[One Degree]

:lol: HINT: the answer is vanishingly small. I refuse to believe you are this naive.


So, over a 12-year period - approximately 12,000 shootings - 80 officers were arrested. Of those, 28 were convicted of murder or manslaughter - a conviction rate of roughly 0.23%.

That would be 23%, not .23%. I don't see the significance of your other figures to the discussion. You are actually proving how rare these shootings are. 80 in 12 years? Insurance companies would love to offer you insurance with that risk ratio.

Edit: If statistics and reason disagree, which do we choose to believe? Which do you believe offers the best view of 'truth'?

[Finfinder]

No one is accusing cops as a group. The problem is that the individual cops who kill people like this are effectively exempt from any punishment.

If I wanted to kill someone in the US, I would become a cop and then I could shoot them in broad daylight and get away with it.

No one is accusing cops as a group ? except, you by your second sentence?

[Heisenberg]

That would be 23%, not .23%. I don't see the significance of your other figures to the discussion. You are actually proving how rare these shootings are. 80 in 12 years? Insurance companies would love to offer you insurance with that risk ratio.

The figure is not "80 in 12 years", as you well know. It is approximately 12,000 in 12 years, with only 80 resulting in any arrests. This does not actually prove, as you seem to think, that 11,920 of those shootings were uncontroversial and perfectly by the book. It proves that in 11,920 cases, the officer's word was considered enough to end the investigation. This is not the same thing, and it is certainly evidence that police officers are held to a different standard than the general public. Even if no charges end up being filed, you can be damned sure that more than 0.67% of shootings by civilians lead to an arrest.

If you aren't going to debate honestly, why even bother?

[maz]

I was right, the officer isn't white. Even worse, a Somali. Even worse, a Muslim (apparently). Even worse still, a Mohammed.

Bad optics all around. Just. Bad. Optics.



http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/07/17/mpd-officer-shot-woman-identified/

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — WCCO has just learned the name of the Minneapolis officer involved in the shooting as Mohammed Noor.

His attorney Tom Plunkett confirmed Noor fired his weapon, killing Justine Damond.

The shooting happened Saturday night near 51st Street and Washburn Avenue South around 11:30 p.m.

Sources said us Justine Damond initially made the 911 call and was speaking to police officers Saturday night. They were near the alley when the officer in the passenger seat reached across and shot her. A cell phone was found near Damond’s body.

“We take this seriously with great compassion for all persons who are being touched by this,” Noor’s attorney Plunkett said.

Noor was the first Somali-American officer to join the Minneapolis Police Department’s 5th precinct team. He joined the department in March 2015. Before joining the police force, he worked primarily in property management.

[Finfinder]

Heisenberg is correct. American cops are out of control.

Hundreds have already been killed by cops this year.


Today is the anniversary of Eric Garner who was choked to death by savage cops.

Not to make light of Garners death but those liberals are willing to send their assassins if they don't get their tax money.

[One Degree]

:eh: The figure is not "80 in 12 years", as you well know. It is approximately 12,000 in 12 years, with only 80 resulting in any arrests. This does not actually prove, as you seem to think, that 11,920 of those shootings were uncontroversial and perfectly by the book. It proves that in 11,920 cases, the officer's word was considered enough to end the investigation. This is not the same thing, and it is certainly evidence that police officers are held to a different standard than the general public. Even if no charges end up being filed, you can be damned sure that more than 0.67% of shootings by civilians lead to an arrest.

If you aren't going to debate honestly, why even bother?

My comment was that insurance companies would gladly insure police officers against wrongful death suits if less than 7 per year are arrested. This clearly indicates they are doing a superb job.
So, by your logic, the actions of criminals have no bearing on the statistics and we should simply assume the police are wrong even though our criminal justice system says they were right. And you accuse me of not debating honestly? We then have your argument that police officers should be arrested as often as civilians for shooting people. Your logic has now departed so far from reality that I see no need to respond to it, but can you simply dismiss the idea that we hire police to shoot people when necessary and we frown on civilians doing it?

