BERKELEY, Mo. (AP) — Violent protests broke out in suburban St. Louis after another black 18-year-old was fatally shot by a white police officer.
St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer was questioning the 18-year-old and another man about a theft late Tuesday at a convenience store in Berkeley when the young man pulled a 9mm handgun on him. The officer stumbled backward but fired three shots, one of which struck the victim, Belmar said.
Berkeley is just a few miles from Ferguson, Missouri, where a white police officer fatally shot Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, on Aug. 9. Brown's death sparked weeks of sometimes violent demonstrations and a grand jury's decision to not charge Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting has spurred a nationwide movement to protest police brutality.
Belmar declined to name the 18-year-old killed in Berkeley, but a woman at the scene told reporters she was his mother and identified him as Antonio Martin. Belmar said he was 18 years old and black.
The 34-year-old white police officer, a six-year veteran of the Berkeley Police Department, is on administrative leave pending an investigation, Belmar said.
"He will carry the weight of this for the rest of his life, certainly for the rest of his career," Belmar said. "So there are no winners here."
Police released surveillance video from the parking lot outside the store. The nearly two-minute clip shows two young men leaving the store at about the time a police car rolls up. The officer gets out and speaks with them. About a minute-and-a-half later, the video appears to show one of the men raising his arm, though what he is holding is difficult to see because they were several feet from the camera. Belmar said it was a 9mm handgun.
The other man ran away, and police are searching for him.
It was the third fatal shooting of a black suspect by a white police officer in the St. Louis area since Brown was killed. Kajaime Powell, 25, was killed Aug. 9 after approaching St. Louis officers with a knife. Vonderrit Myers Jr., 18, was fatally shot Oct. 8 after allegedly shooting at a St. Louis officer.
Each shooting has been met by protests, and a crowd quickly gathered late Tuesday and early Wednesday in Berkeley. The demonstration involving up to 300 people turned violent.
More than 50 police officers, some in riot gear, responded. Video showed some wrestling with protesters. Belmar said officers used pepper spray but not tear gas. Four people were arrested on charges of assaulting officers.
Belmar said three explosive devices, possibly fireworks, were tossed near gas pumps. Some protesters threw rocks and bricks. One officer was hit by a brick and treated for facial cuts. Another was treated for a leg injury sustained as he tried to get away from one of the explosives.
The protest spilled to a neighboring convenience store where a man in a hoodie set a fire inside the store. The fire was quickly put out, but the glass door was shattered.
Orlando Brown, 36, of nearby St. Charles was among the protesters.
"I understand police officers have a job and have an obligation to go home to their families at the end of the night," he said. "But do you have to treat every situation with lethal force? ... It's not a racial issue, or black or white. It's wrong or right."
Brown said he was pepper-sprayed during the protest and that his friend was arrested for failing to disperse.
Toni Martin, Antonio Martin's mother, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that her son was with his girlfriend at the time of the shooting. The video did not appear to show a female with the two young men.
Belmar said the 18-year-old had a considerable criminal record in the less than two years since he turned 17, with three assault charges, armed robbery, armed criminal action and unlawful use of a weapon.
The chief said some protesters questioned why the officer couldn't use pepper spray or a stun gun.
"Frankly, that's unreasonable," Belmar said. "When we had somebody pointing a gun at a police officer, there's not a lot of time."
Berkeley has body cameras and dashboard cameras. The officer wasn't wearing his body camera, Belmar said. The dashboard camera activates when the red lights are on, and they were not on at the convenience store.
Belmar said the body of the young man remained on the scene for about two hours. After Brown died in August, the fact that his body remained on the street for more than four hours drew widespread criticism. Belmar said two hours is fairly typical as police gather evidence, and he said interference from protesters may have prolonged the situation in Berkeley.
I love how the guy pulls a gun on the cop and people are asking to know why the cop couldn't just respond with pepper spray, wtf?
Well, obviously the guy with the gun didn't feel safe with the gun at his house, so he went out looking for someone he could turn it in to. He saw the police officer, tried to turn it in, but the nasty officer saw a black guy walking around on the streets and executed him, because that's just what police officers do. That's the only possible explanation.
I will laugh my butt off if he was being questioned over stealing swisher sweets, they must be the most precious commodity in the hood if people are getting shot over them. Apparently convenience stores and gas stations are cop laden death traps waiting to spring on anyone who'd try steal some cheap and terrible smokes.
Edit: The protestors are possibly even stupider than the "victim". Stop rioting over perceived racial injustice. Someone needs to tally up all the instances in 2014 where a white guy met the same fate, and throw it in their faces.
I remember my Roommate said "I have seen cops with batns, riot gear, they are safe, they dont fear for their lifes ever. People should be afraid of cops" He then said they should use tasers I also just want a peaceful campus where I can ride on the streets. I swear, If they block the streets over this there, im riding my scooter straight into it
I also just want a peaceful campus where I can ride on the streets. I swear, If they block the streets over this there, im riding my scooter straight into it
While I understand the sentiment, I really doubt that barreling into a racially charged irrational mob at 10 mph is the wisest thing to when you're a lone white guy.
I also just want a peaceful campus where I can ride on the streets. I swear, If they block the streets over this there, im riding my scooter straight into it
While I understand the sentiment, I really doubt that barreling into a racially charged irrational mob at 10 mph is the wisest thing to when you're a lone white guy.
Are they using explosives at a gas station!? I obviously think that rioting and this stuff is stupid, and while I don't normally call for people to die.... I hope Darwin shows up with some awards in hand
Are they using explosives at a gas station!? I obviously think that rioting and this stuff is stupid, and while I don't normally call for people to die.... I hope Darwin shows up with some awards in hand
nails, length of 100 mph tape, and fire works. Cheap frag
Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
Tasers are the worse thing to have when someone else is pointing a gun at you...
According to the local police chief... they have “videos from other angles that shows the shooting” but are not releasing it “out of respect for Martin’s family.”
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
Tasers are the worse thing to have when someone else is pointing a gun at you...
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
Tasers are the worse thing to have when someone else is pointing a gun at you...
Ouze wrote: I think any reasonable person understands that pointing a firearm at a police officer will justifiably result in lethal force.
I'm all for police forces investigating new ways to deal with things non-lethally, and the number of shootings over there involving coppers is depressing, but I agree with Ouze.
Ouze wrote: I think any reasonable person understands that pointing a firearm at a police officer will justifiably result in lethal force.
Nt my roommate who thinks cops should wait until shots are fired
It's like a friendly game of tag, but with bullets that have smiley faces stamped on them. Cops have to go second because they have a vest on right? And just like in COD custom deathmatches the headshots are turned off so everybody is happy.
Because this has been in the news so much, I was interested to see how dangerous it is to be a policeman in the States.
When I looked into it, the statistics I found were pretty shocking. Seems like it is an extremely dangerous job. It is more understandable to me now that they'd be pretty, I guess we'll call it "careful" about firearms.
I still think this is a racial issue though, given the disproportionate number of young black men shot in this manner.
I still think this is a racial issue though, given the disproportionate number of young black men shot in this manner.
