| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really starting to dig this Free Thought Project site.
Cop With History of ‘Malfunctioning’ Body Cam Shoots 19-year-old Girl. Yep, Another ‘Malfunction’
|
For those saying that policing is safe, how many of the other professions on that list have someone actively trying to kill them on a basis ten times higher than the rest of the population? Soldiers and firefighters are also not in the top 10 most dangerous professions, but you wouldn't call them safe jobs.Hate to break it to you, but statistically police officer is not one of the 10 deadliest professions.
1. Loggers
2. Fishers
3. Aircraft Pilot and Flight Engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural steel workers
6. Garbageman
7. Powerline installation and repair
8. Driver (truck and sales)
9. Farmers and ranchers
10. Construction workerPolice officers used to be in the list, back in the mid-00's, but have fallen off.
I have worked several of the above jobs and while dangerous, it was never due to the intent of others. I just think this is an important distinction to make when comparing the danger of a given profession.
"Persons working in law enforcement and security occupations in government (140.3 per 1,000) and private-sector organizations (102.5 per 1,000) had the highest annual average rates of violent victimization occurring in the workplace from 2002 to 2011."
Link.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I disagree on all your points.I was replying to you. Please don't tell us what or how we discuss ethics.I think pointing out your ignorance and making the connection that those woefully unequipped to understand the situation have no business making authoritative statements about it is quite fair.
Just as coming up with a reasonable counterpoint would be on your part. Pleading for exemption from the debate while insisting that you get to continue it seems unethical though. Ironically so.
Luckily for me, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those saying that policing is safe, how many of the other professions on that list have someone actively trying to kill them on a basis ten times higher than the rest of the population? Soldiers and firefighters are also not in the top 10 most dangerous professions, but you wouldn't call them safe jobs.Hate to break it to you, but statistically police officer is not one of the 10 deadliest professions.
1. Loggers
2. Fishers
3. Aircraft Pilot and Flight Engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural steel workers
6. Garbageman
7. Powerline installation and repair
8. Driver (truck and sales)
9. Farmers and ranchers
10. Construction workerPolice officers used to be in the list, back in the mid-00's, but have fallen off.
I have worked several of the above jobs and while dangerous, it was never due to the intent of others. I just think this is an important distinction to make when comparing the danger of a given profession.
"Persons working in law enforcement and security occupations in government (140.3 per 1,000) and private-sector organizations (102.5 per 1,000) had the highest annual average rates of violent victimization occurring in the workplace from 2002 to 2011."
Link.
And who writes the reports that feed into those stats?
Pretty big reason I don't deal with the cops. Sure, most of them actually aren't corrupt or overzealous, but a fair number are, and they can cause a lot of harm. So, I hold to my rights. If I'm not under arrest, I am not giving any information at all to the cops, especially my name. Like it or not, cops are powerful, and with great power comes great responsibility. It's pretty clear that this responsibility isn't adequately enforced, so I will do everything within my rights to minimize my dealings with to the police.
As for the issue at hand, it sounds suspicious, but we don't have a lot of details. Lack of trust in cops aside, I still think that more information is necessary.
|
Luckily for me, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without such.And I disagree on all your points.I was replying to you. Please don't tell us what or how we discuss ethics.I think pointing out your ignorance and making the connection that those woefully unequipped to understand the situation have no business making authoritative statements about it is quite fair.
Just as coming up with a reasonable counterpoint would be on your part. Pleading for exemption from the debate while insisting that you get to continue it seems unethical though. Ironically so.
Likewise.
simple solution, body cams on all on duty cops on a beat at all times. solves all the problems when you are always held accountable for your actions with video evidence.
This approach actually benefits both officers and civilians. Officers would have evidence to protect themselves against false accusations of misconduct. Civilians would have evidence if something were to occur, and in cases where this policy has been implemented there have been overall reduced rates of misconduct.
Likewise.Luckily for me, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without such.And I disagree on all your points.I was replying to you. Please don't tell us what or how we discuss ethics.I think pointing out your ignorance and making the connection that those woefully unequipped to understand the situation have no business making authoritative statements about it is quite fair.
