Have the police overused deadly force?

Chief Bones

Forums Grumpy Old Man
Have the police overused deadly force?

This is a question which is being asked more and more every day by citizens in every part of the United States.

This year approximately 15,000,000 arrests will be carried out by police organizations throughout America. Of the 15 million arrests, approximately 2-3 percent will involve the use of deadly force. That means that 300,000 - 450, 000 times this year a policeman (or) policewoman will have to draw their sidearm or use a shotgun or rifle to effect an arrest.

Less than 10 years ago, the number of average rounds that were fired during deadly force confrontations was 2.5 rounds per deadly force arrest. Today that number has almost doubled ... accounting for the increase is the fact that you are talking about sidearms that carry up to 17 round magazines instead of the normal 6-7 rounds that were carried in pistols and 45 cal semi autos.

What makes the application of deadly force so disturbing is the fact that more and more unarmed Americans are being killed by errant rounds (collateral damage). When multiple officers start throwing rounds as fast as the trigger can be pulled on their weapons, the 'splatter' effect comes into play ... high rounds - rounds to the left and right of the target - rounds punching through thin walls or material ... all of this increases the odds that an innocent will be hit.

Before someone starts hollering about the split second decisions which must be made by police, I will hereby grant you the argument that I would NOT to like find myself on the firing line on today's dangerous crime ridden streets. The decisions that these officers must make are made in the blink of an eye and under conditions where these officers are under a tremendous pressure to just survive another day and return home safely.

Whether your community is similar to the streets of a New York City or another Detroit (or) the quiet streets and lanes of a Midland, MI or Hell IN ... the crimes have become more violent and more pervasive.

From drive-by-shootings to gang fights or drug wars between different factions, the officers of today are being hard pressed to hold violent crime in check.

One of the saddest commentaries concerns the breakdown of the deaths caused by shootouts with police ... Blacks and Chicanos make up less than half of the incidents but over %85 of the deaths. Amidst charges of profiling, many 'large' police departments have tried to take steps to discourage this objectionable practice. How much this profiling causes fear on the part of street cops is unknown ... but ... it MUST have some affect.

WITHOUT USING ANECDOTAL INFORMATION ... IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COULD BE DONE TO DECREASE THESE SHOOTINGS?

IF YOU WERE THE CHIEF OF POLICE ... WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

DOES THE NRA (OR ) GUN MANUFACTURERS BEAR ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BURGEONING AVAILABLITY OF GUNS?

WOULD MORE GUN LAWS HELP?
 
In my European opinion I reckon that you could say that the cops overused deadly force. The bad news is that I don't think you could decrease this by any means. The present day American society has a long tradition of gun ownership and violence. How you'd try to dam it in..... I don't have a clue.
I reckon that the "need" to get the bad guy is part of the equation. We have these cops and robbers tv-shows in out television and we see cops chasing the bad guys at high speed through inner cities. Our cops have to call off the chase when the public is in danger. The US is so very cowboy like that pulling your gun in an arrest is the most normal thing in the world. Overhere it rarely happens.....
 
Great topic Bones, I need to think on this for a little bit.


WOULD MORE GUN LAWS HELP?


I will go ahead and say that I doubt more gun laws will make a difference. Criminals don't abide by gun laws or any laws (hence criminals), nor do most buy their guns legally.

 
Over here in the U.K. the police have only just been issued with tasers.
Until then any threat meant the suspect would be shot(and as you well know not wounding shots) as baton rounds and c.s. are not guaranteed to take someone down.

Police use Taser for first time

_40817738_taser203.jpg
Tasers deliver a 50,000 volt charge through two barbs

Police in Scotland have used a Taser gun for the first time when they were called to deal with reports of an attempted robbery in North Lanarkshire.
The suspect was overpowered by the weapon, which fires 50,000 volts, at about 2120 GMT on Wednesday.
The incident happened at a petrol station in Newmains, near Wishaw.
Police said a 39-year-old man had been released from hospital. He was arrested and was being held in police custody in connection with the incident.
A report was due to be sent to the procurator fiscal and the man was expected to appear at Hamilton Sheriff Court at a future date.
Police in Strathclyde have been carrying Tasers since September and became the first in Scotland to use the weapons. Only trained firearms officers with the Strathclyde force have been permitted to use the Tasers, which were seen as a less lethal option than conventional firearms. But opponents point to deaths in the US which they claim were caused by the gun, although none of the several lawsuits filed there for wrongful death have yet succeeded.
 
PJ24 said:
Great topic Bones, I need to think on this for a little bit.




I will go ahead and say that I doubt more gun laws will make a difference. Criminals don't abide by gun laws or any laws (hence criminals), nor do most buy their guns legally.

[/b][/i]

Plus, there are many gun laws already on the books, it would be hard to pass one that wouldn't be redundant. And there's the second amendment that would have to be changed for tougher laws.
 
It is my opinion that they do not overuse deadly force. But since you are asking for non-anecdotal material that statement does not apply.