I think it's more of a ghetto culture issue that promotes gangs, criminal activity, and gun violence, race only happens to be a secondary element of the situation.
Ouze wrote: I think any reasonable person understands that pointing a firearm at a police officer will justifiably result in lethal force.
Nt my roommate who thinks cops should wait until shots are fired
Your roommate is an idiot. If you want to convince him otherwise, just have him play CoD and tell him he can only shoot after you have shot. Just keep lining up headshots. He'll get the idea after the 3rd or 4th time that you can't shoot back when you're dead.
I'm going to put this "engraved plaque" here for all those who have looked into my post history.
I fully admit to being mildly insane during this period. I had not yet understood "Good taste" or "Logic", and I admit that I had contracted a minor case of Religion.
Please do not consider anything I have posted before my ideology switch an accurate reflection of my personality or beliefs.
And honestly this post was racist as hell.
stanman wrote: I think it's more of a ghetto culture issue that promotes gangs, criminal activity, and gun violence, race only happens to be a secondary element of the situation.
Well, many minorities are of lower economic classes, don't receive good education and tend towards base self aggrandizing culture. Acting like a punk then reaching into your pockets sets off warning flags like mad to cops because of the hundreds that have died from similar situations or even less obvious behaviors. Cops act the way they do because of an extensive history of officer deaths and injuries.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
Tasers are the worse thing to have when someone else is pointing a gun at you...
Not to mention that tasers don't always work. If the subject is wearing thick clothing, they won't work. They have a limited range. Some people, when hit with a taser, can still function well enough to fire a weapon. The idea that tasers are like some sort of magical star trek stun phaser is ignorant at best. Plus, how many time has the use of a taser been described as police brutaliy?
Yeah, given the video, and that the temp was in the 30's there, it's safe to say the guy was wearing some pretty thick clothes. So a taser actually connecting with the skin isn't the best bet.
Plus, he was faced with deadly force. You do not face deadly force with a taser. It's not how you are trained, and it's just generally not that smart.
stanman wrote: I think it's more of a ghetto culture issue that promotes gangs, criminal activity, and gun violence, race only happens to be a secondary element of the situation.
Well, many minorities are of lower economic classes, don't receive good education and tend towards base self aggrandizing culture. Acting like a punk then reaching into your pockets sets off warning flags like mad to cops because of the hundreds that have died from similar situations or even less obvious behaviors. Cops act the way they do because of an extensive history of officer deaths and injuries.
Surprisingly, gangs do alot more for communities then cops, hence the hatred.
stanman wrote: I think it's more of a ghetto culture issue that promotes gangs, criminal activity, and gun violence, race only happens to be a secondary element of the situation.
Well, many minorities are of lower economic classes, don't receive good education and tend towards base self aggrandizing culture. Acting like a punk then reaching into your pockets sets off warning flags like mad to cops because of the hundreds that have died from similar situations or even less obvious behaviors. Cops act the way they do because of an extensive history of officer deaths and injuries.
Surprisingly, gangs do alot more for communities then cops, hence the hatred.
Ok... you're going to need to back that statement up with some facts. Sons of Anarchy is not sourceable material.
stanman wrote: I think it's more of a ghetto culture issue that promotes gangs, criminal activity, and gun violence, race only happens to be a secondary element of the situation.
Well, many minorities are of lower economic classes, don't receive good education and tend towards base self aggrandizing culture. Acting like a punk then reaching into your pockets sets off warning flags like mad to cops because of the hundreds that have died from similar situations or even less obvious behaviors. Cops act the way they do because of an extensive history of officer deaths and injuries.
Surprisingly, gangs do alot more for communities then cops, hence the hatred.
Clarify that a bit more. How are "gangs" more beneficial to a community
Sigvatr wrote: If he really pointed a gun at the policer officer, then shooting him was fully justified and the perfectly correct choice.
Last few seconds of the video I posted from youtube you can see him draw and point his weapon at the LEO.
I saw hat video elsewhere, I didn't see the shooting at all.
Not saying it didn't happen as described, just that I couldn't see what was going on.
I think this needs close ups and identified stills from the camera footage.
Often I wonder why security camera footage is still in the 1980's, even bank camera images are so often grainy and crap.
Sigvatr wrote: If he really pointed a gun at the policer officer, then shooting him was fully justified and the perfectly correct choice.
Last few seconds of the video I posted from youtube you can see him draw and point his weapon at the LEO.
I saw hat video elsewhere, I didn't see the shooting at all.
Not saying it didn't happen as described, just that I couldn't see what was going on.
I think this needs close ups and identified stills from the camera footage.
Often I wonder why security camera footage is still in the 1980's, even bank camera images are so often grainy and crap.
Cause camera's ain't cheap.
St. Louis police haven't released the full video yet "out of respect for the dead mans family".
Da Boss wrote: Because this has been in the news so much, I was interested to see how dangerous it is to be a policeman in the States.
When I looked into it, the statistics I found were pretty shocking. Seems like it is an extremely dangerous job.
Not really. It's not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US. It just gets a lot of press when something happens because my country fetishes uniformed guys with firearms as "heroes" - no one really cares when a fisherman or rancher dies.
stanman wrote: I think it's more of a ghetto culture issue that promotes gangs, criminal activity, and gun violence, race only happens to be a secondary element of the situation.
Well, many minorities are of lower economic classes, don't receive good education and tend towards base self aggrandizing culture. Acting like a punk then reaching into your pockets sets off warning flags like mad to cops because of the hundreds that have died from similar situations or even less obvious behaviors. Cops act the way they do because of an extensive history of officer deaths and injuries.
Surprisingly, gangs do alot more for communities then cops, hence the hatred.
Clarify that a bit more. How are "gangs" more beneficial to a community
Get with the program Jihadin.
Gangs keep the ethnic groups settled in distinct locations, provide a cultural setting for urban populations, they sometimes have been known to alleviate overpopulation, and they are notably enterprising when it comes to unlicensed pharmaceutical distribution and retail.
What do cops have to offer by comparison?
Surprisingly, gangs do alot more for communities then cops, hence the hatred.
That may have been a defensible position if we were talking about 1960's Chicago (to name one example), where if you happened to be black the police were little better than a government sanctioned gang, but it definitely isn't the case now.
The gangs are providing a valueable public service by promoting micro-economic distribution of footwear to a underprivileged sections of the local population.
The gangs are providing a valueable public service by promoting micro-economic distribution of footwear to a underprivileged sections of the local population.
Your good.......I might have to step up my game....
I can see their willingness to protect their territory from other gangs. Can't have two packs of predators feeding off the same vict.....eerrrr prey...
Da Boss wrote: Because this has been in the news so much, I was interested to see how dangerous it is to be a policeman in the States.
When I looked into it, the statistics I found were pretty shocking. Seems like it is an extremely dangerous job.
Not really. It's not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US. It just gets a lot of press when something happens because my country fetishes uniformed guys with firearms as "heroes" - no one really cares when a fisherman or rancher dies.
Don't the most dangerous occupations include statistical aberrations like astronauts and bomb disposal?
Also you need to separate the urban from the rural police for a meaningful statistic.. Apparently a large proportion of the rural police never/rarely ever have to draw their firearms over the course of their careers.