Just as coming up with a reasonable counterpoint would be on your part. Pleading for exemption from the debate while insisting that you get to continue it seems unethical though. Ironically so.
That's not lucky for you at all, actually, since you are the one with the position that a police officer requesting that people consider their own ignorance about the situation and similar such withhold judgement until they are no longer ignorant is some how a breach of etiquette in a debate upon ethics. You are literally of the position that you wish to dismiss that which is asserted with evidence, while asserting your own ignorant opinions and observations as somehow superior.
Gun mounted cameras too.
Vest cameras will do fine. Adding a gun camera just puts more bulk on the weapon while not giving any information a vest camera wouldn't give.
simple solution, body cams on all on duty cops on a beat at all times. solves all the problems when you are always held accountable for your actions with video evidence.
I'll reprise the story, as apparently people missed it. However, there is more information that's been reported. I've also included what is the most logical conclusion of what was happening.
Jose Calzada called a suicide hotline which I believe probably called the police to do what they call a safety check, to ensure that the guy was safe and not going to be an immediate danger to himself or others.
The others at some point were allowed to leave the home.
Police showed up at Jose Calzada's home.
They find what probably was an ARMED guy, BARRICADED. They had a negotiator which tried negotiating. They called the SWAT team, which took over the negotiating duties. (Edit: I should add, from what I understand, these were professional negotiators. These were not just simple off the street PD, but people trained and experienced in talking others into a peaceful resolution, or at least the one that came with the SWAT team who took over the negotiations after arriving).
Once that was done...who knows what happened in the ensuing hours. Supposedly the negotiators were working this entire time to de-escalate the situation and negotiate a peaceful situation.
However, due to how it is labeled (assisted suicide or suicide by cop), he raised a weapon as to shot the police/SWAT.
Eye-witnesses report that there was one shot...a pause, and then several other shots after this.
It is not impossible to conclude that the Mr. Calzada shot at least once to provoke others to shoot at him, and this is the point where negotiations failed.
He was shot instead.
It is still thought to be a suicide, suicide by COP.
At least one of the officers was NOT on the SWAT, but was a ROY police man. At least two are on administrative leave, perhaps more as the chief stated all involved with the shooting have been placed on administrative leave.
I have elaborated a little, but following the timeline that was released, I'm pretty certain the official story when it finally comes to light will probably follow what I just wrote above.
Now whether they'll find it justified or not, who knows. My thought process is that the victim fired one shot, perhaps missed, and missed on purpose to get the police to shoot him.
This was around 3800 W 5300 S in Roy, UT, which when using Google Maps, is a subdivision of some sort. This would be another concern, especially if the man had high caliber bullets. These bullets are not stopped by walls many times, and with houses that close to each other...bullets will hit other homes and possibly other people.
If the man DID fire that first shot (which seems reasonable, as there was a pause reported), the police may have been justified in order to prevent harm from others in the surrounding neighborhood.
However, that is my speculation...and not defending the police actions necessarily (I don't have an opinion on the matter to tell the truth)...and it could be that the first shot was by the Police..., but I imagine something along those lines will be what comes out in the official report when it is finally released.
They're tiny, smaller than a laser or flashlight and provide a picture of what the gun was pointed at and was happening when the gun was fired. They also remove the the camera lead came out in a struggle or while running excuse.Gun mounted cameras too.Vest cameras will do fine. Adding a gun camera just puts more bulk on the weapon while not giving any information a vest camera wouldn't give.
For an example of this excuse, see the comrade's link above where a cop shot someone after his camera "malfunctioned". Suprisingly, he has a history of complaints following his camera "malfunctions" [/sarcasm].
The advantage of a gun camera is that it won't catch the cops hanging out at dunkin doughnuts. (and thus is less likely to get resistance from cops who aren't doing anything wrong)
The disadvantage is it doesn't catch them abusing power or the other weapons at their disposal.
If you're going to elaborate and attempt to be authoritative about it, you should probably link or source your information somehow.
It's the local newspapers from the SLC area.
They edit the story down for the web, and apparently don't post the updates stories, so a little hard to post a link.
However, if you do a web search, most of this is also found on the web, but scattered around various articles.
