11 cops vs. teen with a knife. You know where this is going.

[Kyriakos]

So now pointing out clearly obvious hyperbole is a form a hyperbole?

Only if done in...hyperbole

 

[Formaldehyde]

Most police departments have stipulated weight limits based on height, and the officers can even be fired if they remain overweight.

Six Ohio highway police were removed from duty in 2003, including one who was 71 pounds overweight. But no officers have been removed for being overweight in recent months because preliminary contract talks have been ongoing, Dr Phillips said.

The patrol's height-weight standards, which also factor in a person's age and gender, were adopted in 1986, and the punitive measures were added during the 1990s, he said. A man who is 5 feet 11 inches tall, for example, is considered overweight if he weighs more than 179 pounds, according to the commonly used body mass index measurement.

There are currently 1,530 troopers in Ohio.

 

[Domen]

What can I say? Degenerated and demoralized Western society produces degenerated and demoralized policemen. That's it.

 

[Farm Boy]

What can I say? Degenerated and demoralized Western society produces degenerated and demoralized policemen. That's it.

They're corrupt at lower frequencies than in, ah, shall we say some of the alternatives?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think the following passage from David Simon's Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, referring to a young man shot by an officer who mistook his cigarette lighter for a weapon, is worth quoting here:

It most definitely is. This is indeed the problem with arming cops at all, and it is why I am so opposed to it.

We have presupposed that cops need to be armed with firearms at all times in this country and many others. That they are qualified to do so despite a meager amount of training. But outside of armed robbery and murder, the latter of which is rarely seen by a cop during the commission of the act, there is really no valid reason for cops to be armed at all unless it is determined that the suspect is.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Depends on the area too, though. If the cop is active in a known area of violent crime, then he obviously has to carry a sort of firearm.

Then again, although normal patrol cops on areas that have normal crime rates do not get often to need their fire-arms, it still would render them sort of useless in the case that they are patrolling when a violent crime is happening.

That said, there is a huge possibility of bad or even extremely bad use of a fire-arm. This has to be dealt with with some synthesis of different means, both involving better training, better screening of cops, and less fire-arms around.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Most violent crime doesn't involve firearms. Most cops never fire their guns at someone else during their entire careers.

In 2010, NYC cops fired their guns 92 times which resulted in 16 people wounded and 8 killed. It also resulted in the shootings of 29 dogs and one raccoon. But here is the most outrageous part: Those 92 cops fired 368 bullets.

This is a remarkable improvement over when I lived there. I once witnessed a cop shooting into a furrier across the street just to get the burglar to come out. When he finally did so, the two cops beat him up for making them possibly risk their lives.

 

[Domen]

This is not outrageous. 368 compared to these casualties inflicted actually indicates a very good accuracy level. Good training.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is not outrageous. 368 compared to these casualties inflicted actually indicates a very good accuracy level. Good training.

The fatalities and woundings Form quoted did not indicate if those people were the intended targets of police fire, which I would find relevant information. Assuming two shots are actually needed per racoon and dog, heck let's kick it up to three just for the heck of it, that's over 11 1/2 bullets per person shot. In a densely populated urban center. It could certainly be a lot worse but I don't know that I would brag about it.

 

[Antilogic]

Most violent crime doesn't involve firearms. Most cops never fire their guns at someone else during their entire careers.

In 2010, NYC cops fired their guns 92 times which resulted in 16 people wounded and 8 killed. It also resulted in the shootings of 29 dogs and one raccoon. But here is the most outrageous part: Those 92 cops fired 368 bullets.

This is a remarkable improvement over when I lived there. I once witnessed a cop shooting into a furrier across the street just to get the burglar to come out. When he finally did so, the two cops beat him up for making them possibly risk their lives.

Do you know if this is unusually high or low, or par for the course?

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, I don't know. But I do know that they aren't trained to fire so many times.

Police: All Empire State shooting victims were wounded by officers

New York (CNN) -- On a busy Friday morning in Manhattan, nine pedestrians suffered bullet or fragment wounds after police unleashed a hail of gunfire at a man wielding a .45 caliber pistol who had just killed a former co-worker.

The officers unloaded 16 rounds in the shadow of the Empire State Building at a disgruntled former apparel designer, killing him after he engaged in a gunbattle with police, authorities said.

Three passersby sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments, according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. All injuries were caused by police, he said Saturday.

One officer shot nine rounds and another shot seven.

Sean Bell shooting incident

The Sean Bell shooting incident took place in the New York City borough of Queens, New York, United States on November 25, 2006, when three men were shot at a total of fifty times by a team of both plainclothes and undercover NYPD officers, killing one of the men, Sean Bell, on the morning before his wedding, and severely wounding two of his friends, Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman.[1] The incident sparked fierce criticism of the police from some members of the public and drew comparisons to the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo.[2] Three of the five detectives involved in the shooting went to trial[3] on charges ranging from manslaughter to reckless endangerment, and were found not guilty.[4]

Amadou Diallo shooting

Amadou Bailo Diallo (September 2, 1975 – February 4, 1999) was a 23-year-old immigrant from Guinea who was shot and killed in New York City on February 4, 1999 by four New York City Police Department plain-clothed officers: Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss, who fired a combined total of 41 shots, 19 of which struck Diallo, outside his apartment at 1157 Wheeler Avenue in the Soundview section of The Bronx. The four were part of the now-defunct Street Crimes Unit. All four officers were acquitted at trial in Albany, New York.[1]

Diallo was unarmed at the time of the shooting, and a firestorm of controversy erupted subsequent to the event as the circumstances of the shooting prompted outrage both within and outside New York City. Issues such as police brutality, racial profiling, and contagious shooting were central to the ensuing controversy.