Orlanth wrote: Don't the most dangerous occupations include statistical aberrations like astronauts and bomb disposal?.
Not at all, no. There aren't enough astronauts or EOD techs to skew the numbers. Depending on where you pull the data from and how well it's cited, it's pretty always some permutation of loggers, construction workers, fisherman, ranchers, farm workers, truck drivers, roofers, and things like that.
Any job with a lot of driving is going to have a high on-the-job-casualty rate because driving is statistically the most dangerous thing most people do.
Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Orlanth wrote: Don't the most dangerous occupations include statistical aberrations like astronauts and bomb disposal?.
Not at all, no. There aren't enough astronauts or EOD techs to skew the numbers. Depending on where you pull the data from and how well it's cited, it's pretty always some permutation of loggers, construction workers, fisherman, ranchers, farm workers, truck drivers, roofers, and things like that.
Any job with a lot of driving is going to have a high on-the-job-casualty rate because driving is statistically the most dangerous thing most people do.
Actually its the small numbers that skew statistics. For example 1.48% of space shuttle journeys result in total crew and passenger casualties. If you tried to compare that percentage to buses and lorries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend theselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Statistics are a political weapon, you need to load them yourself with plausible and relevant data.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
Funny thing is more and more police are using the tazer as a first use weapon, and the police are still attacked over it.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
Maybe you should take a look at the rest of the thread before replying
And perhaps not just assume that I for some reason don't know that electricity tends to cause muscles to contract, hence making such an incapacitive weapon a bad idea to use when someone is pointing a gun at you. Tasers are an example of current technology which can be issued to police to allow them to subdue suspects with a much lower level of lethality than firearms, not the solution to all violent confrontations.
The emphasis of the post was on the development of new systems to replace firearms as the go to weapon for the police, a body whose role is, nominally, to protect the public, apprehend people planning to, suspected of, or in the act of committing crime. Not to go round killing people. Although clearly even if effective nonlethal weapons are available to police, lethal weapons may still be required for specialist use against appropriate situations.
Throwing random facts, factoids, and logical fallacies at the wall and hoping something sticks with the hope to distract opponent's arguments and railroad the discussion in a direction favorable to your argument no matter how irrelevant to the original discussion is also a political weapon, just not a particularly ethical one. Whether or not policework is the most dangerous job out there is not relevant to the discussion of what equipment the police need to effectively perform their job. It is a red herring, and based on the context in which it usually gets brought up it is a red herring designed to cast the police in a negative light for political purposes.
DarkLink wrote: Throwing random facts, factoids, and logical fallacies at the wall and hoping something sticks with the hope to distract opponent's arguments and railroad the discussion in a direction favorable to your argument no matter how irrelevant to the original discussion is also a political weapon, just not a particularly ethical one. Whether or not policework is the most dangerous job out there is not relevant to the discussion of what equipment the police need to effectively perform their job. It is a red herring, and based on the context in which it usually gets brought up it is a red herring designed to cast the police in a negative light for political purposes.
Which is why such statistics need to be countered.
The best counter are plausible statistics of your own. For lasting credibility those stats should of course be true.
Showing the urban policing in the US is a dangerous job would proffer sympathies and provide a balance of public opinion more in favour of the law enforcement community.
Even if say working a wood chipper is more dangerous than policing New York, and even if this (random example) were true it would do nothing to help as public perception is that working in the forestry industry is peaceful stress free work out in the fresh air and if thats more dangerous than police work then 'obviously' the police are overreacting to reports of their own safety.
Its not really the statistics that you need to concern yourself with, but public perceptions and misconceptions which the statistics play on. With this case in point a lot of very dangerous professions are seemingly peaceful, idyllic and relaxed.
So the last thing US society needs right now is a jackass warped statistic making police work seem relatively risk free compared to the public perceive to be an idyllic profession; and thus undermining public sympathy and support from cops who have very good reason to be extra wary at this time.
Actually its the small numbers that skew statistics. For example 1.48% of space shuttle journeys result in total crew and passenger casualties. If you tried to compare that percentage to buses and lorries.
Strictly speaking the sample size for all space shuttle missions is much too small to draw any meaningful statistical conclusion, let alone in comparison to something like automotive travel. The same goes for the profession of astronaut versus the profession of construction worker, or even police officer. Indeed, if you compare the percentage of astronaut fatalities in 2011 to the percentage of construction worker fatalities in the same year the profession of astronaut would appear safer.
At any rate, you're about twice as likely to die working construction as you are to die working as a police officer, although in both cases the probability of death is well under 1%*. Of course, that's not really a meaningful comparison as there are many different types of police officers just as there are many different types of construction worker.
*About .05% for construction workers, and .025% for police officers.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
Maybe you should take a look at the rest of the thread before replying
And perhaps not just assume that I for some reason don't know that electricity tends to cause muscles to contract, hence making such an incapacitive weapon a bad idea to use when someone is pointing a gun at you. Tasers are an example of current technology which can be issued to police to allow them to subdue suspects with a much lower level of lethality than firearms, not the solution to all violent confrontations.
The emphasis of the post was on the development of new systems to replace firearms as the go to weapon for the police, a body whose role is, nominally, to protect the public, apprehend people planning to, suspected of, or in the act of committing crime. Not to go round killing people. Although clearly even if effective nonlethal weapons are available to police, lethal weapons may still be required for specialist use against appropriate situations.
Tell you what. Go invent phasers or blasters with a stun setting. Get a nobel peace prize. In the meantime, the police will just have to work with the tools they have.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Orlanth wrote: Its not really the statistics that you need to concern yourself with, but public perceptions and misconceptions which the statistics play on. With this case in point a lot of very dangerous professions are seemingly peaceful, idyllic and relaxed.
So the last thing US society needs right now is a jackass warped statistic making police work seem relatively risk free compared to the public perceive to be an idyllic profession; and thus undermining public sympathy and support from cops who have very good reason to be extra wary at this time.
So, lets discard the reality, and instead just make up an argument that feels right instead, is what you're saying. Again, the idea that police work is idyllic and peaceful is a fake strawman as it relates to this thread. It's a rebuttal to a nonexistent argument.
DarkLink wrote: Throwing random facts, factoids, and logical fallacies at the wall and hoping something sticks with the hope to distract opponent's arguments and railroad the discussion in a direction favorable to your argument no matter how irrelevant to the original discussion is also a political weapon, just not a particularly ethical one. Whether or not policework is the most dangerous job out there is not relevant to the discussion of what equipment the police need to effectively perform their job. It is a red herring, and based on the context in which it usually gets brought up it is a red herring designed to cast the police in a negative light for political purposes.
Which is why such statistics need to be countered.
The best counter are plausible statistics of your own. For lasting credibility those stats should of course be true.
Showing the urban policing in the US is a dangerous job would proffer sympathies and provide a balance of public opinion more in favour of the law enforcement community.
Even if say working a wood chipper is more dangerous than policing New York, and even if this (random example) were true it would do nothing to help as public perception is that working in the forestry industry is peaceful stress free work out in the fresh air and if thats more dangerous than police work then 'obviously' the police are overreacting to reports of their own safety.