Body cameras have been found to reduce complaints about police brutality in two different, but similar, ways.
1) The behavior of police does improve. They know they're being watched and evidence is being logged.
2) People interacting with the police improve their behavior too. They know they're being watched and evidence is being logged.
A video-recorded society is a polite society.
Tamper protections need to be improved to prevent abuse and misuse, but I would agree that they're a step in the right direction.
Also, if you're stopped for a traffic violation, never tell the officer how much money you have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2012--Video: Police cruiser footage shows events that led to Milton Hall police shooting
2014--Two Years Later, No Charges After Police Kill Homeless Man in Barrage of 46 Shots
More from the Free Thought Project:
Former Cop Headed to Trial for Raping a Child While Other Officers Watched
And someone on my Facebook Feed, who I think is one of my comrades, but I'm not sure (there's too many of us to keep track!) posted the following:
"Hey fellow nerds, someone who participates in geek culture got murdered by the police because he was doing something he enjoys! Certainly this is something to stand up and shout abo... sorry, what's that? People want to stick to making death threats towards women game developers and journalists?" (I still don't know anything about Gamergate)
Autopsy: Cops Shot Black Anime Cosplayer Four Times in the Back
Anklebiter, your contribution is appreciated, but this is really getting off topic.
First two stories are about cops killing a homeless black man and getting away with it despite dashcam footage showing the whole thing.
Third story is another article from The Free Thought Project, which has been the website of choice for this thread thus far.
Fourth story I thought would be of particular interest for members of this community.
But, if it's deemed off-topic, I'll...well, I'll revel in my perpetual off-topicness.
It's a bit off topic gobbo. Not complaining, just pointing out.
I'm really starting to dig this Free Thought Project site.
I'm glad to have added to your info arsenal. :P
Much appreciated, Citizen Scythia, thank you.
More from the Free Thought Project:Former Cop Headed to Trial for Raping a Child While Other Officers Watched
I don't know, but 99 years just seems like it's not enough.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be interesting to see why the top ten lists are so dangerous. How much of it is poor regulation of required wh&s, how much is attributed to the approach of the people in the job itself.
I spent some time working in the mining industry in Australia. Just contract stuff and some on site science related studies. In that time there were two major incidents, both caused by reckless behaviour of the people involved.
I also have a number of friends in that industry and the construction, truck driving industry. The stories I get from them that involve time and contractural obligations leading to pressure from management to cut corners or ignore safe shift length guidelines is unbelievable.
Imagine what would happen if the police force were run like those industries. It'd be carnage on the streets.
I suspect it's the high standards and excellent training that keeps the police, soldiers and firefighters off the list, not the nature of the job.
I suspect it's the high standards and excellent training that keeps the police, soldiers and firefighters off the list, not the nature of the job.
When it comes to the military, training and organization are definately important, as is equipment. When America goes to war, we consistently inflict a lot more casualties than we take. This was true as far back as the Pacific War (not sure about Europe). A lot of that can be attributed to absolutely overwhelming levels of firepower compared to our opponents, ranging from the individual rifleman to armored vehicles to artillery forces to attack aircraft. Add in better training than our foes, especially with our modern volunteer military, and the fact that Americans are extremely quick to call in devastating levels of fire aupport, and we have virtually total superiority in firefights. Most US military personnel never actually see combat, and seven out of eight troops who get hit will live. I wouldn't call combat safe, but American troops do not have high casualty rates.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The media now exists to sell papers. The infamous McDonald's "hot coffee" incident is a spectacular example. Everyone reads, "Woman spills hot coffee on herself, sues McDonald's, wins millions. The system is broken."
How many people actually know that the store in question was out of heat-proof cups, and had served her the coffee in a non-approved cup that proceeded to melt in her lap, which is the reason she suffered 3rd degree burns to her groin? She didn't spill it. The cup melted. That's not reported. Because it's not inflammatory.
According to the documentary that I watched in which this woman was interviewed, this isn't correct either.
(largely successful at this point)
Mandatory arbitration (under an individual paid by the company!) without ever signing a contract, yo.
