Sunday, July 17, 2016

Why the increase in number of Texans shot by police?

The number of people who die while being arrested by a Texas law-enforcement officer nearly doubled between 2005 and 2015, according to data compiled by the Dallas Morning News, with police shootings accounting for nearly all of the increase. For context, the total number of arrests over the same period declined by 20 percent, so not only are more people being shot, more are being shot per police encounter. An extraordinarily pregnant Brandi Grissom reported that:
More than half of the deaths from 2005 to 2015, 511 cases, were considered justifiable homicides, instances in which police used deadly force on a suspect because they feared for their own lives or the lives of others. And those numbers have been rising, from 32 justifiable homicides in 2005, to 61 in 2014 and 54 last year.
The bottom DMN graphic at right depicts the leading causes of deaths in police custody, with a significant spike in deaths that agencies reported as "justifiable homicides." (The other leading death causes: "In 126 incidents between 2005 and 2015, suspects police encountered took their own lives. Another 121 of the deaths were attributed to drug and alcohol overdoses.")

Asked to explain the rise in shootings during a period when overall arrests steeply declined, our pal Charley Wilkison, lobbyist for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, offered an absurd analysis:
Charley Wilkison, executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, attributed the rise in violent confrontations largely to increasingly aggressive suspects who refuse to cooperate with officers.

Officers are “facing a new kind of lawlessness,” he said, “a sense that police are not necessarily on the side of the public that’s being broadcast far and wide.”
The only problem with Charley's analysis is its utter falsity. Far from a "new kind of lawlessness," crime in America has declined overall since 2005 and police are safer on the job today than they've been in many decades. The folks who collect your garbage are much more likely to die on the job. Indeed, the recent tragedy in Dallas makes it easy to forget that most on-the-job police deaths stem from traffic accidents, exacerbated by an officer culture that disdains seat belt use.

No, with arrests and crime both declining, and with the increase in shootings predating Ferguson and Black Lives Matter, one can't reasonably blame negative publicity for increased police shootings. I've never understood that whole Ferguson-effect argument, anyway: The claim seems to be that cops feel unfairly blamed for misconduct and this causes them to misbehave, fail to do their jobs, shoot more people, or something. The meme morphs with every iteration and comes off as more of an excuse than a valid reason. Since when does being criticized excuse poor performance? Perhaps instead the criticism results from poor performance, coupled with a staunch refusal to accept responsibility? That reasoning seems just as likely.

Brandi's story runs through several hypotheses besides Charley's to explain the data, but none of them strike me as especially convincing. A Dallas attorney rightly blamed legal precedents that shield bad cops and departments from liability: “There is no legal incentive for a municipality to have a policy that discourages lethal force in certain instances.” I agree, but that was equally true before 2005.

Another suggested reason was law enforcement training: "Some law enforcement experts and lawyers attribute the increase to lax police training that fails to teach officers how to de-escalate sensitive situations. They also contend there is little accountability for officers who kill in the heat of the moment." Again, there's  little doubt that's true. But I'm not sure training changed substantially over that period, so it's unclear how much explanatory value that has.

Grits has a few gut-reaction thoughts on why shootings by police spiked, though these are mere hunches, not evidence-based assertions.

First, we must note that it's possible the recent rise isn't particularly significant at all. Police shootings occur in such a small percentage of police-public interactions that these could be normal variations, not exemplary of a trend. We're dealing with extremely small numbers.

To the extent the increase does represent a meaningful trend, however, let's hypothesize other possible causes.

Could increased militarization of law enforcement equipment and training have anything to do with it? Military tactics have migrated to even the most common points of interaction with the "non-criminal suspect" population - traffic stops and event security. One recalls that Round Rock PD officers used "Points of Domination" techniques adapted from military methods when removing Slade Sullivan from his pickup face-first, resulting in his paralysis and ultimately his death. How widespread are such tactics and to what extent have they contributed to deaths in custody (besides Sullivan's)? ¿Quien sabe?

