Man with towel wrapped arm who waved down police shot in head and hand cuffed

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ImAGeek**

'Extended his arm' doesn't necessarily translate to 'pointed his arm at the police as if brandishing a gun' though. And if a police officer shouted at me to drop a gun I didn't have, I would be very confused and probably would not act very well in that situation. 'He might have a gun' is not a good enough reason to shoot someone. As someone said earlier, even if another cop has been killed that day, you don't have carte Blanche to shoot anyone who seems vaguely threatening.

**Prestor Jon**

Frazzled wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
There is such a thing as standards and procedures they follow.

Cuff the dead guy/gurl
Cuff the wounded guy/gurl
Cuff the unwounded guy/gurl
Someone getting cuffed

One train to standards
One maintains the standards

Standards not = right.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talizvar wrote:
Wouldn't having some guy with a towel wrapped around his hand and pointed it at you not creep you out a tiny bit?

I don't like anything pointed at me on the best of days.

Hindsight is 20-20, you expect a cop not to "deal" with this weird situation with anything less than worst case scenario?

But they said drop the gun, not drop the towel.

The cop shot the man because he thought he posed a threat. If the man posed a threat to the cops then logically he would also pose a threat to the EMTs/paramedics/anyone who treats his injuries, therefore it's standard procedure to cuff wounded suspects that were deemed a threat. Once the officer decides the man is a threat and shoots him it's logically consistent to cuff him to prevent him from posing a threat to anyone else. The cop isn't going to decide he's a threat, shoot him, wounding him, and then decide that the wounded man isn't a threat and not cuff him. Whether or not the man was actually a threat that justified lethal force at the time of the shooting is debatable but once that determination was made by the officer it dictated that certain specific procedural steps be taken.

It is interesting to me that the PD and the witness(es?) all seem to agree that the cop yelled Drop the gun!, not Drop the towel or Show me your hands. Something made the cop believe the man had a gun hidden under the towel, the foundation for that belief, in my opinion, is the key in determining the justification of the shooting.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Jihadin wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Everyone looking at the LEO and the Vic shooting which is inside the "Box" with your perception. No one has looked around outside the "Box" to what prompted the LEO to take out the vic

Then I guess we'll all just have to wait for the startling revelation of just what was 'outside the box' that justified shooting a man brandishing a towel-wrapped forearm.

I'm certainly interested in seeing what that might have been, because I simply can't imagine anything that fits.

Did it dawn on you that the cops might have thought they were going to be next on national news of getting killed in the line of duty? Notice the upward trend of cop killing in the US lately?

No mention of the range of the Vic and the LEO. 20 yards? 40 yards?

Let's assume the LEO is carrying a 9mm Beretta
Effective range of 50m
How fast can you tell if the individual is armed at 40-50 meters? Mind you he has a towel wrapped around his arm
LEO's might have saw this pose

This is just "at least he went home safe" propaganda.

What would happen if I shot someone in that situation? As a soldier, I would have faced trial. As a current civilian I would probably be convicted. What happened to holding public servants to a HIGHER standard? You are being an apologist for poor training and poorer judgment.

**agnosto**

I think if the guy hadn't jumped up and attacked them while they took the time to put their little rubber gloves on, he probably wasn't going to....that and half of his brains were on the back of his shirt. You can shoot someone in various places and they still may pose a threat but I've never heard of someone being shot in the brainpan and still being able to offer much resistance.

I feel bad for everyone. Jumpy, gun-slinging cops are still people and will have to live with their actions as will the person's family. I can't find if he's still alive or not but I hope he pulls through.

**Talizvar**

Frazzled wrote:
How does one drop something they don't have?

How does one not drop everything they have when a cop is shouting at them and pointing a gun?
<edit>Hands in air springs readily to mind, dropping anything in hands as well... something was not right with the suspect and the cops I am sure clued into this. Stroke maybe? May be hard to find out after the brain-pan hit.

**SilverMK2**

Talizvar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
How does one drop something they don't have?
How does one not drop everything they have when a cop is shouting at them and pointing a gun?

Although it is somewhat sad that no one has a problem with police drawing guns on people first, with, in many cases, essentially no provocation, and asking questions later (if at all and generally after shooting someone who was unarmed and posed zero threat to them).

**Iron_Captain**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Talizvar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
How does one drop something they don't have?
How does one not drop everything they have when a cop is shouting at them and pointing a gun?

Although it is somewhat sad that no one has a problem with police drawing guns on people first, with, in many cases, essentially no provocation, and asking questions later (if at all and generally after shooting someone who was unarmed and posed zero threat to them).