According to the documentary that I watched in which this woman was interviewed, this isn't correct either.The media now exists to sell papers. The infamous McDonald's "hot coffee" incident is a spectacular example. Everyone reads, "Woman spills hot coffee on herself, sues McDonald's, wins millions. The system is broken."
How many people actually know that the store in question was out of heat-proof cups, and had served her the coffee in a non-approved cup that proceeded to melt in her lap, which is the reason she suffered 3rd degree burns to her groin? She didn't spill it. The cup melted. That's not reported. Because it's not inflammatory.
I'd be interested in that documentary if you have a link.
My statement was directly from one of the lawyers on the case, with whom I socialized a while back... she insisted that one of the facts that never made the light of the press was that that particular McDonald's had served that particular coffee in an inappropriate cup.
Everything else I've also heard -- I've never heard the "bad cup" outside of the lawyer.
EDIT: So on the one hand, she had standing to know far more than me about the case, and she had no reason to lie to me. On the other hand, I've never heard it anywhere else, and... lawyer!
I suspect it's the high standards and excellent training that keeps the police, soldiers and firefighters off the list, not the nature of the job.
I highly doubt that. There are forestry schools with higher pre entry requisites and more training than a police academy, it still doesn't make folks safe on a job.
Its not like cops don't do stupid stuff either. We've had to cut cop cars out of trees because they were drag rac... erm, in persuit of an unreported suspect (twice)
Its pretty obvious what the jobs have in common
1) Dangerous equipment being used all day every day. The dangers of chainsaws are pretty obvious, but people tend to forget that a car is 3 tons of steel and metal hurling along at 75 miles per hour... or in other words, its REAAALLY good at hurting garbage men, road workers and the like in its path. Human beings do not flawlessly pay attention 8 hours a day 5 days a week for 40 years: accidents happen.
2) Lack of help. A cop is rarely more than 5 minutes out from an ambulance. You get a good arterial bleed in the middle of the woods in alaska? You better hope that bear is First aid certified, already well fed AND he likes you.
3) Large weights moving around. Shipping containers, trees, pieces of machinery .. it doesn't take much of a bump from one to turn you into chunky salsa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure I read about the cup melting some years ago, but a google search says she spilled the coffee on herself while removing the lid.
Yep. That part was never in question. The part in question is that, according to my friend, the cup was never designed for such heat and became so weak that it flexed far more than it should have when the woman was fiddling with the lid, thus resulting in the spill.
It's a believable story. Get plastic hot enough and it retains its shape, but is only at around 25% strength, so... definitely possible. On the other hand, the only person I've directly heard about "melting cups" from is one of the attorneys. However, attorneys frequently do hear things that then get stricken from the record or otherwise never publicly released.
Ah, well, long ago, so we'll probably never know the full story, and I'm not particularly invested one way or the other... I'm just having fun talking about it. Go figure. :-P
EDIT: Curse you, BigNorseWolf, for bringing this thread back on-topic! You want me to drag Captain Yesterday in here for some real derailment! (Yeah, good points, though.)
|
|
I suspect it's the high standards and excellent training that keeps the police, soldiers and firefighters off the list, not the nature of the job.
I highly doubt that. There are forestry schools with higher pre entry requisites and more training than a police academy, it still doesn't make folks safe on a job.
Its not like cops don't do stupid stuff either. We've had to cut cop cars out of trees because they were drag rac... erm, in persuit of an unreported suspect (twice)
Its pretty obvious what the jobs have in common
1) Dangerous equipment being used all day every day. The dangers of chainsaws are pretty obvious, but people tend to forget that a car is 3 tons of steel and metal hurling along at 75 miles per hour... or in other words, its REAAALLY good at hurting garbage men, road workers and the like in its path. Human beings do not flawlessly pay attention 8 hours a day 5 days a week for 40 years: accidents happen.
2) Lack of help. A cop is rarely more than 5 minutes out from an ambulance. You get a good arterial bleed in the middle of the woods in alaska? You better hope that bear is First aid certified, already well fed AND he likes you.
3) Large weights moving around. Shipping containers, trees, pieces of machinery .. it doesn't take much of a bump from one to turn you into chunky salsa.
