect that are there to investagate disputes between citizens.

You are wrong here. Investigation is a key piece to any LEO job, otherwise we would just believe the first words out of anyone's mouth. Hence why crimes are investigated and not just us letting people go because "I'm innocent, You have to believe me!"

If I wanted to prevent something happening to me I would: 1. Provide for my own self defense, such as gun like the 2nd amendment says I could. Oh wait I can't do that because Democrats and Republicans have strip of this right, and cops like you enforce it.

Our job is Law enforcement. We Enforce Laws. These Laws are not written by us. It sounds like you have a problem with something LEO's don't control. Courts and Law-makers. Be the solution to the problem. Run for congress or get into Law.

The 2nd Amendment is not stripped away. You can own a gun unless the Lautenberg Amendment applies to you. LEO's are rarely involved in this process except to do background checks as requested.

I also love how you group all cops into a giant category based on what I am guessing is your experience with a few. Sounds familiar. "Not all Men" right?

I hire personal private security. This is still possible, but highly inflated due to Democrat and Republican meddling.

Not an issue LEO's control. It belongs to courts and lawmakers See above

Sorry but cops and you are for after the fact, not prevention. All security prevents the opputunist not the determined. All efforts to say otherwise are lies.

But you just said

Yes the cops are for prevention

Also I'd like to Point you to these links that all have descriptions of a LEO's job. Note that all of them have Crime Prevention and Investigation for earlier) somewhere in there.

http://www.preservearticles.com/201012251630/functions-of-the-police.html

http://police.pondicherry.gov.in/Model%20Police%20Manual%20by%20BPRD/Draft%20Police%20Manual%20BPRD%20-Volume%202.pdf

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/more-subjects/criminal-justice/police-function/the-nature-of-police-work

Google Police Officer Responsibilities and this definition pops up

Police officers work in partnership with the communities they serve to maintain law and order, protect members of the public and their property, prevent crime, reduce the fear of crime and improve the quality of life for all citizens.

So you are wrong in saying we are there for "after the fact, not prevention"

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

All of those are attacks on my character and are false with no contribution to the argument other than a skewed opinion you have of my job. Hence Ad Hominem.

Are you stating cops aren't allowed to lie legally? If I was to lie in at work I could charged with fraud, if you lie do you get charged with fraud?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

From here on out we completely disagree on our opinions on what you should be allowed to do. It is pointless to continue this debate with you, because I fundamentaly disagree with the authority you been given.

I will say this I fundamentaly disagree with the authority you been given.

This is something we as Americans must changed. Since only 36% of voters voted last election, I just need to get the other 60% to agree that the system is fucked up.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/2014-midterm-election-turnout-lowest-in-70-years/

[–]Markus148 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Pat 2/2 to this reply

Now you opinion of how I sounded. Well since it was my opinion then can't be lie is bullshit. You never question me in anyway to give you this opinion.

Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

I formed the opinion on how you conducted the argument that you still hold which is apparently people need to go to court and be determined guilty or they should not be killed or arrested. This is wrong. We only need probable cause to arrest and in some cases (people shooting at us or pointing a gun at others) To use lethal force.

Example In New York One of the following must be met to use lethal force: (i) there is a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person; or (ii) there is a kidnapping, arson, first degree escape, or first degree burglary or there is an attempt to commit these crimes; or (iii) the offense committed or attempted to be committed by the person was a felony and that, in the course of resisting arrest or attempting to escape from custody, the person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon; or (iv) the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the officer or another person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

If you disagree it doesn't matter. It's a Law. See above for how to change that.

I made a statement to people are innocent till proven guilty, hence that you can't claim that those posted on the website were all criminals.

I won't go over the misquote of "the are all criminals again" even though I went over that most are or met the standards for deadly force and were justified.

I stated you had no more right to use deadly force then a citizen.

The Law states otherwise. See above for changing that.

Which if you had been honest about my statement you know I wasn't saying you couldn't use deadly force at all.

No, but apparently only at the level a normal civilian would be able to. Despite the training and Job.

Since you said I did say that you lied. Again no big surprise since you are a professional lair.

Again, quote me saying this and stop attacking my character. It only makes you look bad.

Now you say my opinion is invalid, because I am not a cop.

Same as above. Quote me saying this. I didn't ever say your opinion was invalid. Putting words in my mouth again. I said you don't have the same training or job. See above.

More bullshit because since I am private citizen I am your boss.

No. My boss is my boss. They have a boss. That boss works for a person who is an elected official. He is the person people put in charge. He is not trained on my job and doesn't tell us how to do our jobs because They are not trained to do so.

I don't like how you get to your job it is my business to say so.

Then say so. It's Majority rules. Sorry if your opinion is not the Majority.

Your so call training doesn't make you better than me.

It makes me better at my job. I wouldn't try to do your job without training.

Democrats and Republicans have given cops to much power to decide who lives and dies.

