[sanjuro]

Seriously, I think it is offensive to throw around numbers about officers murdered in some ridiculous internet argument, especially when they are misinterpreted.

I noticed Manimal has declined to comment on this thread. I would respect his profession before making any asinine conclusions.

 

[Lowlight7]

And again, the simple fact of the matter is that being a law enforcement officer is just not that dangerous of a job, and the insititutionalized paranoia that officers seem to have is counterproductive to them doing a good job.

One of the points that Mike is making is that the "institutionalized paranoia" that officers have is one thing that keeps them alive. Prowess, command presence, less-lethal force options, awareness, and many other traits act as a deterrent. If it isn't a dangerous profession, let's have all law enforcement officers turn in their guns, armor, tasers, batons, OC spray and start handing out lollipops to everyone the arrest or give a citation to. Let's see how that turns out. Those that go into it with the mindset of "this job isn't dangerous" are usually the one's who get killed because they didn't expect the nice guy they just stopped to draw a gun and start shooting.

One of my friends, Virginia State Trooper Mike Blanton, didn't expect the drunk driver he pulled over in 2003 to do anything, either. As he was reaching into the suspect's vehicle to remove the keys, the driver stepped on the gas and dragged Mike 500 yards before crashing into an embankment and rolling the car on top of him.

You're in Orange County? OCSD Deputy Brad Riches was shot and killed during a routine patrol as he pulled into a 7-11 in your area. Why don't you seek out his family or his partner, Deputy Albert Macias, and share your thoughts on officer safety with them?

 

[MikeD]

A single book against stats might bring up a few valid points but sampling one person's opinion as gospel is much more erroneous.

Its like believing N8's minute minority that global warming is a myth with little to no understanding of the topic.

The primary problem with bad stats and junk scientific studies is bad data.

No, the problem with stats is that some people take them on a quasi-religious faith.

For certain things and certain situations, stats are great. They have limitations, especially here. Tell me how stats can show us the effect of officer actions on their own safety.

If we were in a lab and we had a way to have a discernable beginning, middle, and end to our experiment, free of outside influence or individual will, it would work. Again, looking at trends of violence over time is still useless, because it can't take into account the vagaries of reality and the variation in training, ability, or situations faced by individual officers. You can show correlations, but you can't show causation, and even correlation is suspect. Do declining crime rates mean officers are getting hurt less...is it their training...is it both? Is it different in different towns? Statistical analysis truthfully answers none of this, although lots of guys with calculators will try and tell you differently.

The world is much too messy a place for stats to always be useful.

What we CAN know, concretely, is that most police officers have cause to be in contact with violent people. This is obvious. Fishermen don't serve warrants, perform traffic stops on potentially stolen automobiles, or interview people suspected of violent crime. The police officers must be trained and empowered to deal with potentially violent situations. Those of us trained in and experienced in violence know that violence is extremely risky and prefer to be on the controlling end of a potenitally violent situation. Hence driver getting tased.

Those of us who aren't social retards also know that 1) the immense majority of police encounters don't have any dimension of violence and 2) acting like a dick is likely to escalate a situation. (Dartman's vid is a fantastic example of a man in total control of the situation, with none of the blustering which leads me to think the taser cop wasn't as in control as he should have been from the beginning.) But the fact that the cop was a jerk and not on top of his game doesn't have any bearing on the justification for the use of the taser or the overall danger to police doing their jobs.

Silver, take your long division to a gang cop in Santa Ana and tell him your job is just as safe as his, and he's a hysterical prick for wearing that body armor or handcuffing and frisking the subject of an investigative detention. Go tell Oceanside PD officer Zeppetella that he has nothing to fear on a traffic stop. Oh, wait, that's right--he was a nice guy, and had his guard slightly down on a traffic stop, and now he's dead. The fact that you think his job isn't dangerous doesn't really matter much.

Keeping control is a vital part of officers staying alive, just like lifelines and life preservers are part of a fisherman's plan to avoid the potential disasters on his job.

 

[syadasti]

If we were in a lab and we had a way to have a discernable beginning, middle, and end to our experiment, free of outside influence or individual will, it would work. Again, looking at trends of violence over time is still useless, because it can't take into account the vagaries of reality and the variation in training, ability, or situations faced by individual officers. You can show correlations, but you can't show causation, and even correlation is suspect. Do declining crime rates mean officers are getting hurt less...is it their training...is it both? Is it different in different towns? Statistical analysis truthfully answers none of this, although lots of guys with calculators will try and tell you differently.

I see. Countless companies, military agencies, nations etc spend billions on modeling much more complex systems than a police encounters on supercomputers for nothing. Right

 

[Silver]

One of the points that Mike is making is that the "institutionalized paranoia" that officers have is one thing that keeps them alive. Prowess, command presence, less-lethal force options, awareness, and many other traits act as a deterrent. If it isn't a dangerous profession, let's have all law enforcement officers turn in their guns, armor, tasers, batons, OC spray and start handing out lollipops to everyone the arrest or give a citation to. Let's see how that turns out. Those that go into it with the mindset of "this job isn't dangerous" are usually the one's who get killed because they didn't expect the nice guy they just stopped to draw a gun and start shooting.

Please. Stop. Being. Hysterical.

I'm not making the claim that officers don't need those tools. Find me one instance where I said that officers don't need guns. Basically, what I'm saying is two things:

1. Justifying taser use and use of force by saying "They have their lives on the line every day!" is not legitimate, and it basically happens every single time there is a use of force controversy. It's simply not legitimate because the job isn't that dangerous.