Its not really the statistics that you need to concern yourself with, but public perceptions and misconceptions which the statistics play on. With this case in point a lot of very dangerous professions are seemingly peaceful, idyllic and relaxed.
So the last thing US society needs right now is a jackass warped statistic making police work seem relatively risk free compared to the public perceive to be an idyllic profession; and thus undermining public sympathy and support from cops who have very good reason to be extra wary at this time.
Statistics are a political weapon, you need to load them yourself with plausible and relevant data.
While statistics can be used as a political weapon, that is not what they inherently are. Though I do find it amusing that you're essentially advocating that they be used in such a manner.
Actually its the small numbers that skew statistics. For example 1.48% of space shuttle journeys result in total crew and passenger casualties. If you tried to compare that percentage to buses and lorries.
Strictly speaking the sample size for all space shuttle missions is much too small to draw any meaningful statistical conclusion, let alone in comparison to something like automotive travel. The same goes for the profession of astronaut versus the profession of construction worker, or even police officer. Indeed, if you compare the percentage of astronaut fatalities in 2011 to the percentage of construction worker fatalities in the same year the profession of astronaut would appear safer.
At any rate, you're about twice as likely to die working construction as you are to die working as a police officer, although in both cases the probability of death is well under 1%*. Of course, that's not really a meaningful comparison as there are many different types of police officers just as there are many different types of construction worker.
*About .05% for construction workers, and .025% for police officers.
Dogma, I agree, but this reinforces my point not refutes it.
Statistics can be very unfair and there are no hard rules as to what are valid statistics so long as thraw data is technically accurate.
I mentioned space shuttle era astronauts as an easily calculable statistic.
Likewise your comparing construction worker deaths in 2011 against those of astronauts (none) is equally 'valid'.
Taking your comparison of construction work to police work. You could rework the statistics to exclude rural policing as it is fundamentally different to urban policing wheras construction is largely similar in risk nationwide. This is appropriate as the public will compare policing in regions that are in the public eye, like Berkeley and New York ignoring the large number of relatively safe rural communities in the US.
Orlanth wrote: Its not really the statistics that you need to concern yourself with, but public perceptions and misconceptions which the statistics play on. With this case in point a lot of very dangerous professions are seemingly peaceful, idyllic and relaxed.
So the last thing US society needs right now is a jackass warped statistic making police work seem relatively risk free compared to the public perceive to be an idyllic profession; and thus undermining public sympathy and support from cops who have very good reason to be extra wary at this time.
Statistics are a political weapon, you need to load them yourself with plausible and relevant data.
While statistics can be used as a political weapon, that is not what they inherently are. Though I do find it amusing that you're essentially advocating that they be used in such a manner.
If you fight a political battle without your gun it wont matter how good your argument was. I do not advocate a lack of ethics in working statistics, I advocate shrewdness and the willingness to counter unfair statistics with positive statistics that have more justifiable parameters. Small but significant difference,
Advocating dodgy stats is a poor move, its easy to get caught, and makes your spokesman look bad. You have to be able to justify the parameters from which you draw your data, and give sources - preferably a University for extra kudos, and expect that political analysts working for another side will scrutinise them.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
Statistics can be very unfair and there are no hard rules as to what are valid statistics so long as thraw data is technically accurate.
Actually, that's not true at all. There are many different means of objectively testing for significance, several of which turn on calculating acceptable sample sizes.
Likewise your comparing construction worker deaths in 2011 against those of astronauts (none) is equally 'valid'.
It really isn't as by any objective measure the small number of astronauts precludes the development of a significant result. I think I've said this before, but your understanding of statistics is rather poor. You do have a solid grasp of how they can be used to deceive, but that has more to do with the tendency of people to ignore pertinent details in the course of pursuing something with passion than it does with statistics.
Taking your comparison of construction work to police work. You could rework the statistics to exclude rural policing as it is fundamentally different to urban policing wheras construction is largely similar in risk nationwide. This is appropriate as the public will compare policing in regions that are in the public eye, like Berkeley and New York ignoring the large number of relatively safe rural communities in the US.
I don't think its correct to produce statistics on the basis of how the public will perceive them. Rather the intention should be to produce stats that accurately reflect reality. Whether or not public figures should cite them in the course of interacting with the public is different matter altogether.
Advocating dodgy stats is a poor move, its easy to get caught, and makes your spokesman look bad. You have to be able to justify the parameters from which you draw your data, and give sources - preferably a University for extra kudos, and expect that political analysts working for another side will scrutinise them.
I think that's true if the statistics are central to a particular cause, which is generally not the case. Rather they tend to be used as a means of rallying existing supporters, and to a lesser extent swaying those who are on the fence regarding an issue*. This is why methodology, when its discussed at all, generally features in the fine print.
DarkLink wrote: Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
Fair enough. I definitely wouldn't consider police work "safe" by any stretch of the imagination, personally, regardless of venue. I think any profession that requires you to carry a sidearm generally speaking can't be considered safe.
Whoops, looks like I started a bit of a tangent here. Sorry.
I come from a family that includes fishermen and police (and soldiers).
Fishing, especially deep sea fishing, is a very dangerous job, and probably more dangerous than being a policeman in most instances. But being a policeman in the US is definitely more dangerous than doing it here in Ireland. Police here do not carry firearms as standard, and I don't think they need to, because it just isn't as dangerous as it is in the US.
When I made my post, I merely meant to make some of the other EU posters perhaps re-evaluate their assumptions with regard to policing in the US, which I think is generally more dangerous than in most EU countries because of the availability of firearms.
I am not really cool with the police shooting people (and I think long term it is damaging to their effectiveness as a police force) if it can be avoided, and in general I would "side with" the protesters if I was in the US. But I've seen some pretty ignorant statements from people on my side of the pond, is all.
Statistics can be very unfair and there are no hard rules as to what are valid statistics so long as thraw data is technically accurate.
Actually, that's not true at all. There are many different means of objectively testing for significance, several of which turn on calculating acceptable sample sizes.
The example given of astronauts is actually frequently used, and relevant. The danger of manned space flight and the statistical probability of death in space travel have not been underplayed b the space agencies or US government.
For example the relative danger of the space shuttle program and worse Apollo is often used to build the mystique of NASA, and also to instill a sense of common understanding that the manned space program has a casualty rate that is acceptable in the long term to society.
Relative sample sizes are still relevant as a strategy to eliminate unfavourable statistics, its also relevant when you want it to be though. The statistical chance of x occurring in population y can be relevant even if population y is small, if there is a desire to act against x. x might be anything from an unwanted foreign regime, to tobacco, to firearms etc
Again it comes down the the opposed political opinion to argue the relevance of particular study.
Likewise your comparing construction worker deaths in 2011 against those of astronauts (none) is equally 'valid'.
It really isn't as by any objective measure the small number of astronauts precludes the development of a significant result. I think I've said this before, but your understanding of statistics is rather poor. You do have a solid grasp of how they can be used to deceive, but that has more to do with the tendency of people to ignore pertinent details in the course of pursuing something with passion than it does with statistics.
