I'm not sure about entire departments, but for individual officers, it's not rare. Many if not most police officers never fire their weapon on duty for their entire careers.

For some perspective, there are around a million police officers in the US (https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=249).

A lot of police shooting incidents have made the national news in recent years, but I can think of tens of such incidents over a decade.

Police kill about 1000-1200 people per year in the U.S., depending on who's counting. See for example the Washington Post data. So it's not just tens over a decade.

First, that means ~99.9% of police officers in the US don't shoot someone, so that isn't rare, as the post I responded to suggested.

Second, I didn't say the police only kill tens of people over a decade, I said tens of incidents have made the national news. Only the noteworthy cases make the national news, which is kind of the point here. People's opinions are shaped by the most extreme incidents.

I think we should try to reform how policing is done to improve these issues. But I also don't think it's the crisis that our society has made it out to be recently.

> I think we should try to reform how policing is done to improve these issues. But I also don't think it's the crisis that our society has made it out to be recently.

Perhaps because you don't see yourself as being affected by said perceived crisis. For affected groups, it is very much the crisis it has been made out to be. Besides, shooting statistics are often symptoms of deeper issues that need addressing.

One thing is that the murderers are not punished. They are instead rewarded with paid leaves, pensions etc. The other thing is that police brutality isn't only about murder. There is assault, including sexual assualt. Most are not punished. Even if one gets sentenced, they might get out soon like this fellow.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/story/202...

It's not the deaths, per se. It's the entire structure around it that enables those deaths to happen, and prevents consequences for the killers.

IIRC, isn't the CDC forbidden by law from investigating all types of deaths by firearms?

The CDC WISQARS database contains fatal and non-fatal injuries for many different mechanisms, including firearms. The law you are thinking of is the "Dickey Amendment" which forbade the CDC from spending its budget advocating for gun control. It was named after Republican and galactic asshat Jay Dickey of Arkansas, who thankfully has been removed from influence over national politics by his much-awaited death in 2017. His idiotic law passed out of effect in 2018. Just before he died, in a meaningless act which did not redeem his evil life even slightly, he recanted and called for government funding of research into gun violence.

How would the CDC be allowed to advocate political positions contrary to the constitution, and without congressional approval? As far as I know, it's at least looked down upon when federal agencies advocate that sort of thing, even in roundabout ways.

Different training. Different level of accountability/liability/etc. Cops are not trained to deescalate, their are taught to have commanding control and respond aggressively. And they are trained to shoot to kill. They are also taught to fear a lot, the emphasis is on danger they are in.

And plus, this behavior is rewarded with promotions. And courts progressively removed legal obstacles to the above.

>...trained to shoot to kil.

There’s really not another option. Shoot to wound isn’t an option. You don’t shoot to kill, you shoot to neutralize the threat.

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/here-why-police-don-shoot-...

https://www.forcescience.org/2006/03/why-shooting-to-wound-d...

Shoot to wound is not an option in USA. Elsewhere it is literally trained and seen as option. And I am saying that cause I personally know non-American cop that has it as regular part of training.

There are also such options as shoot as warning, not shoot at all and generally use tactic that is less likely to create situation on which you have to shoot.

Shooting to warn is highly dangerous, you can't just discharge firearms in random, non-targeted directions.

Because criminals have alot of guns

That seems oversimplified. Do you have any data about the trends of gun possession by criminals or gun crime related to attacks on police?

There are also a lot of innocent people being shot too, or the visibility of it has increased.

Edit: also, could it be police are less trained or more fearful than in the past?

> I'm a highly educated individual, commonly read dense scientific works, philosophy, political science etc.

For a second, I thought you were going to mention MENSA. So do many of HN old guard. Appeal to authority isn't evidence; it's an opinion, and not even an expert opinion.

> threatens the law and order of a civilized nation

The US has the highest incarceration per capita on the planet (sans Seychelles), disproportionately imprisoning minorities. Consider the works and interviews by Chris Hedges, who teaches classes in prison. Many of his students are in for petty drug crimes. Furthermore, there are numerous aging inmates who were snared by the War on Drugs and in prison for no good reason. Remember, the WoD was explicitly used to target Nixon's perceived enemies: hippies and minorities. Then, (Nancy) Reagan decided it would be a good idea to go after drugs while simultaneously arming the Contras using cocaine, leading to the crack epidemic.

A sobering article to back up @logicslave's point https://www.city-journal.org/media-silence-on-black-on-black...

> George Floyd robbed a women by holding his gun to her pregnant stomach.

A quick DDG says this is an urban legend, or do you, Mr. "Highly educated individual, commonly read dense scientific works, philosophy, political science etc" know better?

And did those things you read justify the death he suffered? The cops didn't even know his past, and even if they did, so fucking what, their job isn't to judge someone to be worthy of death and then executing them...

But well, it's easy enough for people like you to find excuses that "those people were bad guys" who "deserved it", so you can sleep at night and not admit to yourself that maybe you're biased.

> Police are more frequently in life threatening situations. The demands on them to act perfectly are enormous.