In a related development, might hiring preferences for Iraq and Afghan war veterans have infused law enforcement with new, young officers schooled in military approaches and conditioned by training and combat experience to shoot more quickly than perhaps is appropriate in peacetime settings?

Another thought: Could pro-police sentiments among the public after 9/11 have shielded police from accountability in ways that discouraged criticism or discipline of bad cops?

Or, here's one I seldom hear discussed: Perhaps increased access to criminal history records contributed to the trend? One of the biggest changes to front-end policing in the last ten years has been expanded access to real-time criminal history data. A police officer who pulled someone over at a traffic stop 15 years ago might assume a driver was guilty of nothing other than running a stop sign or driving 50 in a 40. Today, that officer may know before they even get out of the car whether a driver has a prior criminal record. And that knowledge could influence how they approach the stop, making them more prone to be nervous and jumpy. Texas has dinged millions of people with criminal convictions in recent decades. The vast majority are otherwise indistinguishable from anyone else until the moment the officer runs their plates or checks their drivers licenses. Has that added knowledge needlessly amped up some encounters? It would only take a few to explain these data.

Who knows? I'm spitballing here. It's difficult to imagine an explanation which fits the timeline. Readers should take a look at Brandi's article and use the comment section to suggest other possible explanations for the rise in shootings by police since 2005. Perhaps y'all will think of reasons Grits hadn't considered.


-b9 said...

You ask why? Here's why: "You can't handle the Truth!!!" -Jack Nickolson:

Lemme fill-you-up withe efficacious epiphany, the avant-gardness and necessary wisdom to achieve Heaven, girl, if ya desire Heaven (many dont, preferring to stay 'laissez-faire' [i dont care] till death).

If 'freedom lies in being bold' (Robert Frost), doesn't pushing-the-envelope also result in the Elysian Fields of Utopia? And if I'm the sower, we plant the Seed; if I'm an artist, we RITE the symphonies heard Upstairs ☆IF☆ we accept His lead withe orchestra...

Wanna find-out the fax, Jak, in a wurld fulla the 'power of cowards'? Wanna wiseabove to help a poor 'Plethora Of Wurdz' [POW!] which are look'n for a new home in thy novelty?? Yay!

Q: But [gulp] can anyone tell me the difference between K2/IQ? A: Nthn. In Heaven, we gitt'm both HA! Need a few more thots, ideers, wild wurdz (whoa, Nelly! easy, girl!) or ironclad iconoclasms?

VERBUM SAT SAPIENTI (Latin: words to [the] wise): As an ex-writer of the sassy, savvy, schizophenia we all go thro in this lifelong demise, I wanna help U.S. git past beavisNbutthed, o'er-the-Hillary, whorizontal more!ass! we're in and wiseabove to 'in fine sine fine' (Latin: in [the] End without End -Saint Augustine).

"This finite existence is only a test, son," God Almighty told me in my coma. "Far beyond thy earthly tempest you'll find tangible, corpulent eloquence". Lemme tella youse without d'New Joisey accent...

I actually saw Seventh-Heaven when we died: you couldn't GET!! any moe curly, party-hardy-endorphins, low-hanging-fruit of the Celestial Paradise, extravagantly-surplus-lush Upstairs (awww! baby kitties, too!!) when my beautifull, brilliant, bombastic girly passed-away due to those wry, sardonic satires...

"Those who are wise will shine as brightly as the expanse of the Heavens, and those who have instructed many in uprightousness as bright as stars for all eternity" -Daniel 12:3, NJB

Here's also what the prolific, exquisite GODy sed: 'the more you shall honor Me, the more I shall bless you' -the Infant Jesus of Prague.

Go gitt'm, girly. You're incredible. You're indelible. Cya Upstairs. I won't be joining'm in the nasty Abyss where Isis prowls
God blessa youse
-Fr. Sarducci, ol SNL

Anonymous said...

While there may be many more variables, I see the increase caused by a number of things and are listed below in no particular order - unless noted.