I have a solid grasp of how statistics work, I don't generally calculate them out of laziness, an admitted rustiness, and general unwillingness. That being said I don't need to calculate statistics, that someone elses job. I will admit to not being a mathematician though, far from it in fact.
Wielding statistics is as important as gathering them, and the first step to wielding statistics is to determine the parameters of a study. Outside pure geographical research there is always a loading to the parameters, this is inevitable as you cant calculate everything, and some data while statistically relevant is not politically relevant, and that of itself does not indicate a dishonest position. The example of discounting rural policing in a study of the comparative dangers of policing in the milieu as sen by the public (inner city areas with high ethnic populations) does lead to statstics that favour the opinion that policing is dangerous and deserves as measure of public sympathy. But calculating the statistics this way is not dishonest, it is simply more relevant, and the relevance can be argued politically.
In essense it can be boiled down to one essential truth, statistics is a subsection of mathematical science, politics however is an art.
Taking your comparison of construction work to police work. You could rework the statistics to exclude rural policing as it is fundamentally different to urban policing wheras construction is largely similar in risk nationwide. This is appropriate as the public will compare policing in regions that are in the public eye, like Berkeley and New York ignoring the large number of relatively safe rural communities in the US.
I don't think its correct to produce statistics on the basis of how the public will perceive them. Rather the intention should be to produce stats that accurately reflect reality. Whether or not public figures should cite them in the course of interacting with the public is different matter altogether.
When presented as a purely academic study you are correct. However public perception is always relevant, and those statistics presented for the press are handled differently to those statistics handled for the betterment of geographical science.
If we really want to muddy the waters take a look at lrge scale statistical studies in the early nineties comparine average IQ with ethnicity. The results, that Orientals ( US Asian) were tiered higher than Causcasians who were tiered higher than Blacks might well be anthopologically sound but they weren't politically welcome, and were not accepted dispassionately.
The controversy remained even though the study was conducted on such a large scale that they had no relevant bearing on any individual, and while the researcers (both white academics of up to then good standing) were accused of White Supremecism, and this neatly avoided the question as to why someone would make a particular ethnicity as mentally superior if it was not his own.
The above is a good example of how non political, scientifically based statistical research can have human consequences that are considered to overrule the desire to provide dispassionate scientific data.
Advocating dodgy stats is a poor move, its easy to get caught, and makes your spokesman look bad. You have to be able to justify the parameters from which you draw your data, and give sources - preferably a University for extra kudos, and expect that political analysts working for another side will scrutinise them.
I think that's true if the statistics are central to a particular cause, which is generally not the case. Rather they tend to be used as a means of rallying existing supporters, and to a lesser extent swaying those who are on the fence regarding an issue*. This is why methodology, when its discussed at all, generally features in the fine print.
*Environmentalists are infamous for this.
Indeed, this process is known in the industry as greenwashing. Environmentalists are not generally well paid as a rule, or at least not well paid compared to business professionals. So when a study is held as to an economic impact, there is encouragement from business and some political concerns for the ecological impact estimates to be predicted as conservatively as possible.
As most environmental concerns deal with future prediction, and that means tallying up known data with considered estimates there is a great deal of leeway involved.
This explains why scientists cant apparently make up their mind as to the consequences, or even the existence of global warming.
Environmentalist are not alone in this. Statistical bodies are also subject to corruption. The UK is a good case in point, as the government statistical offices became party politicised alongside the rest of the civil service in the early years of this century. And while government statistics everywhere have some tie in with propaganda this was internalised to become party political.
Once this threshold is crossed a media savvy government can explain exactly what it wants to the public, and generally does. I don't think the US is that far down the slippery slop yet. The US government still lies for common gain, (Iraq anyone) but the machinery of state does not directly favour one national party over another.
All in all statistics, including polls, used in any study of political and or economic importance should be taken lightly, but absorbed as important even if only for what it tells the populace to believe.
If you witnessed the statistical schenanigans regarding this years Scottish referendum you will have had a good spread of these strategies in action over a sustained period. Though as the normal US presidential election system works over an extended time period with primaries etc this is telling you nothing you won't already have seen for yourself closer to home.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
Funny thing is more and more police are using the tazer as a first use weapon, and the police are still attacked over it.
yup, goal posts will just keep moving.
Trying to appease the unappeasable will never work,
the whole "blame whitey" trope that is so indemnic isnt helping anyone either.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
That is not what the argument was about at all and I was asking questions and requesting people provide me with reasons why they should carry 2-3 extra magazines on them. I was genuinely looking for reasons for my mind to be changed. That was never provided to me and after one or two attempts by users I was insulted. Please, if you are going to attempt to make a passive aggressive remark towards another user from a post in another thread..... you know what, you could just not do that and be an adult. That fixes things.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
That is not what the argument was about at all and I was asking questions and requesting people provide me with reasons why they should carry 2-3 extra magazines on them. I was genuinely looking for reasons for my mind to be changed. That was never provided to me and after one or two attempts by users I was insulted. Please, if you are going to attempt to make a passive aggressive remark towards another user from a post in another thread..... you know what, you could just not do that and be an adult. That fixes things.
If you do not see why two or three extra magazines could be needed in a situation involving either multiple assailants or criminals armed with long guns (like the guy with the AK in the video), there really isn't much more to discuss. I'm willing to attempt to explain it to you, but as far as I can tell your mind is already made up.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
That is not what the argument was about at all and I was asking questions and requesting people provide me with reasons why they should carry 2-3 extra magazines on them. I was genuinely looking for reasons for my mind to be changed. That was never provided to me and after one or two attempts by users I was insulted. Please, if you are going to attempt to make a passive aggressive remark towards another user from a post in another thread..... you know what, you could just not do that and be an adult. That fixes things.
If you do not see why two or three extra magazines could be needed in a situation involving either multiple assailants or criminals armed with long guns (like the guy with the AK in the video), there really isn't much more to discuss. I'm willing to attempt to explain it to you, but as far as I can tell your mind is already made up.
Well then, you are wrong.
I asked for evidence and was not provided with any where a cop needed more than one additional clip. Either way, this is the wrong thread to be discussing this in.
The example of discounting rural policing in a study of the comparative dangers of policing in the milieu as sen by the public (inner city areas with high ethnic populations) does lead to statstics that favour the opinion that policing is dangerous and deserves as measure of public sympathy. But calculating the statistics this way is not dishonest, it is simply more relevant, and the relevance can be argued politically.
In essense it can be boiled down to one essential truth, statistics is a subsection of mathematical science, politics however is an art.
Regarding opinion polling you are certainly correct, but opinion polling is distinct from the collection and analysis of data related to any particular objective measure of danger.
As to politics being an art: for the most part I agree. However, it is mistaken to believe that the analysis of collected data has no place in political decision making.
When presented as a purely academic study you are correct. However public perception is always relevant, and those statistics presented for the press are handled differently to those statistics handled for the betterment of geographical science.