 

[Rashiminos]

Do you know if this is unusually high or low, or par for the course?

I would suspect unusually low (unusually accurate).

 

[Defiant47]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...rives-for-bail-hearing-at-toronto-courthouse/

Not sure who forked over the half a million bail.

 

[shadowplay]

Not sure who forked over the half a million bail.

He probably put up his home as collateral.

 

[IglooDame]

It most definitely is. This is indeed the problem with arming cops at all, and it is why I am so opposed to it.

We have presupposed that cops need to be armed with firearms at all times in this country and many others. That they are qualified to do so despite a meager amount of training. But outside of armed robbery and murder, the latter of which is rarely seen by a cop during the commission of the act, there is really no valid reason for cops to be armed at all unless it is determined that the suspect is.

I'm sure I'm as much of a fan of police brutality and over-reaction as you are. But as someone who supports legal concealed carry by the law-abiding population in general, I have to say that I do not think that (selectively) disarming police is the answer. They are the ones that are obligated to run towards the sound of mayhem. Better training, better screening, or just better enforcement of assault and homicide laws amongst the ranks of the police (and I'd add, perhaps better pay), but limiting their ability to escalate the level of violence is not something I can support. Get their asses (overweight or otherwise) to the range more regularly, with more realistic training scenarios. I don't like the potbellied patrolmen who could be outrun by a five-year-old, but I'm 60lbs above the obese line and can do a 5k in 30min and fight effectively at the finish line - the military is getting away from the mandatory height/weight limits and I'd suggest the police make use of the military's accumulated wisdom.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Britain has more violent crime per capita than we do. Yet they have managed to not arm their bobbies.

The only real difference is that we have more handguns. But the draconian punishments associated with them being used in violent crimes, much less to kill police, mean that they are rarely used for criminal endeavors. Armed police units specially trained can always be used when necessary just as they are in Britain. Disarming the majority of police except in extremely unusual circumstances will result in far fewer such incidents as this one.

But I know it is just a pipe dream. There is no putting the genie back into the bottle. The only way it would likely ever be feasible is if the NRA's worst fears became true and gun ownership was severely curtailed. There is no way you would be able to convince people to be unarmed cops with so many guns around.

 

[Alassius]

Britain has more violent crime per capita than we do. Yet they have managed to not arm their bobbies.

The only real difference is that we have more handguns. But the draconian punishments associated with them being used in violent crimes, much less to kill police, mean that they are rarely used for criminal endeavors. Armed police units specially trained can always be used when necessary just as they are in Britain. Disarming the majority of police except in extremely unusual circumstances will result in far fewer such incidents as this one.

But I know it is just a pipe dream. There is no putting the genie back into the bottle. The only way it would likely ever be feasible is if the NRA's worst fears became true and gun ownership was severely curtailed. There is no way you would be able to convince people to be unarmed cops with so many guns around.

Britain has more "violent" crime per capita, but you are much, much less likely to be killed from such a crime. The real difference is what counts as "violent".

http://rayrayallday.com/2013/01/11/...rates-depends-on-definition-of-violent-crime/

 

[Farm Boy]

Britain has more "violent" crime per capita, but you are much, much less likely to be killed from such a crime. The real difference is what counts as "violent".

http://rayrayallday.com/2013/01/11/...rates-depends-on-definition-of-violent-crime/

That's true! But I'm not sure we really want to walk down those broad Texan killing field freeways of thought or London's dark, winding, and rape-y alleys of contemplation on this specific issue. Though, maybe, I suppose it is actually pretty interesting when you start comparing and trying to come up with value judgements between disparate things like murder rates as opposed to mugging rates as opposed to battery rates as opposed to rape rates(which country wins that ignoble prize fluctuates depending on who's parsing the data collection and what assumptions are made regarding unreported).

 

[Formaldehyde]

According to the very story, which apparently cherry picked a year four years ago, the robbery rate in the UK was still indeed higher:

U.S. 2009 robbery rate: 133 per 100,000.

U.K. 2009 robbery rate: 164 per 100,000.

And the number of murders and rapes pale in comparison to the number of robberies and aggravated assaults, which for some odd reason even fails to be mentioned.

U.S. 2009 murder rate: 5 per 100,000.

U.K. 2009 murder rate: 1.49 per 100,000.

With these different definitions in mind, England and Wales reported 14,000 rapes in 2009. Based on a female population of approximately 27 million (although males are included in official reports), that comes out to 51 rapes per 100,000 females.

The U.S. reported 88,097 rapes in 2009, which comes out to 56 rapes per 100,000 females.

While comparing the UK figure of 2,034 per 100K to the US figure of 466 per 100K (which is based on a summation of quite different crimes) is indeed absurd, the US isn't nearly as violent as many Europeans and others try to make it out to be.

As the story shows, other than murder the numbers are quite similar. While having only 1.5 murders per 100K is clearly better than 5, neither one is anywhere near where the leaders in that particular category are.

But the point remains. Why is it that the UK can have so many unarmed cops despite having a fairly similar culture of violence, but nearly every single policeman in the US carries a firearm? This is even true in Canada which has a similar murder rate to the UK.

 

[Alassius]

The US isn't more violent than Europe, but it is more deadly. Hence the need for guns.