Unfortunately after much searching around the internet I was unable to come up with any statistics to support or oppose my opinion.

According to the link below US crime has actually decreased with minor fluctuaions over the past 10 years, but has been on the rise again.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

This could be in part to the training methods and practices. It could also be due to the view that police are more willing to use deadly force than not and that in itself acts as a deterrent to suspects becoming violent.

A taser is a nice idea. But it has it's limitations if I am not mistaken. Range, accuracy, and number of times it can be used without "reloading". Many factors to be thought about, these are just a few.


Here are some links for your perusal:
http://www.violenceprediction.com/pdf/chap13.pdf
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0429-02.htm


I try to never second guess the man (or woman) on the ground. I can sit back and play the armchair coach and say he should have done this or that. Many of us know that when it comes down to feeling, or actually being, threatened that your instincts make the unconscious decision rather than your head making the conscious.
 
Last edited:
WOULD MORE GUN LAWS HELP?

Well, here's the thing. Guns laws don't help. Mostly, there are higher crime rates in areas that have harsh gun laws

Also, most of the scumbags in America are becoming more violent. Hence the rise of lethal force.

WITHOUT USING ANECDOTAL INFORMATION ... IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COULD BE DONE TO DECREASE THESE SHOOTINGS?

Yeah, have the court systems and correctional system truly setence ccriminals to their prison terms and enforce it. None of this get out of eraly jail free crap and a cable tv in every prison cell. Make these bastards work in the sun. Bring back prison labor and chain gangs. Prison is about serving time for a crime. Not getting a paid vaction from working.

I've spoken to some of the folks that live on the street. They tell me that they try to get arrested so they can get a clean shower, clean clothing, warm food, and a dry bed.Don't forget that prisoners get free medical and dental.

IF YOU WERE THE CHIEF OF POLICE ... WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

What would I do, reward my officers for enforcing the law. And I wouldn't take shit from the media. Police are there as the as agents of the government. Their purpose is to enforce law, protect citizens (collectively), and protect government property and private property.

DOES THE NRA (OR ) GUN MANUFACTURERS BEAR ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BURGEONING AVAILABLITY OF GUNS?

Nope.

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The people have a legal right to keep and bear arms.

I believe that an armed society is a polite society. Look at places that have little to know gun laws. Their crime rate is far lower. Why, because criminals are cowards. They don't want to rob someone that could possibly be armed. Hence why places with gun laws that restrict civilians from owning and carrying firearms have far higher crime.
 
Some very good posts so far ...

Here is another thought ...

DO YOU THINK CRIME WOULD DROP IF WE HAD AN ARMED AMERICA ? (shades of the old west)
 
DO YOU THINK CRIME WOULD DROP IF WE HAD AN ARMED AMERICA ? (shades of the old west)

Yup, crime would sure lower in a heart beat. I think everyone should carry. Criminal will sure as hell be scared of robbing someone.

Criminals are cowards and scumbags. The only thing their kind understands is force. And guess what folks. A firearm is nopthing but a tool. It can used for good or for bad. And I know that a hell of alot of people will carry for good than for evil. Look at the number of folks that have CCWs and how many of them get into trouble with the law. (I'm talking about serious problems with the law. Not a broken tail light on their car.)
 
Chief Bones said:
This year approximately 15,000,000 arrests will be carried out by police organizations throughout America. Of the 15 million arrests, approximately 2-3 percent will involve the use of deadly force. That means that 300,000 - 450, 000 times this year a policeman (or) policewoman will have to draw their sidearm or use a shotgun or rifle to effect an arrest.
It would be interesting if you had some figures on how many of this number are considered "suicide by police". In other words people who deliberately get the police to respond to a situation that they themselves have concocted solely to get the police to end their lives.
 
Yeah, have the court systems and correctional system truly setence ccriminals to their prison terms and enforce it. None of this get out of eraly jail free crap and a cable tv in every prison cell. Make these bastards work in the sun. Bring back prison labor and chain gangs. Prison is about serving time for a crime. Not getting a paid vaction from working.

There is a prison in Arizona thats doing just that. I compltely agree prisons need to become not so nice places again.
 
DBC - Death by Cop.....

tomtom22 said:
It would be interesting if you had some figures on how many of this number are considered "suicide by police". In other words people who deliberately get the police to respond to a situation that they themselves have concocted solely to get the police to end their lives.
The program that I watched touched on this very topic ... but ... I don't remember the exact number ... all I remember was that the number was quite low. Although, they did say the number has started to slowly rise.
 
Isn't prison supposed to be a correctional facility? Sure you can put a guy away for 15 years and treat him like a sub-human. What do you reckon he does when he gets out? Since he has been a sub-human for 15 years the outside world don't like ex-cons. He is out of a job, out of everything mostly and what will he do? Yep..... commit a crime again.

Now you can say that it is his own fault, which imo would be a very simplistic view. Society has changed and so did the punishmets (at least I hope so) Chain gangs and other sentences from the days of way back won't help you one bit if you want to prevent crime. You'll succeed at punishing crime but not at preventing it. And what do you prefer?
 