Increased usage of smart phones, increased media coverage and criticism, second guessing by many prior to the completion of an investigation, and the advent of social media HAS fostered an environment where many feel they do not need to COMPLY with officers and thus confrontations occur. In many instances individuals seek a confrontation - for what reasons, I'm not sure, but can only guess. While I have no problems with smart phones (videos), officer accountability, or media coverage; forming a judgement that a shooting (or encounter where force was used) was or wasn't legally justified before all the facts/evidence is examined only compounds the problem. COMPLIANCE goes a long way and that seems to be one of the biggest variables lost in this discussion.

Statesments by Obama play a role. I recall Obama stating "that the Cambridge police acted stupidly" when all the facts were generally not known of the Harvard professor's arrest. Both the officer and professor could have done things differently in that 2009 encounter, but statements from the president play a huge role. Making an informed statement is always best when millions will hear that informed statement.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@1:52, your comments are almost weirder than 1:51's! "Statements by Obama play a role" in why Texas police officers are shooting more people? Really? And smart phones are making people more uppity, forcing police to shoot them? Is that your hypothesis?


Anonymous said...

"It's Obama's fault!" Give it a rest, please. The cop in Cambridge (Crowley) set up the professor (Gates) using a common police tactic. Draw him outside of his home while the citizen is pissed and ranting over your conduct and it then becomes disorderly conduct.

As for forming a judgement, let's talk about "the rest of the story" and the Paul Harvey used to say. It's the department that decides not to put out any information unless, of course, it benefits themselves or their officers. Then they continue to stall releasing information knowing that the case will fall off the radar. They have arranged laws that preclude them from releasing some information and they have signed contracts with police unions to conceal information. They have stacked the deck against the community from really knowing what was actually happening in police-involved shooting.

Don't blame the messenger for the climate created by the police themselves.

Anonymous said...

1:52PM here.

Never said "it's Obama's fault". A year from now, be it Hillary or Donald, makes the same (series of) ill informed, often (pre) judge mental statements, I'll say the same as a president's opinion/message carries weight, even in Texas.

As stated at 1:52PM, there are many variables to include: social media, smart phones, and increased media coverage. Nearly everyone has a smart phone capable of video recording events and instantly posting those on the Internet. I'm for accountability. Social media like Facebook and Twitter allow folks to share and often draw conclusions...not a bad thing. While these things don't force police to shoot folks; they (amongst other things) embolden some individuals, for a variety of reasons, so that they feel they do not have to COMPLY with law enforcement. I can only speculate at the reasons for the emboldened (or confrontational) individuals, but I'm sure you (Grits) would probably take offense at a hypothesis that mentions those injured (or killed) in law enforcement encounters are responsible for their actions/conduct. NON-COMPLIANCE plays as role and is something that appears to never be adressed on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile in Baton Rouge today…. Wonderful timing, Grits.

My guess is that the shootings of officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge is not going to help the situation. If anything, I suspect officers across the country are now going to be even more on edge and likely to result to deadly force whenever there's an apprehension of danger.

As far as the reasons for the increase in numbers of shootings and the possible reasons therefore, my guesses would be the societal increase in methamphetamine use and possibly the use of synthetic marihuana. In addition, I suspect declining resources for mental health care could also be a contributing factor.

Anonymous said...

All the speculation is good for the ego and bias of the speculator, but is not justified knowledge. If you want a problem solved you must understand it's structure. Most of us like to jump to a conclusion and run off our mouth. A set of graphs with raw numbers and summary statistics seldom is sufficient to draw valid and reliable conclusions. My experience with applying statistics (mostly regression techniques) is that things are vastly more complicated that we would like to believe and there is a dynamic below the raw numbers. The most essential element is to let the data speak then continually question what it says. Human interactions are very complex, and answers will not come easy.

Anonymous said...

Why the increase, no accountability double standard for police.

But, I think in every police shooting where a officer shoots a citizen of the U.S. the officer should automatically be indicted and go to trial by jury only, without the option of forfeiture of the jury and no plea deal. This will prevent the prosecutors secret games with the GJ back room deals. Time for accountability to hold the officers responsible for their crimes. The system is rigged.