Yeah, I have no personal experience with American cops, but from what I have seen they usually approach people very aggressively, often with guns already drawn. I think this brutality is also an important part of why police officers are so much more likely to be shot in the US than in other countries. Violence begets violence, and in return, the police responds with even more violence to keep themselves safe. It is a vicious cycle of murder and violence.

**SilverMK2**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, I have no personal experience with American cops, but from what I have seen they usually approach people very aggressively, often with guns already drawn. I think this brutality is also an important part of why police officers are so much more likely to be shot in the US than in other countries. Violence begets violence, and in return, the police responds with even more violence to keep themselves safe. It is a vicious cycle of murder and violence.

There are almost certainly many police officers who will go through their careers perfectly peacefully, never having to discharge their weapon in anger. Just as the majority of police/civilian interactions will be entirely peaceful. It even makes sense, when you allow your population to be armed, to arm your police force (and provide them with appropriate other protections such as body armour).

But certainly, if from nothing else other than the statistics, there are orders of magnitude more police shootings and shooting incidents in America than anywhere else in the developed world.

**CptJake**

SilverMK2 wrote:

But certainly, if from nothing else other than the statistics, there are orders of magnitude more police shootings and shooting incidents in America than anywhere else in the developed world.

Where are these statistics? Not being a smart ass, but I've been trying to find good data on this.

**SilverMK2**

CptJake wrote:
Where are these statistics? Not being a smart ass, but I've been trying to find good data on this.

There are obviously lots of sites which will give breakdowns with some bias or other, however most (US) government departments will have yearly reports online. Some international organisations or individuals do compile and contrast different nations in various areas however.

This is just the first one that I came across about the US stats:

Provides a data quality profile of the Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) component of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). Data from the ARD represent a national accounting of persons who have died during the process of arrest, including homicides by law enforcement personnel and deaths attributed to suicide, intoxication, accidental injury, and natural causes. The report provides an overview of the ARD program, a description of the current data collection methodologies, and an assessment of the coverage for ARD cases involving law enforcement homicides

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5260&utm_source=juststats-030315&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Arrest-Related%20Deaths%20Program%20Data%20Quality%20Profile&utm_campaign=juststats

It should also be noted that the above has certain caveats, as noted in the introduction.

**CptJake**

SilverMK2 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Where are these statistics? Not being a smart ass, but I've been trying to find good data on this.

There are obviously lots of sites which will give breakdowns with some bias or other, however most (US) government departments will have yearly reports online. Some international organisations or individuals do compile and contrast different nations in various areas however.

This is just the first one that I came across about the US stats:

Provides a data quality profile of the Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) component of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). Data from the ARD represent a national accounting of persons who have died during the process of arrest, including homicides by law enforcement personnel and deaths attributed to suicide, intoxication, accidental injury, and natural causes. The report provides an overview of the ARD program, a description of the current data collection methodologies, and an assessment of the coverage for ARD cases involving law enforcement homicides

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5260&utm_source=juststats-030315&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Arrest-Related%20Deaths%20Program%20Data%20Quality%20Profile&utm_campaign=juststats

It should also be noted that the above has certain caveats, as noted in the introduction.

US stats in a vacuum are not helpful though. It is the comparison to other countries I am interested in.

**A Town Called Malus**

CptJake wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:

But certainly, if from nothing else other than the statistics, there are orders of magnitude more police shootings and shooting incidents in America than anywhere else in the developed world.

Where are these statistics? Not being a smart ass, but I've been trying to find good data on this.

Well, I can find a breakdown of numbers of firearms officers, operations and weapon discharges for England and Wales.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211845/HO_-_Police_Firearms_stats_Commons_-_2013_7_11__3_.pdf

In the whole of 2011/2012 our firearms officers only fired 5 rounds, and killed two people (one of which was Mark Duggan, which caused a whole lot of trouble). Admittedly our population is a lot less large than that of the US, making a direct comparison extremely difficult.
Here's an article that also has some comparisons between the US, UK, South Africa and Sweden.
http://www.channel4.com/news/police-fatal-shooting-trigger-happy-fact-check

And here's data for justifiable homicides by police in the US.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2008-2012.xls

I think, as the article mentions, that the fact that only some of our police force is armed does result in a higher standard for those officers who are armed, as they have to undergo very strict training in order to qualify. Compare that to the US where every officer is armed and often not trained to as high a standard, simply because you could't afford to put all your LEOs through the training that we give to our firearms officers.