I can't speak to the logging aspect, with no experience at all in it, nor friends there.
As for the other professions I mentioned. All of them have operational procedures in place to prevent injury and death. Nearly all the incidents that occur in them that I've had experience with happened because those procedures weren't being followed..However, you make a valid point about heavy items and instant death. It doesn't take much of a mistake in those industries for a person to,end up dead.
Ive been reading a number of books on our,(Australia's) SAS troopers recently. I was very surprised about the number of troops who get shot or seriously wounded, but don't die. In fact, many of them are back in service relatively quickly.
Is it a dangerous job, damn straight it is. Are the lethality rates as high as construction work? Not even close.
That whole situation just blows my mind to be honest.
Cheers
Ive been reading a number of books on our,(Australia's) SAS troopers recently. I was very surprised about the number of troops who get shot or seriously wounded, but don't die. In fact, many of them are back in service relatively quickly.
Statistically, that's pretty normal now. A chest wound that doesn't cause catastrophic bleeding (most don't) or puncture your heart is not going to kill you quickly. If you shoot somebody in the stomach or abdomen, it can take hours for them to die. Arm and leg wounds can in fact kill, but it isn't common. In that time, medical personnel can most likely save your life, even in a lot of cases of disembowelment. Most soldiers who die from wounds die in the first hour, and most soldiers who receive medical treatment within an hour will live. If you get shot in the stomach and get it treated by a surgeon, there generally isn't anything preventing you from returning to active duty. Also, the main killer is shrapnel (though with Spec Ops like SAS units that may be different), which has a wide variation in size and speed, and American and Australian troops wear body armor over the torso. This means shrapnel is more likely to injure an arm or a leg than the chest (If you are close enough to the explosion to get hit by the concussion, however, armor can't really help you). If I remember my statistics correctly, the survival rate for soldiers who get hit in the US military is 87% right now.
I believe the dangerous job rates include all injuries, not just fatal ones.
I think that, in the case of the military, the fact that most members of the military will not deploy into combat is an important distinction. If you only looked at injury rates for military personnel who belong to "combat units" and were deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, you'd see a pretty big jump in injury rates. Not sure how much that would effect the standing of the military in these top ten lists.
Also, modern EOD suits provide some protection against the pressure wave from an explosion,nexcept for the hands and forearms.
Most troops caught in an IED or mortar blast aren't wearing one of those suits, though. I was thinking of the body armor the average infantry is wearing.
As for the other professions I mentioned. All of them have operational procedures in place to prevent injury and death. Nearly all the incidents that occur in them that I've had experience with happened because those procedures weren't being followed..
Do you think that human beings can follow every procedure and rule all day, every day, for 40 years?
Especially when physically tired?
Not to mention ones from different agencies conflict. ( EPA says you have to leave the snags up. OSHA says you can't work near them without taking them down.)
Or the boss wants the job done now, forget safety. We used to put people in a front end loader and lift them up to get branches with the pole saw (chainsaw. On a stiiick) He handed me the saw for my turn, i said it looks good and handed it back to him. I'm hoping after someone died they've started paying attention to that stuff. (i left while I "merely" a smashed foot and busted back)
Or are moronic. Lifeguards for example are required to have those big foam floatie things at all times.. even if they're in the kiddie section. As silly as that sounds, its outright dangerous if you can't move quickly through a crowd of people to get to someone.
While being in combat or a shoot out is more dangerous than logging, the shear amount of time you spend in combat is short compared to how long you spend on the job.
|
|
@Norse Dwarf - which is my point exactly. The jobs themselves aren't any more dangerous than military, police or fire, its the way they go about them.
And yes, if you don't want to die or get badly hurt, I do expect someone to follow the guidelines exactly all day. It's how you cut down mortality and injury rates. That is my point. High expectations and high training levels. That is my expectation for how I want to make sure I live. I do understand that others in a company don't necessarily care as much about whether I live or not though.
And I have to disagree with the combat role from what I've read in those zones. The risk is quite high at all times.