Ted said:
Isn't prison supposed to be a correctional facility? Sure you can put a guy away for 15 years and treat him like a sub-human. What do you reckon he does when he gets out? Since he has been a sub-human for 15 years the outside world don't like ex-cons. He is out of a job, out of everything mostly and what will he do? Yep..... commit a crime again.

Now you can say that it is his own fault, which imo would be a very simplistic view. Society has changed and so did the punishmets (at least I hope so) Chain gangs and other sentences from the days of way back won't help you one bit if you want to prevent crime. You'll succeed at punishing crime but not at preventing it. And what do you prefer?

Prison, Penetentiary, etc. I think they only came to be called correctional facilities for political correctness. It is a punishment. They made a mistake, however severe, and they need to suffer the consequences. I personally don't feel it is right for them to enjoy the same niceties of life as someone who has not commited a crime. i.e. education at the expense of the taxpayers, cable TV, any number of things you can think of that I can not. The average citizen has to pay their own way for college and higher education, and life's little pleasures. Why shouldn't the convicted criminals? Give them a job doing something for the state, clearing rodaside ditches, land etc. Pay them a small wage (the monies given out free for TV and education and other amenities they should not have in my opinion). It doesn't have to be a "chain gang" mentality. They can then put those monies towards an education or towards savings etc. This way they have a sense of pride and accomplishment in earning something rather than having it given to them gratis.

As for preventing a crime? When was the last time you stopped someone from doing something they were determined to do? That is like expecting me as a Marine NCO to stop my Marine from driving his vehicle when his license has been suspended and he has been ordered not to do it. The law prevents me from confiscating his keys and forcibly restraining him. I can not require him to be in my presence 24/7 nor can I be in his presence 24/7. So if he decides to go for a ride and I am not around to stop him how can I prevent him from commiting this crime? Get the picture?

Making the penalty for a crime so horrendous as to discourage someone from even thinking about it is the only way to help cut down on the crime rate. Not that it will prevent crime but it may act as a deterrent to those contemplating commiting a crime.
 
Another one shot out of the saddle...

major liability said:
Make prisons like that and you'll have a lot more folks shooting back at the cops rather than surrendering like little bitches.
There is a certain Sheriff who would argue with you ... he makes his prisoners live in the middle of the desert, wear 'pink' prison clothes, work on chain gangs, doesn't allow air conditioning . tv . books . magazines . weight rooms . (or) any entertainment of any kind. The recidivism rate for his 'jail/prison' is the lowest in the nation. Prisoners (it includes women as well as men) ABSOLUTELY DO NOT want a return visit to this 'no-frill hotel' on the desert, and more ex-prisoners have gone straight after a stint in the desert jail than with the old 'treat them humane' policies that were the vogue when he assumed the office of Sheriff.

So much for your thesis that 'real' punishment doesn't work.
 
DO YOU THINK CRIME WOULD DROP IF WE HAD AN ARMED AMERICA ? (shades of the old west)

Remember, the old west wasn't the safest era in US history. The last thing I would want would be vigilantes divvying out the law based on their on interpretation of it.


major liability said:
Make prisons like that and you'll have a lot more folks shooting back at the cops rather than surrendering like little bitches.

Surrendering doesn't make them "little bitches" it makes them smarter than they were 10 mins ago.

And what's shooting back at the police going to do? Get you more prison time or get you dead.

You don't reward bad behavior.

Bones is right in his post above. If I remember correctly, this prison also has programs for the inmates, when they aren't working and sweating in the tents, they have the option to attend workforce development classes, get their GEDs, psychological counseling, anger management, etc


 
By 'James' you're right .....

PJ24 said:
Remember, the old west wasn't the safest era in US history.
You don't reward bad behavior.

Bones is right in his post above. If I remember correctly, this prison also has programs for the inmates, when they aren't working and sweating in the tents, they have the option to attend workforce development classes, get their GEDs, psychological counseling, anger management, etc
You're right about the Old West NOT being the safest era to live in ... but ... you didn't have teenage gangs roving the streets with Uzis and firing hundreds of rounds over a 'turf' battle ... nor ... did you have all of the drug problems facing us today. What you DID have though ... was a community that shot the shit out of a gang that rode into a town with idea of robbing the bank and generally terrorizing the town (It was at Northfield, Minnesota in 1876 that a robbery at the First National Bank went sour with three of the James Gang dying in an onslaught of gun fire. The bullets came from all sides with every James Gang member being wounded).

As far as the programs and so forth ... I had forgotten that. Because of the austerity that was carried out at the Sheriff's direction, inmates couldn't wait to get into these programs and there were plenty of them because of the money saved by not creating a jail with a 'Club Med' atmosphere ... it was the single highpoint of an otherwise tedious servitude while carrying out the court's sentences and opened up many inmates to a life other than crime.
 
Back
Top