The 4 fuckers had 9 minutes to change the situation and not end up being shit cops, with at least one of them rotting in jail because he was deemed to have broken the law (although maybe not in your book(s), Mr. Dunning Kruger?). Were they in a life threatening situation for those 9 minutes?

You got me to search on this - I used startpage - Only used the first three results..

I learned more about the situation than I had 'heard' before - so thanks for that. I do not think the 'undisputed' facts make the thing total 'urban legend' however.

It seems there is some questioning as to whether or not the girl was pregnant or not - even the places that seem to be trying to downplay the 'social media legend' - aka politifact giving a "false" because a wrong picture was being used on an instagram (meme?) - It seems that there is no debate that he (with others) forced into a home, and using a gun, threatened a couple of people and a toddler - at one point shoving a gun into the stomach of a woman - demanding to know where the money and drugs are.

I do not write this to justify anything - I am a seeker of truths, which more and more these days seem to elude 'both sides' of many discussions.

For what it's worth I wish things ended differently with the Floyd situation, and I think a majority of people on either side/any side also feel the same.

> I'm a highly educated individual, commonly read dense scientific works, philosophy, political science etc

And yet you wrote something as cringey as that.

> Adam Toledo was known in his neighborhood as "Lil Homicide”

Imagine having such a highly educated brain, filled with dense scientific works as well as philosophy, and using it to justify the murder of an unarmed 13 year old child by the state.

None of the examples you used in any way justify their death nor do they lend any evidence to the idea that systematic racism within the police force doesn’t exist.

Edit: to the person who replied saying that not liking kids being shot by the police is nothing but ‘the "woke" liberal "narrative" that is leaking onto HN’ then deleted their comment, seek help.

"George Floyd robbed a women by holding his gun to her pregnant stomach." Even if true, cops aren't supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner. Talk about threatening "law and order".

"Adam Toledo was known in his neighborhood as "Lil Homicide"" Even if you believe this, let's just kill all children with violent nicknames, eh?

I don't know why I bothered, when you opened your comment by boasting about your alleged intelligence. I hope you are never in a position to hurt anyone with your law and order.

>George FLoyd threatened to shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach

Snopes says it's not true; who (outside of right-wing faxlore) says it is?

What's it called when you believe something that matches your bias, even when it isn't true?

It's called "not being as intelligent as you claim to be in your opening comment" I believe.

Maybe you should base your opinions on data: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Violent crime in the USA has fallen dramatically in the last 20 years.

'If it is fact, not fiction, that violent street crime today is almost exclusively a minority phenomenon, then it would appear that one simply may not speak about it. That proscription injures law-abiding residents of high-crime areas most of all, people like the aunt of a child victim in St. Louis, who told the Washington Post in October: “I live in fear of living in St. Louis. I feel trapped.” Such citizens beg for more police protection and see the police as the only thing standing between them and anarchy.'

From https://www.city-journal.org/media-silence-on-black-on-black...

Maybe you should spend less time looking at government data and more time experiencing the streets.

https://youtu.be/QfCZqkpS4PA

Logicslave said: "Its my opinion that violent crime, and especially brazen violent crime is just flat out more common."

The data don't seem to support that.

Obviously violent crime still exists in the USA, and from my point of view in NZ the rates seem scarily high. That doesn't mean they haven't decreased.

@mkI In San Francisco where I am violent crime has absolutely exploded since theft under $950 per day has been reduced to a misdemeanor. Adding fuel to this fire are opioid addicts stealing to feed their habit, a toxic combination of extremely violent attacks coupled with endless petty crime. The big Walgreens drugstore chain Walgreens has closed ten stores in SF primarily due to rampant crime, with a lot of small retailers also closing to protect staff.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-def...

Except more harsh policing is not the answer to this, especially the opioid crisis. If you want to see less crime and drugs, you improve the conditions that lead people to crime and drugs and then increased social work when people do run afoul.

The current police system in the US does not do that, and the prison system is purely set up to incarcerate folks and then ensure they will fail when they get out so that they end up going back in because gotta grease the wheels of prison capitalism.

https://youtu.be/F2zt8XLh23g The activist and media agitator version of reality is very different to the banal every day disaster.

> The demands on them to act perfectly are enormous. There shouldn't be pressure to act, or take action, the preferred outcome should be to resolve the situation. Newark actually puts more pressure on the police with more detailed reporting, and more training including deescalation, where previously they had none.

It's quite clear a lot of American policing has problems, correct training, being over militarised, too powerful unions, being used for wrong situations, cutting budgets from things that actually reduce crime and increasing police budgets, inappropriate use of civil forfeiture to name just a few.

> law and order of a civilized nation. Law and order, well theres underlying fault with American policing right there, the law and order approach. Plenty of countries are civilized without the law and order approach eg Peelian.

Why keep posting lots of comments with the same arguments about why its not racism, and instead ask/comment on the article like why the approach used is working.

Were Adam Toledo, Duante Wright or George Floyd threatening anyone's life or liberty at the time of their deaths?