I wonder if the stats from those jobs mention the different parts of the job as well. I understand that the man cutting down the tree has a big risk. But the guy managing the site and the guy in the office caravan handling the paperwork doesn't. I'm wondering if stats for military and police in general consider only field operatives or all members of the service at once?
For me, the statistics are really interesting. For instance, I never would have placed garbage man above combat troop, but there you go. In Australia, our entire garbage collection is done from the truck. Its automated so the driver never gets out. No risk at all there.
I'm guessing America still has folk doing the pickup though, especially in cities where the truck system probably isn't viable. Our cities are no where near as densely populated as America, and the streets don't get too narrow like I believe some do over there.
Aussie lifeguards also don't run around with those foam things. They have other devices they use, but they are kept at station. A different approach to what you're telling me happens over there.
Any way, not picking a fight Norse, just pointing out how some stats may have been biased in that report. Also, I'm seeing that my disconnect is more from the perspective I have in how things are done here in Aus than it may be from the stats themselves.
Cheers
@Norse Dwarf - which is my point exactly. The jobs themselves aren't any more dangerous than military, police or fire, its the way they go about them.
Nope, not my point.
If you are a lumberjack with a chainsaw, there is no way to go about the job except with a chainsaw. That will be dangerous no matter what you do. (Feller bunchers don't work everywhere yet)
And yes, if you don't want to die or get badly hurt, I do expect someone to follow the guidelines exactly all day.
This worse than impossible. Human beings are not machines. This is a canard from insurance companies that want to collect a check but not actually insure anything.
Very often you get competing safety issues: such as a half fallen tree thats dangerous to come down, and dangerous to leave where it is. In cases like this the regulations say it has to come down, it can't come down, and you're not allowed to use explosives to knock it down from a safe distance.
It's how you cut down mortality and injury rates. That is my point. High expectations and high training levels.
Beyond human expectations.
And I have to disagree with the combat role from what I've read in those zones. The risk is quite high at all times.
Obviously not as high as the guy with the chainsaw, or they'd be on the list too.
For me, the statistics are really interesting. For instance, I never would have placed garbage man above combat troop, but there you go. In Australia, our entire garbage collection is done from the truck. Its automated so the driver never gets out. No risk at all there.
I think that has more to do with cost and time. People are faster.
Aussie lifeguards also don't run around with those foam things. They have other devices they use, but they are kept at station. A different approach to what you're telling me happens over there.
I don't know if it was a pool, fed, state, or even park regulation. It was a rule though.
Any way, not picking a fight Norse, just pointing out how some stats may have been biased in that report.
That report, and every other report, and every other study done on the subject for 20 years....
Also, I'm seeing that my disconnect is more from the perspective I have in how things are done here in Aus than it may be from the stats themselves....
That and the fact that your entire continent is trying to kill you anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect it's the high standards and excellent training that keeps the police, soldiers and firefighters off the list, not the nature of the job.
In the US, police forces have been known to reject applicants who score too highly on social service exams for being too smart. They argue smart people are more likely to leave the field. My guess is that smarter people are less likely to put up with the corruption.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the US, police forces have been known to reject applicants who score too highly on social service exams for being too smart. They argue smart people are more likely to leave the field. My guess is that smarter people are less likely to put up with the corruption.
I suspect it's the high standards and excellent training that keeps the police, soldiers and firefighters off the list, not the nature of the job.
Yeah, that's not happening in Aus. Our police force requires tertiary education to enter now days, and generally they won't recruit you unless you have some experience behind you as well. Very few people get recruited fresh out of school and uni.
We still have corruption though, sigh.
The more I read in this thread and the more you guys tell me how things are done in America, the less it seems to gel with the image of American forces we get presented with in Australia.
Kinda glad I live here now, even if the entire continent is trying to kill us.
There are about 780,000 police officers in the US, there are about 44,000 loggers. So for every logger that dies on the job, you would need about 18 cops to die to have similar numbers. In 2012 64 loggers died, that would be 1150 cops. In 2012 295 soldiers died in Afghanistan, and there were between 68,000 and 100,000 stationed there. That is significantly higher rate of a death rate than in logging.
Logging deaths
Deaths in Afghanistan
Number of soldiers in Afghanistan
The numbers are in various places in those articles.