At least in this country statistics developed for the press are generally based on the assessment of political opinion regarding a person or an issue. This usually involves a fairly simple survey with some form of multiple choice response set, designed to produce a sample of respondents numbering ~1000. This sort of data can only really be influenced by likely respondents, and the specific wording of a given question. The former can be
The controversy remained even though the study was conducted on such a large scale that they had no relevant bearing on any individual, and while the researcers (both white academics of up to then good standing) were accused of White Supremecism, and this neatly avoided the question as to why someone would make a particular ethnicity as mentally superior if it was not his own.
Oh, you mean the Bell Curve? If so, the criticism I 'm most familiar with was centered around the notion that intelligence was genetically heritable. I know there was also a lot of mudslinging, but that didn't stay in the public eye for long as it was primarily grounded in long-held grudges within the psychology community.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
That is not what the argument was about at all and I was asking questions and requesting people provide me with reasons why they should carry 2-3 extra magazines on them. I was genuinely looking for reasons for my mind to be changed. That was never provided to me and after one or two attempts by users I was insulted. Please, if you are going to attempt to make a passive aggressive remark towards another user from a post in another thread..... you know what, you could just not do that and be an adult. That fixes things.
If you do not see why two or three extra magazines could be needed in a situation involving either multiple assailants or criminals armed with long guns (like the guy with the AK in the video), there really isn't much more to discuss. I'm willing to attempt to explain it to you, but as far as I can tell your mind is already made up.
Well then, you are wrong.
I asked for evidence and was not provided with any where a cop needed more than one additional clip. Either way, this is the wrong thread to be discussing this in.
Then why did you bring it up again? So you're saying you literally cannot imagine another similar situation in which a police officer would need more magazines, such as a situation with a single officer and multiple assailants?
Though as the normal US presidential election system works over an extended time period with primaries etc this is telling you nothing you won't already have seen for yourself closer to home.
It also helps that it is presently my job to analyze stats, tell other people what they mean, and tell them what they shouldn't do as a result.
Isn't one of the recommended ways of clearing a failure to drop the magazine and insert a new one to rule out the possibility of a defective magazine contributing to the failure? (It's late, I'm not sure if my way of explaining what I'm talking about makes sense...)
So at the very least I would want one in the gun, one backup, and one replacement in case of a mechanical failure in either one of those.
However, it is mistaken to believe that the analysis of collected data has no place in political decision making.
I wouldn't dare try and advocate that. Good analysis requires raw data. However the data highlighted for pubic interest differs from the raw data considerably. It needs to because of TLR as much as for concealing unwanted data or preventing the press from jumping to conclusions.
At least in this country statistics developed for the press are generally based on the assessment of political opinion regarding a person or an issue. This usually involves a fairly simple survey with some form of multiple choice response set, designed to produce a sample of respondents numbering ~1000. This sort of data can only really be influenced by likely respondents, and the specific wording of a given question. The former can be
It is true that the majority instances of press statistical data comes from polls. Polls are catchy, can be applied to any question, are fixable if this is desired by choosing the demographic or location canvassed and are easy to run by the press themselves.
However the press takes great interest in other statistical data if it is catchy, or presented at an opportune time. Crime, health and employment statistics are favoured examples of the media, and need not be linked to any study based on an opinion poll.
Oh, you mean the Bell Curve? If so, the criticism I 'm most familiar with was centered around the notion that intelligence was genetically heritable. I know there was also a lot of mudslinging, but that didn't stay in the public eye for long as it was primarily grounded in long-held grudges within the psychology community.
IQ is only a broad and not particularly accurate marker for inheritance, and any study of intelligence should take education into account, which a tally of IQs over a large section of the populace does not do.
This is not news even a the time, though the particular study had not been done before. IQ by nationality was graphed, IIRC Japan has an average IQ of 110, the highest in the world. This data may well be outdated, and not professionally sourced - from memory of an 80's copy the the Guinness Book of Records.
Still the point being made is that a statistical study or a large scale for academic research purposes can easily have political and/or social consequences which might demand a redaction of the scientific data; even if this results in a corruption of the standard scientific protocols for he impartial and dispassionate collection of data.
I asked for evidence and was not provided with any where a cop needed more than one additional clip. Either way, this is the wrong thread to be discussing this in.
I don't want to go back so apologies if this was answered, but depending on caliber, there's not a ton of ammo in magazines for a larger round/single stack, like a 1911 and it's variants, or a 10mm - we're talking like 8 rounds. It's one of the reasons I switched my personal CCW from a 1911 (which I love) to a compact 9mm (which I totally don't love, but it holds 13 rounds and is pretty damn small).
Since magazines aren't especially large or heavy from a LEO perspective - we're not talking someone feeding a 240 - is there a compelling reason why they shouldn't carry 2 or 3 magazines?
I asked for evidence and was not provided with any where a cop needed more than one additional clip. Either way, this is the wrong thread to be discussing this in.
I don't want to go back so apologies if this was answered, but depending on caliber, there's not a ton of ammo in magazines for a larger round/single stack, like a 1911 and it's variants, or a 10mm - we're talking like 8 rounds. It's one of the reasons I switched my personal CCW from a 1911 (which I love) to a compact 9mm (which I totally don't love, but it holds 13 rounds and is pretty damn small).
Since magazines aren't especially large or heavy from a LEO perspective, is there a compelling reason why they shouldn't carry 2 or 3 magazines?
I answered this with a video and then a post of the Hollywood/Bank of America robbery on why its a piss poor decision to carry "one" mag
Magazines fail, the springs can and do break which renders the weapon unable to fire and unlike revolvers it's quite difficult to manually camber rounds in a clip fed weapon. While rare it's also not unheard of for a clip to not lock in place which can cause it to fall free from the weapon. Mechanical failures do occur which require swapping out the magazine for a new one.
Additionally having more than one clip is crucial should the officers find themselves in an extended engagement with multiple assailants or a situation where they need to control a hostile gunman by use of suppressive fire. Volume of fire is often best way to combat somebody with a superior weapon such as a criminal with an automatic weapon such as an AK-47, if they are faced with a lot of shots coming at them it forces them to keep their head down and restricts their ability to move without opening them up to the likelyhood of being hit. That can be absolutely vital in terms of buying time for other officers to arrive or for civilians to escape the area.
A lot of gang bangers are already better armed then the police, suggesting that the police should make due with a pistol and only one clip is simply absurd. Why not just demand they only get one bullet? Heck lets make it so the police can only use nerf bats.
paulson games wrote: A lot of gang bangers are already better armed then the police, suggesting that the police should make due with a pistol and only one clip is simply absurd.
Hmm? Drug dealers and other heavy criminals maybe, but basic street hoodlums? The (USA) top ten guns used in crimes are mostly cheap low-quality guns or stuff that's so common you can't fail to loot one if you're on a burglary spree. Nine handguns and the incredibly common Mossberg 12gauge. Things like that Hollywood shootout is pretty rare no matter what American films might tell us. Not that a shoddy .380 autoloader can't kill, ofc - especially at point-blank range. Many of those police officers who get killed on the job are surprised at very short ranges, whatever weapon they carried unused when help arrives.
I asked for evidence and was not provided with any where a cop needed more than one additional clip. Either way, this is the wrong thread to be discussing this in.