[Pants-of-dog]

Trump can not even pass an immigration ban that he has every legal right to do, yet police officers can shoot people and not be held accountable? :?: How is that possible? People are currently using our legal system to prevent the President of the United States from doing things, but you and others say the police are immune. Everyday we see CEO's, movie stars, and government officials arrested. Everyone seems to be subject to our laws except police officers?
Perhaps, they actually did not do anything illegal. Perhaps you have accepted a narrative that has no real basis in fact.

Yes, it is possible that the thousands of shootings by police officers (which have resulted in almost no convictions over the entire history of the US) are somehow all coincidentally innocent.

I doubt it. That would be astronomically improbable. It is far more likely that there is a systemic problem with holding police officers accountable for the shootings.

In this case, it is a black officer shooting a white woman, so there will probably be charges laid.

Edit: Do you know how many of these police officers, who were found innocent, were forced to resign by public pressure?

Please, enlighten me.

-----------------

No one is accusing cops as a group ? except, you by your second sentence?

The sentence that says "individual cops"?

Are you aware of what individual means?

[Hong Wu]

Maybe they wanted to prove that they aren't racist?

[One Degree]

@Pants-of-dog

Yes, it is possible that the thousands of shootings by police officers (which have resulted in almost no convictions over the entire history of the US) are somehow all coincidentally innocent.

What is coincidental is they are doing their jobs properly. Why would you believe any thing else?

I doubt it. That would be astronomically improbable. It is far more likely that there is a systemic problem with holding police officers accountable for the shootings.

So every court in the US that has reviewed these cases were wrong because......"you doubt it"

In this case, it is a black officer shooting a white woman, so there will probably be charges laid.

The cop is doomed. The left will want to kill him because he is a cop and the right will want to kill him because he is a Muslim. We no longer have anything to argue about. The groups he is associated with absolutely prove his guilt.

Edit: Do you know how many of these police officers, who were found innocent, were forced to resign by public pressure?


Please, enlighten me.

I already responded to this.

-----------------

[Finfinder]

Are you aware of what individual means?

I am. Are you aware of what the use of a plural is...... cop's ?

Anyway that is not why your statement was contradictory.

Apparently you group all cop wannabes as premeditated serial killers, but you used the word's " individual cop's" so its ok LOL

[Heisenberg]

So, by your logic, the actions of criminals have no bearing on the statistics and we should simply assume the police are wrong even though our criminal justice system says they were right.

The criminal justice system has not even begun to investigate in the vast majority of cases, based on the statistics. I don't say "we should simply assume the police are wrong" - I say that shootings should be properly investigated. The vast number of shootings (1,000 per year!) and the tiny number of arrests - let alone convictions - suggests that they are not being properly investigated. The reluctance of DAs to investigate and charge officers with whom they work regularly, for example, is well-documented.

The "actions of criminals" certainly should have a bearing on whether an officer faces charges following a shooting. But simply committing a crime - which isn't even true all the time - is not grounds for killing someone. An officer should face real, life-threatening danger if they discharge a weapon. Given that 10 times more civilians are killed by police than the other way around, I think it's pretty clear this is not happening.

We then have your argument that police officers should be arrested as often as civilians for shooting people. :?: Your logic has now departed so far from reality that I see no need to respond to it, but can you simply dismiss the idea that we hire police to shoot people when necessary and we frown on civilians doing it?

The police are hired to enforce the law, maintain order and serve the community - not "shoot people when necessary". The fact that Americans think the police are their masters, rather than their servants, is a pathetic indictment of the "Land of the Free".

[One Degree]

@Heisenberg
Police shootings are highly public. Every one is scrutinized by the media and community action groups. The police are always placed on leave during the investigation. The ones that do not pass this initial scrutiny are the ones that make the headline news. Yes, there is some 'brotherhood' involved, but there is no huge conspiracy because it would be impossible to hide. Instead of judging by statistics and news stories, simply read the local news reports in your own community and then decide how many you think were justified. The mystery pretty well disappears when you actually look at what is happening on a daily basis. When you see how rare it is in your own community, then the statistics lose their power. It appears common because we have 320 million people in this country. Any rarity can be made a problem when you are dealing with that many people.
I would not want to be a police officer if the public expected me to confront armed drug gangs with a smile and the expectation they were really good people.