Course there's also the fact that if you come face to face with a british firearms officer you're not looking at a 9mm sidearm but typically a semi-automatic MP5 and a sidearm so maybe suspects are less likely to try anything

**Grey Templar**

Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.

The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.

**ImAGeek**

Grey Templar wrote:
Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.

The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.

Obviously it has nothing to do with law abiding citizens. But it seems to have a lot to do with the ease of getting firearms. If police are shooting people because they feel the need to otherwise they might get shot, it seems pretty logical to me to make guns harder to get hold of. Would probably save lives both ways.

**Grey Templar**

ImAGeek wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.

The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.

Obviously it has nothing to do with law abiding citizens. But it seems to have a lot to do with the ease of getting firearms. If police are shooting people because they feel the need to otherwise they might get shot, it seems pretty logical to me to make guns harder to get hold of. Would probably save lives both ways.

The funny thing is that the vast overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with stolen or illegally bought firearms, not with guns criminals legally acquired. Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns.

Even if guns were totally banned, it would be super easy to smuggle in guns from outside the US or just use all the illegal ones already here. Its not something you could legislate away, all it would accomplish is trashing a constitutional right and making the public less safe. Civilians stop crimes pretty regularly here because they had their own guns.

**agnosto**

Interesting article here where they actually did a quick and dirty comparison of several "peer" countries:
http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20150504/american-police-kill-civilians-at-a-shocking-rate-compared-to-other-developed-countries

To make sense of these numbers, you need to know just how rarely police in other wealthy liberal democracies kill civilians.

Even when you account for population size, gun ownership, and violent crime rates, American police out-kill civilians by staggering factors relative to peer nations.

Take a look at England and Wales, where the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) keeps yearly records of police homicides. (Scotland and Northern Ireland have different police monitoring agencies.)

According to the IPCC, there hasn’t been a fatal police shooting in more than two years and over the same period only 26 people have died in police custody during arrest or in post-arrest detention. In the period from 2010-2014, a total of 62 people died in police custody.

Compare the police record from 2010-2014 to Baltimore’s police record, which we know thanks to an investigation by the ACLU. In Baltimore alone, 31 people died in police custody, exactly half the number who died in all of England and Wales.

England and Wales have a combined population of 56 million. Baltimore’s population is 622,000. Do the math and you realize that people in Baltimore were about 50 times more likely to be killed by police. And the disparity is even larger when you factor in shooting deaths. The Economist estimates that British citizens are 100 times less likely to be shot by police than Americans.

The story is the much the same in Germany, a country of 80 million people, where about 100 people have been killed by police since 1998.

In Iceland, police have only killed one person since the republic was founded in 1944. Granted, the population of Iceland is just 323,000. But it’s still impressive.

And here are some other comparisons published in a study by the Danish police on firearm use between 1996 and 2006.

They identified the number of people killed by police in several European countries and accounted for population by giving the number of people killed per one million residents. They used population figures from the year 2000.

Here’s what they found:

• Denmark: number of people killed by police between 1996 and 2006: 11 people — number of people killed per one million residents: .187 people

• Sweden: 13 people — .133 people

• Norway: 3 people — .060 people

• Finland: 2 people — .034 people

• Germany: 81 people — .089 people

• The Netherlands: 24 people — .137 people

• England/Wales: 25 people — .042 people

If we take Five Thirty Eight’s estimate that 1,000 people are killed by police in the United States every year and divide it by the 2000 population of 282 million, the American situation for just one year would look like this:

US: 10,000 people killed — 35.5 killed for every one million residents

Note, there is an obvious bias in the article. Interesting was the statement that BJS has given-up on trying to collect the data. You would think something like this would be much more transparent, reported to the feds at some level and examined.

**Grey Templar**

But did they really actually account for higher gun ownership and violent crime? What was their method for accounting for it?

**agnosto**

Grey Templar wrote:
But did they really actually account for higher gun ownership and violent crime? What was their method for accounting for it?

Honestly, if you take too much under consideration it's impossible to compare the US with other countries because of our very liberal gun ownership laws and a culture of gun ownership that doesn't really exist, comparatively, in other countries.

But to answer your question, it appears that the Danish police just used a simple formula of number of police-related deaths vs. population. It's not particularly useful data but in the absence of anything collected by the authorities in the US, it's really all that there is of a comparative nature.

**Frazzled**

ImAGeek wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.

The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.