Anonymous said...

With the increased number of police officers comes an increased number of traffic stops. And since republicans constantly reduce the tax burdens on the wealthy, municipalities must fund government with the proceeds from citations issued during these stops. Many drivers have had about all they're willing to take and it's showing in their hostility towards cops. Another obvious reason is the hiring practices of departments who are unable to fill positions with qualified applicants so they scrape the bottom of the barrel and have lowered the passing score on psych tests to accommodate less qualified officers. Several of the recent high-profile killings involved cops who obviously had psychological issues which would have prevented their hiring back before 1995.

Anonymous said...

"NON-COMPLIANCE plays as role and is something that appears to never be adressed on this blog."

LEO responses to non-compliance isn't the root cause of the public's lack of trust. The issue is inappropriate levels of force and the lack of transparency and accountability.

There are instances where belligerent, hostile, non-compliant individuals have to be taken into custody. Officers receive extensive training to ensure the level of escalation is appropriate for the circumstances.

I've seen many officers maintain their cool despite being punched, kicked, bitten, spit on, pissed on, feces thrown in their face, etc. And I've seen individuals get the s__t kicked out of them because the officer had a bad day, they didn't submit to the officers will, or didn't follow the officers directives fast enough, even though they were just a POI, had committed no discernable offense, and didn't have a clue why they were being stopped. Those are the issues that are being questioned.

How many non-compliant individuals have you subdued and taken into custody? There are a few officers that would enjoy the opportunity. The vast majority would not. BTDT

john said...

Excellent, thanks.
The main thing is CAMERAS catching the lying dirty cops killing us. AND THEY ARE TRAINED TO CLAIM THEY FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES. Thus, THEY MUST INCREASINGLY JUSTIFY THEIR WAR ON THE REST OF US; and until their is accountability from the top down, fuggeddaboud it. Cops will mostly do their jobs, and when they are sent out to harass (I can't breathe) or ticket OR PUNISH, then we'll keep dying, increasingly. And I do think you're right about the rest, including increased militarization. While they might need it to fight at the Mexican border, they shouldn't be allowed to use it on citizens. (Keep in mind, those millions of brain-stunted NRA members only have pistols and rifles--and they're mostly afraid to use them, which would then cause a mass government attack, for fear they lose control over the peasants.) Cops were never supposed to act like Bailiffs (who probably also weren't supposed to act that way.) I'm deterred, I'm terrified, I'm chilled, I FEAR FOR MY LIFE. The COPS & GOV arrogance FAR EXCEEDS THEIR COMPETENCE.

Anonymous said...

Served on a police review board. We know that better training leads directly to reductions in the number of deadly force incidents. We know that high profile incidents lead to more reviews which lead to more training. But Grits doesn't believe the reverse of this is true--that when training stays static, an increase in deadly force can be explained. I'm ok with this type of speculation as long as we don't set aside what is known and proven to reduce the phenomena ragardless of its current level.

Between 2005 & 2015, officer's had greater access to shooting justification information because nationwide shooting rates mirror what is occurring in Texas. Most states have exceptionally broad law enforcement exceptions to their open record laws. As another poster noted, these are used to cause the public to lose interest in cases.

I would suggest that what the trend shows is increased efficiency from performing business as usual. Incidents are dispatched quickly: investigators work faster, the stories of officers who are exonerated proliferate, the information churns and cops now believe they have wide latitude to shoot anyone who doesn't obey them. Efforts to tighten federal civil rights laws have failed so that officers must be proven to have shot someone while at the same time contemplating that their actions violate the precise statute. Basically, what I'm saying is that the culture of what it means to be a police officer has thoroughly incorporated the Garner v Tennesee and Graham v Connor implications that to get off from a shooting, you say you were afraid for your life or others. If you forget that, there's a whole community around you not subject to public information access or accountability that will walk you through the process. Why did Chipotle grow? Repeatable outcomes. Why did police shootings grow? Repeatable outcomes.