[ThirdTerm]

Australian media reports that Justine was in the alley behind her house because she had gone out to investigate a possible crime. Her soon-to-be stepson said in a video posted online that she heard a noise.

“She called police after hearing a disturbance in the alley and went out to investigate when she was shot,” reported Sydney Morning Herald.

Authorities are being very vague so far about what happened leading up to Justine being fatally shot by the unidentified police officer.

“Two Minneapolis police officers responded to a 911 call of a possible assault just north of the 5100 block of Washburn Avenue S. just before 11:30 p.m. Saturday,” the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said in a news release. “At one point, an officer fired their weapon, fatally striking a woman.” The shooting occurred around 11:30 p.m. The BCA stressed in the press release that the investigation was in its early stages.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/07/justine-r ... minnesota/

This Aussie woman was the first caller reporting a disturbance in the alley and she was in the ally to investigate what was going on, where she was fatally shot. Probably she was acting suspiciously in the alley like a possible suspect and did something wrong to threaten police officers in the car. It's also possible that they didn't understand what she was saying because of her foreign accent.

[maz]

The media is being really tight-lipped about this. From the first article I could find, they didn't even name the victim, then they wouldn't name the police officers and now they flat out withholding information that would flesh this story out.

While slanted, only Daily Mail appears to be doing any real reporting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ified.html

Apparently, the offending police officer has previously been accused of violent behavior towards one woman.

[One Degree]

The media is being really tight-lipped about this. From the first article I could find, they didn't even name the victim, then they wouldn't name the police officers and now they flat out withholding information that would flesh this story out.

While slanted, only Daily Mail appears to be doing any real reporting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ified.html

Apparently, the offending police officer has previously been accused of violent behavior towards one woman.

Weird! I can't even come up with a possible explanation from that scenario. I thought maybe she had a gun but I read no weapon was found.

[Decky]

The American police shooting someone for no reason and people jumping in to defend them for it? Well I am shocked. I really don't get why people go to the US, it is out of control, more like a war zone than a nation at peace.

[One Degree]

The American police shooting someone for no reason and people jumping in to defend them for it? Well I am shocked. I really don't get why people go to the US, it is out of control, more like a war zone than a nation at peace.

Who has defended him?

[Decky]

This Aussie woman was the first caller reporting a disturbance in the alley and she was in the ally to investigate what was going on, where she was fatally shot. Probably she was acting suspiciously in the alley like a possible suspect and did something wrong to threaten police officers in the car. It's also possible that they didn't understand what she was saying because of her foreign accent.

[One Degree]

[quote="Decky"][/quote]
Evidence accepted. I guess I viewed his comments as speculation rather than defending the officer.

[Pants-of-dog]

What is coincidental is they are doing their jobs properly. Why would you believe any thing else?

Because that would be as stupid as believing that 99.9% of all shootings in the general population are all coincidentally innocent.

So every court in the US that has reviewed these cases were wrong because......"you doubt it"

No, they are wrong because there is a systemic bias favouring cops in the court system today. These days, a cop merely needs to say that they felt threatened to be acquitted of any wrongdoing when killing someone. Everyone else requires more evidence.

The person who is shot by cops, on the other hand, is asumed to be guilty of some offense that requires immediate death.

The cop is doomed. The left will want to kill him because he is a cop and the right will want to kill him because he is a Muslim. We no longer have anything to argue about. The groups he is associated with absolutely prove his guilt.

Actually, the fact that he is a cop is the only thing he has going for him.

Otherwise, he is a black Muslim immigrant who shot a white woman.

I already responded to this.

You told skinster why you are not actually supplying the information, but that is not the same as supplying the information.

Please enlighten me. Thank you.

-----------------

I am. Are you aware of what the use of a plural is...... cop's ?

Anyway that is not why your statement was contradictory.

Apparently you group all cop wannabes as premeditated serial killers, but you used the word's " individual cop's" so its ok LOL

Nope. I already explained that I am not discussing cops as a group. You can continue to ignore what I actually say, and continue to believe the incorrect idea you have accused me of, but I do not care.

My argument is about systemic bias in the court system. The truth of my claim is the same even if I think no cops are "premeditated serial killers".