Sounds like a government problem, Not LEO related.

Once we as citizens, the owners of this country, replace these horrible leaders for better ones, then we want cops power to decide who lives and who dies to be limited to that of a citizen.

Good luck on that. It hasn't worked in the past. Citizens having as much authority as LEO's is a horrible idea and equates to basically an Old western law setting.

Don't like that, then you are just a Gang Member wanting to stay in power. That is a superioty complex.

More Ad Hominem.

I will say again. MY RIGHT TO GO HOME TRUMPS RIGHT TO KILL ME.

I will also state again - An Officers right to apprehend you due to probable cause outweighs your right to go home. If you choose to escalate that so will they. This goes back to compliance.

Final note: ROE has no say in LE. Use of Force Continuum is what we use

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Markus148 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You have a point.

I was hoping to get a little middle ground somewhere so good on us.

That is why I should be allowed to defend myself without restriction, even if it is against the cops. Now don't try and lie that cops never make mistakes or kill people who are truly innocent. You have already admitted it happens.

I would argue here that Compliance is key in any situation involving Police. If an officer tells you to do something and you are non-compliant, he tries to use more force. This creates a bigger struggle, and tension becomes higher.

Attacking the police due to "defense" is a way for the police to attack back due to "defense" and well, everyone should be able to see the issue here.

And Police do make mistakes and do accidentally kill people sometimes. I admit that it does happen. But those are the worst days of those peoples careers. These incidents are tragedies, and my original point was that these are the ones who should be documented and listed here as opposed to what the site truly is-

Corporate news reports of people killed by nonmilitary law enforcement officers, whether in the line of duty or not, and regardless of reason or method. Inclusion implies neither wrongdoing nor justification on the part of the person killed or the officer involved. The post merely documents the occurrence of a death

I apologize you aren't written a blank check to kill me, because you think I was guilty.

No Officer want to just kill someone because they think they are guilty. They try to go through every level of force. More people are apprehended than killed for a reason. Officers will always try to apprehend first. This goes back to compliance and how important it is. If you follow instructions and don't resist they have no reason to escalate.

Now time to really piss you off. My right to go home, overrules your right to kill me.

I don't know why you think this would piss me off. Another attempt at an Ad Homminem attack?

An Officers right to apprehend you due to probable cause outweighs your right to go home. If you choose to escalate that so will they. This goes back to compliance.

Again to state my original point. The site is crap. A better version is one where there are innocent people, or presumed as they were not involved in nefarious activities at the time of their death, who were killed by police by accident, mistake, or carelessness that was proven.

I know this would be hard to do as verdicts take a long time to process and opinions get in the way, but it would make a much bigger impact than a list that has

[–]jtaylor73003 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Again you assuming I am with you that you an authority as enforcer of law. The trail by jury is the enforcer of law, you are merely a tool to investagate whether a crime has happen. You power have been over inflated, hence the idea of probable cause is bullshit. I am innocent till proven guilty. Probable cause violates this idea hence now since saying Fuck You to a cop is probable cause. You keep saying the website showed violent criminals killed next to innocent people. Funny I went to one of the links at random. The link was to a guy shot and killed by the cops in his home, why because he was suspect. It didn't state he was fleeing or had a weapon. So again you claim shit, but you haven't proved shit.

Here let me help. You claim that this site is blaming cops for killing violent criminals. Okay now you got to prove it, again your word isn't proof.

count the number of deaths
count the number of innocent people. This includes people shot who just suspects, people fleeing the scene, people with a weapon but not attacking anyone or the cops, and etc.
Now count the ones where cops shot out of self defense or defense of others. Only the ones where cops were actually attacked or to stop a attacker in the act of attacking another. Of course Escalation of Voilence says only if the attacker wielding a deadly weapon. Fist are not deadly so the cop is require to use non lethal means.
State you findings objectively. Allow us to determine the conclusion of facts.

Sorry you have no authority to decide who dies and lives.

MY RIGHT TO GO HOME TRUMPS YOUR RIGHT TO KILL ME.

[–]Markus148 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Again you assuming I am with you that you an authority as enforcer of law. The trail by jury is the enforcer of law, you are merely a tool to investagate whether a crime has happen.

We are. Hence the title of Law Enforcement Officer. First sentance of this is Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Trial by jury is not an enforcer of the law. A jury trial or trial by jury is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact, which then direct the actions of a judge. Basically they are there to ensure that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and can recommend a punishment. Police still have to enforce the verdicts according to law. We do investigate initially, and keep investigating for more evidence to get Probable Cause to make an arrest.

You power have been over inflated, hence the idea of probable cause is bullshit. I am innocent till proven guilty. Probable cause violates this idea hence now since saying Fuck You to a cop is probable cause.

Sorry you feel this way, but that's how the legal system works. Otherwise murderers would be on the street and never go to trial.