Just as an aside since this is a personal pet peeve of mine - in firearms parlance, magazine and clip are not synonyms. I seriously doubt there are many police agencies which utilize clips.
Orlanth wrote: However the data highlighted for pubic interest differs from the raw data considerably. It needs to because of TLR as much as for concealing unwanted data or preventing the press from jumping to conclusions.
I never said that it didn't. In fact I've specifically said exactly the opposite several times now.
However the press takes great interest in other statistical data if it is catchy, or presented at an opportune time. Crime, health and employment statistics are favoured examples of the media, and need not be linked to any study based on an opinion poll.
They're also not generally produced for the press. They are generally taken from state sponsored surveys, made available outside the filter of the press.
Still the point being made is that a statistical study or a large scale for academic research purposes can easily have political and/or social consequences which might demand a redaction of the scientific data; even if this results in a corruption of the standard scientific protocols for he impartial and dispassionate collection of data.
The Bell Curve was published, without peer review, for popular consumption. It is literally one of the best, modern cases of two social scientists going against the standards of their discipline for the sake of airing their grievances against their philosophical opponents. And, justifiably, they were ripped apart by their peers.
And, to go back, The Bell Curve is not a study in the sense that you mean. It is an interpretation of one called the NLSY which was not developed for the purpose of academic research; at least not solely.
Tell you what. Go invent phasers or blasters with a stun setting. Get a nobel peace prize. In the meantime, the police will just have to work with the tools they have.
Really? You mean you can't just use stuff that hasn't been invented and have to rely on stuff that exists? Have you let anyone else know this? It seems like something people need to know!
Orlanth wrote: However the data highlighted for pubic interest differs from the raw data considerably. It needs to because of TLR as much as for concealing unwanted data or preventing the press from jumping to conclusions.
I never said that it didn't. In fact I've specifically said exactly the opposite several times now.
You need to quote the context of the comments, please. You would then see that on this particular issue we are on the same page.
However the press takes great interest in other statistical data if it is catchy, or presented at an opportune time. Crime, health and employment statistics are favoured examples of the media, and need not be linked to any study based on an opinion poll.
They're also not generally produced for the press. They are generally taken from state sponsored surveys, made available outside the filter of the press.
You are behind the times there Dogma, at least with regards to the UK. If the US hasn't caught this trend fair enough, but if it hasn't it likely soon will.
Polls are hosted by the media directly, especially with online editions of broadsheet and tabloid newspapers both. Its as simple as asking a topical question and seeing how people vote.
It provides little data of any value except for press titilation, and the questions themselves are often on lowbrow topics. Nevertheless the press place store by the outcomes, and thus they are given a legitimacy that is generally undeserved.
To add to that serious 'credible' polls are also commissioned by the press. Pretty much identically to how polls are commissioned by the government, by hiring polling orgnisations to handle the work for them. You could argue that it is therefore not the press holding to poll, but the sponsorship is clearly labeled, and as the press group involved is the paying client they get to word the questions, time the poll and critically choose the poll location.
The poll tally itself is performed by legions of temps from the call centre industry, either from call centres or on the streets.
Still the point being made is that a statistical study or a large scale for academic research purposes can easily have political and/or social consequences which might demand a redaction of the scientific data; even if this results in a corruption of the standard scientific protocols for he impartial and dispassionate collection of data.
The Bell Curve was published, without peer review, for popular consumption. It is literally one of the best, modern cases of two social scientists going against the standards of their discipline for the sake of airing their grievances against their philosophical opponents. And, justifiably, they were ripped apart by their peers.
And, to go back, The Bell Curve is not a study in the sense that you mean. It is an interpretation of one called the NLSY which was not developed for the purpose of academic research; at least not solely.
Much of the criticism of the study was due to its supposed divisive findings. A more politically agreeable conclusion might not have gathered the same attention or critique.
As mentioned earlier I have problems with the application of the study, and with some of its conclusions, but not the data. There is a known link between nationality and IQ, so it is understandable that the factors are real, and therefore exploring an ethnic link is logical.
However the authors conclusion that 40%-80% of factors regarding IQ are inherited isn't convincing, and doesn't allow for migration and how the average IQ in a society with a stable education system does not fluctuate significantly due to third world immigration.
Cultural differences and uneven opportunity are IMHO far more likely to result in high or low IQ development. However the study conclusions are interpreted offense would be taken due to the nature of the data.
Anyway the entire reason for mentioning the study was to indicate how data studies for scientific usage can still have a political dimension, and that dimension can overshadow the hard science involved.
I believe that the legal system in this country is pretty screwed up as far as parity towards people of color, and I'm totally sympathetic towards protesting this fact, but a guy who pulled a gun out on a cop isn't a very good poster child for the cause - I suspect even the most radical and extreme protestor knows in their heart of hearts that a white guy would have gotten equally shot in that situation.
Stick with Eric Garner, I say. That was outrageous even to people predisposed to not believing there's a systemic problem with law enforcement.
Any job with a lot of driving is going to have a high on-the-job-casualty rate because driving is statistically the most dangerous thing most people do.
Which is why, in 2013, almost twice as many enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty accidentally as compared to felonious acts. It is also interesting to note that out of the of 23 offices killed in automobile accidents, 14 of them were not wearing seatbelts (with three in a parked patrol car at the time of the accident). In 2013, the fatality rate of LEOs was 11.1 per 100,000, which as previously stated by a few other people is nowhere near that of various other jobs (like loggers, construction workers, commercial fisherman, etc.).
Now of course it needs to be understood that this isn't to say that an officer's job is not difficult, because it certainly is. There were 49,851 officer assaults in 2013, which is expected considering police officers often have to confront some of the less-than-savory members of our society. My aunt, who recently retired from the Fairfax County Police Department here in Northern Virginia, had her fair share of assaults when she was a patrolman. Amongst other things, she was thrown down a flight of stairs and was seriously injured as a result (obviously...).
Of course, it would be helpful if people remembered that nothing is above criticism in this country, including the police. Concern for police officers well being and respect for their often times difficult job and still recognizing that there are problems with the criminal justice system as a whole aren't mutually exclusive ideas.
d-usa wrote: Isn't one of the recommended ways of clearing a failure to drop the magazine and insert a new one to rule out the possibility of a defective magazine contributing to the failure? (It's late, I'm not sure if my way of explaining what I'm talking about makes sense...)
SOP for all military weapons for a misfiring weapon is to drop the mag, charge it (to clear blockages), and inspect the breech of the weapon while holding the weapon in the "open" position, to inspect that there's no round in the chamber, double feed, etc. You don't simply drop the mag, slap in a new one and pull the trigger, as that may not have cleared anything.
AegisGrimm wrote: [size=24]Someone needs to tally up all the instances in 2014 where a white guy met the same fate, and throw it in their faces.
This is a bit tricky. The FBI would usually be the best source for this information, however, not all law enforcement agencies send data on this to the FBi (it's voluntary). New York, for example, does not. Compare the FBI's 460 odd killed compared to other sources more than one thousand for 2013. Some other sources have a running tally from local media reports as a source, such as http://www.killedbypolice.net/, however, the race of the deceased is not always available.