(If you'll pay attention to my second post in this thread, you'll see that I wrote this: I do actually think that the officer has a thin legal justification to use the taser when the guy pushes off, but at the same time there is no way that a routine traffic stop needs to escalate that quickly.)

2. Institutionalized paranoia, along with a "Us Against Them" mentality that some police officers seem to have (especially the ones who show up in these videos) is counterproductive to the job that they have to do.

One of my friends, Virginia State Trooper Mike Blanton, didn't expect the drunk driver he pulled over in 2003 to do anything, either. As he was reaching into the suspect's vehicle to remove the keys, the driver stepped on the gas and dragged Mike 500 yards before crashing into an embankment and rolling the car on top of him.

You're in Orange County? OCSD Deputy Brad Riches was shot and killed during a routine patrol as he pulled into a 7-11 in your area. Why don't you seek out his family or his partner, Deputy Albert Macias, and share your thoughts on officer safety with them?

Because Lance Armstrong survived cancer, cancer must not kill very many people.

Same argument in reverse...

 

[Silver]

You're in Orange County? OCSD Deputy Brad Riches was shot and killed during a routine patrol as he pulled into a 7-11 in your area. Why don't you seek out his family or his partner, Deputy Albert Macias, and share your thoughts on officer safety with them?

When you do a search for Brad Riches, you'll come to this page:

http://www.odmp.org/officer/15267-deputy-sheriff-bradley-jay-riches

Click on the link on the bottom, and you'll see all the dead officers from the OCSD:

http://www.odmp.org/agency/2931-orange-county-sheriffs-department-california

Kind of proves my point, don't you think? For such a deadly job, you had to go back to 1999 for the most recent shooting. Then you go back to 1978, 1958, and 1912.

 

[WhoRyder]

When ever i get sopped by the cops, i know they are trigger happy, and are as nervous approaching my car as i am with them stopping me, so i always say.

"Yes office, how may i help you"

"Sure officer, i'm getting my Drivers license and registration for you right now"

"Ok officer"

"Yes Officer"

"have a great day officer"....

i don't want no problems with the cops... NONE.... they are human and make mistakes too, but when you are yelling back at a cop you deserve to get tazed... SORRY!

 

[Upgr8r]

1. Justifying taser use and use of force by saying "They have their lives on the line every day!" is not legitimate, and it basically happens every single time there is a use of force controversy. It's simply not legitimate because the job isn't that dangerous.

I agree and disgree with this statement. I believe that the job can be dangerous. Just because they put their lives on the line everyday is no excuse for this behavior. By extension, that argument would provide that cops should approach every vehicle with guns drawn and order the driver to the pavement because he may be a dangerous criminal.

(If you'll pay attention to my second post in this thread, you'll see that I wrote this: I do actually think that the officer has a thin legal justification to use the taser when the guy pushes off, but at the same time there is no way that a routine traffic stop needs to escalate that quickly.)

Agreed. This level of force was uncalled for and not necessary

2. Institutionalized paranoia, along with a "Us Against Them" mentality that some police officers seem to have (especially the ones who show up in these videos) is counterproductive to the job that they have to do.

Agree 100%. People don't trust cops because of this type of behavior coupled with the fact that a lot of times the cop goes unpunished. I wish I could screw up at work and get a three day paid vacation. If cops want the respect of the public again, cops need to police themselves. This guy should have been fired. He may not have broken any laws or policies, but he proved lack of good judgement which is critical in his job

 

[MikeD]

I see. Countless companies, military agencies, nations etc spend billions on modeling much more complex systems than a police encounters on supercomputers for nothing. Right

Complexity has nothing to do with it. You're not getting my point. Not every situation can be modeled.

Find me anyone who for any amount of money can actually tell you what effect pro-active use of force by police has on officer and/or public (including the subject's) safety. You can't, because it can't be modeled.

Additionally, the entire industry of predicting the stock market based on the statistics a sham, all the billions and billions of dollars of it. Money thrown into and numbers of suckers who believe a lie has nothing to do with its veracity. What other industry warns people that it's fake ("past performance is not a sure indicator of future performance"), yet people throw cash into its bin every day??

 

[syadasti]

Complexity has nothing to do with it. You're not getting my point. Not every situation can be modeled.

Find me anyone who for any amount of money can actually tell you what effect pro-active use of force by police has on officer and/or public (including the subject's) safety. You can't, because it can't be modeled.

Additionally, the entire industry of predicting the stock market based on the statistics a sham, all the billions and billions of dollars of it. Money thrown into and numbers of suckers who believe a lie has nothing to do with its veracity. What other industry warns people that it's fake ("past performance is not a sure indicator of future performance"), yet people throw cash into its bin every day??

Law enforcement decision support systems have been in use for a long time now. Departments all over the world have millions invested in them and most LEOs can access them from their vehicle these days.

A good DSS is another tool that helps keep LEO safe. As the databases get more linked/accessible and data mining tools improve the more effective and useful they become. They go into a situation with knowledge that helps them make better decisions and handle the situation more appropriately.

Police are now using computer models in simulation for prep for traffic stops too (the military has a variety of similar programs as they've been doing it longer and they only get better as computer AI becomes more complex):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7408534.stm

I've never mentioned or suggested the stock market. The average investor wouldn't do any better if they picked blindfolded. However there are firms with the right decision makers that do much better than average. They don't use gut feelings to outperform the average.

 

[MikeD]

I've never mentioned or suggested the stock market. The average investor wouldn't do any better if they picked blindfolded. However there are firms with the right decision makers that do much better than average. They don't use gut feelings to outperform the average.

Competent risk management is very effective within the stock market or outside it (my business).

Risk management, however, is not purely or even primarily statistical. It's a holistic evaluation of vulnerabilities and countermeasures.