Obviously it has nothing to do with law abiding citizens. But it seems to have a lot to do with the ease of getting firearms. If police are shooting people because they feel the need to otherwise they might get shot, it seems pretty logical to me to make guns harder to get hold of. Would probably save lives both ways.

then you have to close the border.

**SilverMK2**

Grey Templar wrote:
The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.

I hear this all the time about organised crime in the US and how it is "totes different" from anywhere else in the world. Every nation has difficulties with organised crime, you are not unique in that.

**kronk**

First they came for the Towels
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Towel.

Then they came for the Beach Towels
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Beach Towel.

Then they came for the Hand Towels
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Hand Towel.

Then they came for the Paper Towels
and there was no one left dry
for we are now soaking wet.

**Iron_Captain**

Grey Templar wrote:
ImAGeek wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Your suspects also tend not to be armed at all Malus. In the US even a petty purse snatcher is likely to be armed.

The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.

Obviously it has nothing to do with law abiding citizens. But it seems to have a lot to do with the ease of getting firearms. If police are shooting people because they feel the need to otherwise they might get shot, it seems pretty logical to me to make guns harder to get hold of. Would probably save lives both ways.

The funny thing is that the vast overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with stolen or illegally bought firearms, not with guns criminals legally acquired. Making guns harder to get would only infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, it doesn't reduce criminals ease of access to guns.

Even if guns were totally banned, it would be super easy to smuggle in guns from outside the US or just use all the illegal ones already here. Its not something you could legislate away, all it would accomplish is trashing a constitutional right and making the public less safe. Civilians stop crimes pretty regularly here because they had their own guns.

True, I don't think gun legislation has much to do with it. Even here in the Netherlands, where firearms are pretty strictly controlled, most criminals can get them quite easily (they are especially cheap now since Ukraine) and are armed.

**motyak**

The Netherlands: 24 people — .137 people

And yet a surprisingly low kill count necessary for police despite that ease of arms for criminals. Interesting point Iron_Captain.

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The US also has a significant organized crime problem which leads to all criminals being much more violent. You really can't honestly compare US crime and violence to any other country because the situations are totally different, and it has nothing to do with the law abiding citizens being allowed to own weapons.

I hear this all the time about organised crime in the US and how it is "totes different" from anywhere else in the world. Every nation has difficulties with organised crime, you are not unique in that.

Well, Britain doesn't have cartels with armored vehicles, antitanks missiles and grenade launchers to worry about...
(unless you tick us off, then we're going to arm the Welsh with guns AND diction coaches so other people can understand what the heck they are trying to say!)

**MrDwhitey**

What about those of us from Wales with English accents? Do we get to be spies?

**Kilkrazy**

Grey Templar wrote:
But did they really actually account for higher gun ownership and violent crime? What was their method for accounting for it?

I really don't understand the logic of "controlling" for the variable that you are studying.

The implication of the study is that the widespread use of firearms in the USA is to some degree responsible for the very high rate of shootings compared to other countries.

Regarding the availability of illegal firearms, it was reported recently that tight gun control in the UK had forced criminals to resort to things like refurbishing replic guns or antiques, because it is now too difficult to get hold of illegal firearms.

I would also note the disputed studies from Mexico that show that a large number of the illegal weapons in the country came from US gun shops. This would imply that tight control in the USA would not inevitably lead to a flood of illegal weapons from Mexico.

**Frazzled**

Of course, but only if you have a twirly moustache.

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I would also note the disputed studies from Mexico that show that a large number of the illegal weapons in the country came from US gun shops. This would imply that tight control in the USA would not inevitably lead to a flood of illegal weapons from Mexico.

At least you admit the studies are disputed. The cartels like full auto weapons. You can't get those from US gun shops. Straw purchases from US gun shops are already illegal (so that covers the semi-auto).

Current analysis tends to favor the theory that the cartels get guns from Central America and corrupt Gov't of Mexico (or captured/stolen from Gov't of Mexico) for the vast majority of their weapons. Arms smuggled from China and other places are starting to become more prevalent as well.

**Prestor Jon**

The biggest problem with the comparison of crime stats is the lack of uniform reporting requirements. Here in the US we have thousands of municipal, school, county, state and federal policing agencies and the reporting requirements for all of them are different, largely voluntary and subject to no internal review or verification. Crime states are adjusted for political purposes constantly and there is no oversight that ensure that every policing agency files federal reports and that those reports are accurate.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

Today, four annual publications, Crime in the United States, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, and Hate Crime Statistics are produced from data received from over 18,000 city, university/college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. The crime data are submitted either through a state UCR Program or directly to the FBI’s UCR Program.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504

Spoiler:

A Wall Street Journal analysis of the latest data from 105 of the country’s largest police agencies found more than 550 police killings during those years were missing from the national tally or, in a few dozen cases, not attributed to the agency involved. The result: It is nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year.