So that's my take. But have no illusion: if you want to change the trend, you have to increase training. That only happens when the public gets whipped up by high profile incidents doggedly pursued by, forced transparency. Basically, the chiefs of police set their own culture and if they defeat accountability, they rarely pursue increased training.

Anonymous said...


1:52 did have an argument with "increased usage of cell phones", but not the best one. How often does an officer encounter a suspect that has a small black shiny item in their hands? At it a phone or is it a gun, and why didn't the suspect drop it when ordered? From a distant, they may be indistinguishable.

The confused suspect knows it's only a phone, thus doesn't immediately disposed of it, and the jumpy cop assumes the worst.

Unknown said...

One interesting thing I noticed in looking at the chart on "how they die" is that the number of deaths NOT in one of the three listed categories (homicide, suicide, overdose) has spiked in 2014 and especially 2015. It looks like about 40 deaths in 2015 do not fit into one of the three categories listed. In prior years, it's usually about 10. It would be interesting to know how all those people died during arrest in 2015 that was NOT homicide, suicide, or overdose.

JJ said...

Law enforcement is trained to fear. Have no doubt about that. The phrase "fear" is in every use of force affidavit you'll ever read. EVERY one. This somewhat flies in the face of the idea that police are intentionally going into harms way to intervene, right? Welcome to the paradox. Intentionally placing ones self in a situation in which imminent fear is the result, usually resulting in a use of force encounter more often than not causing injury or the inherent likelihood of serious bodily injury.

Those two variables do not mesh. Oil and water. You don't throw water on a grease fire, yet that's what police are going to do going forward, even after these horrible tragedies across the nation for both sides. They're going to throw water on that grease fire because that's all they know. Rinse, wash, repeat. Just a nasty, perverted cycle of cause and effect.

We're going down a swiftly destructive path every day. Very worrisome.

Anonymous said...


6:40 here.

Completely agree with you. I've thought the entire BLM movement was a slow motion train wreck. They never really studied the problem or its causes just labeled all of it racism. Well, now instead of battling the true causes, you have to defeat racism--how do you reform that? Transfer power to review boards, give then extra-judicial powers. Well wait a second, how does the current criminal justice system separate powers and duties? No clue. How do you translate your demands into new legislation? No clue. But, because anger trumps reason, let's start putting these people on CNN. (when the red light goes on, feel free to be your angry self). Look at their website. No reforms but they are transgender affirming. Then you have President Obama never missing an opportunity to portray each shooting as essentially the product of "deeply seated racial disparities" which is consumed en mass as unfair shootings will result in unfair exonerations. Basically, his remarks served to discredit the current system.

I'm cynical because I thought the BLM had a chance to do something. They got enough press to push for reasonable reforms. But it just turned into a hate fest and now that things have gotten out of hand, I don't see how the genie goes back in the bottle.

This should be a case study in lack of leadership.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@7:10, I heard a first report of the Baton Rouge shootings about 45 minutes after hitting "publish" on this post, by which time I was out for the day. I suppose it's unfortunate timing, but the truth is, now is when we have to have these conversations, while we are hurting. If you wait a week or two, there's another shooting, and then how long do you wait? Tragedies aren't going to cease just so we can debate the topic in some phony, pristine realm of reason and calm. I wish it were otherwise.

@8:09, you seem to have plenty of ego for both of us. I agree the data is limited and doesn't tell us much, which why my first observation was that it may be premature to draw conclusions because the dataset was so small. OTOH, if you do regression, then you know that that requires hypotheses to test. I'm suggesting some and seeking others, then we can look for evidence for or against in the data. I'm can't tell exactly what your complaint is about that.

@5:16, I wouldn't "take offense" at such an hypothesis, but I might ask you to explain why, when total arrests have been declining and thus suspects have fewer points of contact with cops, more people would be behaving in ways that encourage cops to shoot them? What do you think changed during this period to cause the increase?

@11:12, part of Brandi's story was that traffic stops have declined remarkably during this period. I've reported on this at some length.