Fox tried your approach, but to get a big enough 'white' number, they included Latinos as 'white', which didn't fly.
d-usa wrote: Isn't one of the recommended ways of clearing a failure to drop the magazine and insert a new one to rule out the possibility of a defective magazine contributing to the failure? (It's late, I'm not sure if my way of explaining what I'm talking about makes sense...)
SOP for all military weapons for a misfiring weapon is to drop the mag, charge it (to clear blockages), and inspect the breech of the weapon while holding the weapon in the "open" position, to inspect that there's no round in the chamber, double feed, etc. You don't simply drop the mag, slap in a new one and pull the trigger, as that may not have cleared anything.
Well, I knew that there was a little more than that. I was just focusing on the "you loose a mag, full or not" when you clear..
I can't speak for the other branches, but SOP for the Air Force is not to drop the mag.
We use SPORTS. Slap, Pull, Observe, Release, Tap, Shoot.
Slap the magazine to make sure it's fully placed. Pull the charging handle. Observe the chamber to see if there is an obstruction. Release the handle (cycling a new round). Tap the forward assist (if your weapon has one). Shoot.
djones520 wrote: I can't speak for the other branches, but SOP for the Air Force is not to drop the mag.
We use SPORTS. Slap, Pull, Observe, Release, Tap, Shoot.
Slap the magazine to make sure it's fully placed. Pull the charging handle. Observe the chamber to see if there is an obstruction. Release the handle (cycling a new round). Tap the forward assist (if your weapon has one). Shoot.
djones520 wrote: I can't speak for the other branches, but SOP for the Air Force is not to drop the mag.
We use SPORTS. Slap, Pull, Observe, Release, Tap, Shoot.
Slap the magazine to make sure it's fully placed. Pull the charging handle. Observe the chamber to see if there is an obstruction. Release the handle (cycling a new round). Tap the forward assist (if your weapon has one). Shoot.
djones520 wrote: I can't speak for the other branches, but SOP for the Air Force is not to drop the mag.
We use SPORTS. Slap, Pull, Observe, Release, Tap, Shoot.
Slap the magazine to make sure it's fully placed. Pull the charging handle. Observe the chamber to see if there is an obstruction. Release the handle (cycling a new round). Tap the forward assist (if your weapon has one). Shoot.
You follow those steps until your weapon fires.
Ensis you had a brain fart. Its this.
Yup. Or if you are a sexy ass SAW gunner - crank the charging handle, swear at your weapon loudly and verbosely and cut loose again. Gotta love belt fed weapons that fire from the open bolt. Magazines are for suckers.
Polls are hosted by the media directly, especially with online editions of broadsheet and tabloid newspapers both. Its as simple as asking a topical question and seeing how people vote.
It provides little data of any value except for press titilation, and the questions themselves are often on lowbrow topics.
Hosting is not the same as conducting, and whether or not the questions are about "lowbrow" topics has no bearing on the validity of the responses.
Unless they're twin 90mm or 105mm revolving mags. I love semiautomatic tank guns. I hear the Germans are working on one that's full auto, but I can only imagine how heavy THAT belt would be to carry around.
This whole situation just proves that the only ones stupider than a guy who pulls a gun on cops are people who will call him a victim, claim racism, and demonize the cops.
Anyone saying the cops are even a little in the wrong in this situation is pants-on-head stupid, and I hope they never breed, for societies sake.
AegisGrimm wrote: This whole situation just proves that the only ones stupider than a guy who pulls a gun on cops are people who will call him a victim, claim racism, and demonize the cops.
Anyone saying the cops are even a little in the wrong in this situation is pants-on-head stupid, and I hope they never breed, for societies sake.
I'm going to go out on the limb here and say those individuals who did protest the gas station shooting that night was more likely not aware what went down that night. That and someone being dumb and I mean majorly dumb to a point of being 99 ways of being stupid to be using pyrotechnic (fancy word for fireworks) right by a gas pump. Though I wonder has anyone in a leadership role voice concern about the attempted shooting of the officer? Besides LEO side.
The initial night was likely a misplaced gut reaction of "OMG whitey cops killed another of our angelic boys!" However the protesting continued for a second night which should have allowed for plenty of time for them to get information out about what actually happened. But the people that are out protesting aren't really concerned about the truth, they want to make a scene, riot and continue fan the flames of racial hate.
Truth has nothing to do with why they are out in the streets.
AegisGrimm wrote: This whole situation just proves that the only ones stupider than a guy who pulls a gun on cops are people who will call him a victim, claim racism, and demonize the cops.
Anyone saying the cops are even a little in the wrong in this situation is pants-on-head stupid, and I hope they never breed, for societies sake.
I'm going to go out on the limb here and say those individuals who did protest the gas station shooting that night was more likely not aware what went down that night. That and someone being dumb and I mean majorly dumb to a point of being 99 ways of being stupid to be using pyrotechnic (fancy word for fireworks) right by a gas pump. Though I wonder has anyone in a leadership role voice concern about the attempted shooting of the officer? Besides LEO side.
yeah, but when you dont really know whats going on, is the acceptable reaction how they reacted?
personally I would like to see the media held accountable for what appears to be intentional dis information and portraying this in an extremely biased, non factual, and violence inciting manner.
The city mayor (who is black) was on camera defending the officer and stating that it was an entirely detached from race as it was a clear case of self defense. Not sure if you'd count that as being separate from the LEO circle.
Outside of that I haven't seen any of the black community leaders comment on the situation in defense of the LEO. There were plenty of twitter posts about needing people at the protest and that a black teenager had been shot etc, but nothing saying whoops our bad in regard to it being done in self defense.
I think the pronounced lack of leadership is part of what is causing these situations to get so out of control. If there were a more centralized leadership it might actually have a voice and message that people could get behind. But right now it's largely unfocused and disorganized and doesn't have any goal other than mobs yelling at police in whatever fashion they chose, or people rioting with no particular message or interest.
The civil rights groups in comparison were highly organized, had a distinct leadership with a defined message and tactic. Because of that it created a lot more common ground with whites who also got behind their cause a lot easier than if they'd just been rioting and frothing with we hate the whitey cops and establishment fervor. Backing a proper social justice movement can be noble and motivating, backing mob rule is not something that earns much support or respect.
A fight between two women led to gunfire around closing time, according to the club's owner.
"He definitely made a move with that gun toward that cop?" reporter, Joel Eisenbaum, asked.
"Yeah, he did," club owner Harris Aldridge said. "He did."
Aldridge said he reviewed surveillance video that showed Smith firing a gun into a crowd of patrons outside the club, and then turning the gun toward a police officer.
Smith's family is not convinced by that version of events.
"Then why was he shot in the back? That's what a witness said," Quintina Block, Smith's aunt, said.
personally I would like to see the media held accountable for what appears to be intentional dis information and portraying this in an extremely biased, non factual, and violence inciting manner.
If that were a crime, News Corp would have been declared a terrorist organization long ago,.
and while I would not mind seeing Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Madow both heading to Spandau, i don't think it likely.
man... that's even closer to me that Ferguson.