Public demands for transparency on such killings have increased since the August shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown by police in Ferguson, Mo. The Ferguson Police Department has reported to the FBI one justifiable homicide by police between 1976 and 2012.

Law-enforcement experts long have lamented the lack of information about killings by police. “When cops are killed, there is a very careful account and there’s a national database,” said Jeffrey Fagan, a law professor at Columbia University. “Why not the other side of the ledger?”

Police can use data about killings to improve tactics, particularly when dealing with people who are mentally ill, said Paco Balderrama, a spokesman for the Oklahoma City Police Department. “It’s great to recognize that, because 30 years ago we used to not do that. We used to just show up and handle the situation.”

Three sources of information about deaths caused by police—the FBI numbers, figures from the Centers for Disease Control and data at the Bureau of Justice Statistics—differ from one another widely in any given year or state, according to a 2012 report by David Klinger, a criminologist with the University of Missouri-St. Louis and a onetime police officer.

To analyze the accuracy of the FBI data, the Journal requested internal records on killings by officers from the nation’s 110 largest police departments. One-hundred-five of them provided figures.

Those internal figures show at least 1,800 police killings in those 105 departments between 2007 and 2012, about 45% more than the FBI’s tally for justifiable homicides in those departments’ jurisdictions, which was 1,242, according to the Journal’s analysis. Nearly all police killings are deemed by the departments or other authorities to be justifiable.

The full national scope of the underreporting can’t be quantified. In the period analyzed by the Journal, 753 police entities reported about 2,400 killings by police. The large majority of the nation’s roughly 18,000 law-enforcement agencies didn’t report any.

“Does the FBI know every agency in the U.S. that could report but has chosen not to? The answer is no,” said Alexia Cooper, a statistician with the Bureau of Justice Statistics who studies the FBI’s data. “What we know is that some places have chosen not to report these, for whatever reason.”

FBI spokesman Stephen G. Fischer said the agency uses “established statistical methodologies and norms” when reviewing data submitted by agencies. FBI staffers check the information, then ask agencies “to correct or verify questionable data,” he said.

The reports to the FBI are part of its uniform crime reporting program. Local law-enforcement agencies aren’t required to participate. Some localities turn over crime statistics, but not detailed records describing each homicide, which is the only way particular kinds of killings, including those by police, are tracked by the FBI. The records, which are supposed to document every homicide, are sent from local police agencies to state reporting bodies, which forward the data to the FBI.

The Journal’s analysis identified several holes in the FBI data.

Justifiable police homicides from 35 of the 105 large agencies contacted by the Journal didn’t appear in the FBI records at all. Some agencies said they didn’t view justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers as events that should be reported. The Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia, for example, said it didn’t consider such cases to be an “actual offense,” and thus doesn’t report them to the FBI.

For 28 of the remaining 70 agencies, the FBI was missing records of police killings in at least one year. Two departments said their officers didn’t kill anyone during the period analyzed by the Journal.

About a dozen agencies said their police-homicides tallies didn’t match the FBI’s because of a quirk in the reporting requirements: Incidents are supposed to be reported by the jurisdiction where the event occurred, even if the officer involved was from elsewhere. For example, the California Highway Patrol said there were 16 instances in which one of its officers killed someone in a city or other local jurisdiction responsible for reporting the death to the FBI. In some instances reviewed by the Journal, an agency believed its officers’ justifiable homicides had been reported by other departments, but they hadn’t.

Also missing from the FBI data are killings involving federal officers.

Police in Washington, D.C., didn’t report to the FBI details about any homicides for an entire decade beginning with 1998—the year the Washington Post found the city had one of the highest rates of officer-involved killings in the country. In 2011, the agency reported five killings by police. In 2012, the year Mr. Payton was killed, there are again no records on homicides from the agency.

D.C. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier said she doesn’t know why the agency stopped reporting the numbers in 1998. “I wasn’t the chief and had no role in decision making” back then, said Ms. Lanier, who was a captain at the time. When she took over in 2007, she said, reporting the statistics “was a nightmare and a very tedious process.”

**whembly**

^indeed.

It's like trying to compare the US' healthcare to Cuba, and arguing that the Cuban has it better.