@6:40, your comment reaches a larger point worth making about training. We don't know if training has been static or what changes there have been. The answers differ for each department and in Texas there are more than 2,000 of them. Maybe the changes has been more training that has "thoroughly incorporated the Garner v Tennesee and Graham v Connor implications that to get off from a shooting, you say you were afraid for your life or others." If cops are being trained how to avoid accountability, I agree it's possible that could alter their decision making in the field.

That's why I don't think the answer is just "increased training." Not if that means the sort of training you lament, or the militarized training regimens we've seen popping up. (The links on that in the post are from Round Rock and Minnesota.) We need to understand if and how training has changed to know its contribution to the (possible) trend. Changes going forward should a) emphasize de-escalation and b) replace the regressive stuff. Not just more training but better training, with the goal of minimizing use of force in mind.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@10:41, I was writing my last comment when yours came up.

Check out Campaign Zero from BLM. I think that belies the argument that they don't have a concrete agenda. They do. But neither their critics nor the media ever focus on that stuff. I could offer many organizational criticisms of BLM, but unlike Occupy Wall Street, for example, a failure to articulate reasonable policy goals is not one of them.

Anonymous said...

Officers don't get paid to be "punched, kicked, bitten, spit on, pissed on, feces thrown in their face, etc" which are assaultive offenses and non-compliance.

Training keeps being preached on this thread, but training for every possible variable is impossible. You have at least two sets of personalities (suspect(s) and officer(s)) and usually a call for service (reactive) reporting some sort of activity or suspected crime...sure some encounters are proactive traffic stops. The encounter can usually be peacefully and quickly resolved by compliance. Compliance is not being best friends or telling each other your life's story; it can be obeying simple requests such as identifying one's self or moving out of the street. If an arrest occurs, compliance or lacks thereof, dictates the next course of events. Misinterpretations will occur (object in hand being cell phone, but believed to a weapon, etc.), but those can somewhat be mitigated by compliance...drop the damn phone when told to.

Unknown said...

Theories of why the increase:
There is a fair amount of evidence that racial resentment has flared since 2008 - both the financial crisis and a black president played into white resentment, and if I'm reading the graphs right, the overrepresentation in black deaths at police stops is pretty significant then. Maybe there's some implicit bias at work in the shoot/don't shoot decision that was exacerbated by those factors. [For anyone reading, please note that this is implicit bias, not something that is necessarily conscious on any level.]

Another thought: have gun ownership rates increased in Texas over that time? Are they perceived to have risen by police? I certainly saw a lot of stories about "Obama coming for your guns" then leading to spikes in gun purchases, but I'm unclear on whether the increased purchases actually increased gun ownership percentages. If police are more worried about everyone having a gun, then that perception of danger could lead to pulling the trigger more quickly.

Its hard to see many patterns in deaths by police department in the graphs you present, but I wonder if a more sophisticated analysis could pinpoint some patterns there. If, for instance, most of the small town police departments started using some of the same trainers, and that's where much of the deaths were occurring, that could account for some of the increase.

Anonymous said...

Grits -

5:16PM here.

Certain invidividuals appear to be emboldened by social media, regular media, statements by elected officials, being fed up (or emboldened) with the media focusing on minority related shootings and the likelihood to either receive their one minute of fame or a possible pay day from encounters with the police that go south. While I'd say that the vast majority have no desire to be shot/killed; the mindset of many has changed to where compliance is no longer needed/considered and to a point of civil disobedience.

During the generic timeframes in question, smart phones and social media have exploded in usage allowing for messages, opinions, and videos to be shared quickly and all over. While I support social media and I have a smart phone, these along with more recent statements by elected officials that generally second guess law enforcement encounters that go south before all facts are known, help create or foster an environment of non-compliance for some.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@11:16, only suspects can choose whether to comply. Are you saying there's literally nothing police can do on their end?

Good thoughts, Brennan. Definitely true cops' perceptions these days in TX are that guns are ubiquitous.

@11:39, I don't see the connection you're drawing between smart phones and noncompliance. Generally it's not the people using phones to videotape police being noncompliant, it's a suspect they're filming being beaten, shot, etc.. I see no causal connection between filming police and misconduct, increased shootings, etc., and in fact there's pretty good evidence filming police reduces misconduct and unjustified use of force.