Without Probable cause we lose the ability to apprehend. We now have to prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that they are guilty. But that is what Courts are for. Not Police.

Also saying "Fuck you" to a cop while disrespectful, is not probable cause. Source on this please.

You keep saying the website showed violent criminals killed next to innocent people. Funny I went to one of the links at random. The link was to a guy shot and killed by the cops in his home, why because he was suspect. It didn't state he was fleeing or had a weapon. So again you claim shit, but you haven't proved shit.

You got a lucky click of one of the innocent ones. The last 5 on the site now are:

1) Armed man coming out of vehicle while trying to apprehend a female in the vehicle. Body cam was used. No further details

2) Man assaults officer, gets tased and cuffed. He stopped breathing and sent to hospital where he was pronounced dead.

3 Police chase a man, struggle ensues and man gets officers taser and tries to use it on said officer. Officer then shoots him.

4) Shots are fired by someone, police are called. Person is stopped and the man barricades himself in vehicle with weapons and threatened to shoot police. Attempts to Negotiate failed.

5) This may have been the one you were talking about. Officer responds to possible domestic. Gets inside the home and a man is subsequently shot. Investigation is ongoing. No information on what may have happened inside the house.

While I agree the last one may seem bad there is not much information to go on. No one knows what happened in the house or why shots were fired.

The tased is an accidental death (due to taser, not gun) but the taser seemed reasonable due to the assault.

All but that last one were violent crimes being committed or possible life's threatened. And we don't know enough on that last one to determine anything.

Let's do the next 5 shall we?

So only #7 had any doubt this time because he only had a shovel. I think I'm seeing a pattern, are you?

Here let me help. You claim that this site is blaming cops for killing violent criminals. Okay now you got to prove it, again your word isn't proof.

You have no clear concise statement of what actually said. You keep changing it. so here it is again for you

"Over half of the list is violent crimes that were interrupted by police that ended with a death."

Yep, just proved that. With #5 being ambiguous, even if you count the accident of the man not breathing after being tased, which was still violent as he assaulted the officer, its still 2/5 or 40%. Still less than half.

count the number of deaths

I'm not going to make this list. I stated that if one was posted, it would have more impact.

count the number of innocent people. This includes people shot who just suspects, people fleeing the scene, people with a weapon but not attacking anyone or the cops, and etc.

These people are innocent according to you. Don't make up definitions when they are already established. According to law, Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. Sorry if Legal terms don't match yours, but people fleeing the scene, or suspects shot sometimes are not innocent.

Now count the ones where cops shot out of self defense or defense of others.Only the ones where cops were actually attacked or to stop a attacker in the act of attacking another. Of course Escalation of Voilence says only if the attacker wielding a deadly weapon. Fist are not deadly so the cop is require to use non lethal means.

The FBI has a database with some of this already. It amounts to about an average of 400 per year. It does not track accidents (such as the taser death) or other data that does not fall under their definition of "justified shooting"

Also these are your definitions. You can't just make things up. That's not how it works. Hundreds of years of the legal system has been used to create terms like this(Yes, Pre-America too). I would like to see a source for the statement of "Of course Escalation of Voilence says only if the attacker wielding a deadly weapon. Fist are not deadly so the cop is require to use non lethal means."

Because for deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed.

Even the Model Penal Code which most states have adopted (MPC for short states- According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.

State you findings objectively. Allow us to determine the conclusion of facts.

My facts are stated. You have posted one source, and it was in reference to Military, not LEO's.

If you don't like the law, try to change it. Its hard to get the majority on your side to change these when you have hundreds of years of Law going against what you want done.

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jtaylor73003 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Markus148 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Or, and I could be mistaken on this, it's a considered Manslaughter and not murder when it's by mistake, or unintentional.

For example, a person who runs a red light driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[4]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act. Reckless drinking or reckless handling of a potentially lethal weapon may result in a death that is deemed manslaughter.

Accident are accidents. The law knows this, and you need to learn more.

Involuntary manslaughter may be distinguished from accidental death. A person who is driving carefully, but whose car nevertheless hits a child darting out into the street, has not committed manslaughter. A person who pushes off an aggressive drunk, who then falls and dies, has probably not committed manslaughter, although in some jurisdictions it may depend whether "excessive force" was used or other factors.

The reason police are not jailed (Edit: In the event of an accident or mistake (should have been clear by the text before)) is because there is a distinction between LEO and Citizens and their responsibilities. I have already established this and will not go into it again.

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SporkTornado 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kaliwraith 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SporkTornado 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scdi 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Over 100 people were killed by the police in the US in March alone. Nearly all of them were male.
Author	Number357
Upvotes	77
Comments	40
Date	April 2, 2015 4:13 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/315m1p/over_100_people_were_killed_by_the_police_in_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/over-100-people-were-killed-by-the-police-in-the.984227 https://theredarchive.com/post/984227

Comments