1SG said...

A good history lesson on the tactics used by the police is in order. Go to this link:

I am a retired disabled combat vet. You fight as you train.

Louis Akin said...

I have reconstructed many police shooting scenes in which officers shot people when they did not have to do so. I refer to those instances as Excuse Shootings. They include incidents in which an officer has an excuse, rather than an immediate need, to shoot a person. If the person has any kind of weapon on or near them, if they are emotionally disturbed (ED), or if there is any other reason an officer can say he, or she, was scared, it often results in an Excuse Shooting and the officer continues on with his career. Many and probably most other officers would not shoot in the same circumstance. It is a subjective test based on how easily an officer gets scared. That's the wrong test. As the commenter above said, "You fight as you train." Police training is at the heart of the Officer Involved Shooting incidents.
Crime Scene Analyst.

jmaddeninsurance said...


Interesting article where data could certainly be used on some of your thoughts. What would the number have been if we just took into account population growth. That would not cover all of the gain but it could account for some of it. Also data could be obtained on what information the officer had on the suspect. Did the police know the suspect had a significant record or not. You could also get information on the age of the officer and time in service. Were they young officers or older more tenured officers. Also you could probably get data on the prior military service of the officers involved.
Your ideas as always are interesting and stimulating.

thelawproject said...

There is a tangible tip of the iceberg here which hasn't gotten any play on your site: The GILEE and it'd ilk that are entrenched in training on every level of law enforcement. They are the Third Rail for various reasons, not just the nebulous, purely speculative reasons for the aggressive stance of Law Enforcement. It's a social experiment, quasi Co-Intel clone that is using Minority Groups ans us Poor White Folk as a Petri dish....

Anonymous said...

Next time you're getting robbed or the shit beat out of you, call a garbage man.

Mark M. said...

And the point of your comment is? That is, if there is an actual point. Please don't feed the trolls.

The Old Skool Preacher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Old Skool Preacher said...

Until the police culture change, i.e. policies, more transparency in their performance duty, until and only until officers are willing to cross the ‘’thin blue line’’ to weed out the bad cops, stop lying on public documents, all cop killings in my book are ‘’justifiable homicides’’.

BarkGrowlBite said...

Some of the comments make it appear that cops get up in the morning eager to shoot the first person that gives them an excuse. The last thing most cops want to do is shoot someone, but they also want to return home rather than to hospital or to the morgue in a body bag.

I was involved in training officers during my career. Training is important, but I doubt if it has much of an effect in reducing police shootings. Los Angeles has increased its training every time there has been a questionable shooting incident with a public outcry, but the number of police shootings continue to increase. The problem is that all that classroom training does not compute with a street confrontation.

There is no doubt that some police shootings are unjustified. But they are few and far between. There are 800,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S. Every day there are several hundred thousand interactions between cops and citizens, with the overwhelming majority not being newsworthy.

During my years in law enforcement I was shot at twice, but under the circumstances at the time, we had no target for return fire. In both cases the shooter was inside a trailer home.

While there are so few police shootings, you would think there is an epidemic of them what with the media coverage.

And for those of you who hate cops, calling for that garbage man when you are being robbed or having the shit kicked out of you is not a bad idea.

Anonymous said...

One thing we know for an absolute, undeniable certainty is that if almost 40,000 pedophiles slipped through the hiring process, then its anyone's guess as to how many murderers were also hired:

No one can argue that every single death is justified when there are that many badged pedophiles.

Anonymous said...

More crazy comments from the FB troll/devotee aside, if we want fewer shootings, additional training needs to be directed at those groups showing a propensity to point guns at police officers, reach into areas without being told to on traffic stops, and to otherwise follow orders then complain later if they feel they were wronged.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like compliance goes a long way.

Anonymous said...

Damn, that's an incredible amount of cops who been messing with kids. Why isn't that better publicized?

Anonymous said...

"without being told to on traffic stops".....I'm pretty sure the police stopped you not the other way would be illegal to tell someone where to reach in the car they own.

Anonymous said...

It is not a numbers game as PIGs try to turn it into, it only takes one to be wrong. PIGs have shot innocent unarmed citizens and not been charged with murder. That is problem PIGs commit murder.

BarkGrowlBite said...

"Damn, that's an incredible amount of cops who been messing with kids. Why isn't that better publicized?"

Because it's a lot of horseshit!

And Anon 11:44:00 PM - You are beneath contempt.

Anonymous said...

bgb,what difference does it make when PIG's are not prosecuted for murder they damn sure are not going to be prosecuted for sodomizing!

Anonymous said...

Your keyboard makes you a tuff guy. No need to disparage anybody on here.

Anonymous said...

Horseshit? I've been perusing that page for the past two hours and it's completely factual with links to the actual story on trusted news sites (some even on FOX). I can't imagine how the moderators of that page could better document convictions of pedophile officers. And I don't understand why it's not better publicized but my guess is that police officers would raise hell and intimidate any news outlet which tried to publicize it. Those numbers are frightening and would force the public to reconsider the way candidates are vetted to work in the field of law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

The next time! LMAO. You PIGs really think you are needed. Sam Colt has the cure all.

Anonymous said...

not the first time this has come up. a major university did a study, police have a higher rate of pedophiles than the general public, whatever the number is the general information is correct.

Anonymous said...

because there are a lot of law breaking assholes out there.

Anonymous said...

3:35, that wear blue!

Anonymous said...

Why are police not charged with murder?

Anonymous said...

I have been pulled over plenty of times during the past 50 years and have learned that if you keep your trap shut, show that you are courteous and at least somewhat educated as you show your driver's license and registration your problems will be minimized and you might even not get the speeding ticket you deserve. Loud mouthed S*!#house lawyers deserve what they get. Yes, some cops can be small dicked, redneck OR ghetto idiots on a power trip but then again a lot of drivers are the same and so things can get out of hand. By the way, out of all the blacks killed last year how many were shot by black or hispanic cops? Is it true that more whites are killed by cops than blacks? How many cops were killed last year by whites-----blacks-------Hispanics

Run the numbers that the media doesn't dare talk about since THAT doesn't feed the agenda of the puppetmasters.

Anonymous said...

Cops get away with murder and will continue to do so, until enough people demand otherwise. They quickly learn the magic words to cover their misconduct "officer safety." They demand the public respect them and the job they do ... or else. Respect can't be forced, it must be earned. And it can't be earned by covering up for each other -- police need to police themselves -- or pretty soon their profession will be right up there with lawyers.

Here's part of a blog about a New Braunfels cop caught lying in court that I found on Susan Schoon's website ( I check her website regularly for an update to see if this cop gets charged with perjury (or patted on the back!) Scary.

...Recently I filed a motion to suppress evidence in a case because I believed the officer obtained the drug evidence by violating the law. The Judge agreed with me, and the evidence was suppressed and the case dismissed. The most appalling thing that occurred in that hearing, though, was that the officer was caught lying in his police report, his sworn affidavit, and during his testimony at the hearing (under oath). It is not that I am so na├»ve to believe that an officer won’t lie, it’s that we are rarely able to prove it. This time, though, I had solid proof and when confronted on the stand, he was backed into a corner, and had no choice but to admit it. Here’s the most concerning part, to me: the lying was unnecessary to his case. If he had told the truth, it would not have hurt his case at all. It could even be considered a minor detail. That, I believe, is what makes this officer dangerous. If he will lie about a detail that doesn’t even matter, why would we expect him to be honest about crucial, life-and-death matters. The worst case scenario for my client would have been probation. What if this officer is involved in a case for which the punishment is life in prison, or death? One of the many reasons bad cops are a big deal. As of this writing, I have turned over the transcript of the hearing to the Comal County District Attorney to review for potential prosecution for aggravated perjury. We’ll see if Jennifer Tharp agrees that it is a big deal.