Who is really at fault for police/criminals shootings?
We need uniform record keeping on all shootings by our police and by the criminals.
Half on the country is going up against the police because of the shootings (Mob protesting).
Half of the country is going up against the criminals because of the shootings (People like yours truly).
It has come to my attention that our government is the real “BAD GUYS as usual!”
From Halifax Media Group.
Transparency — full, fair investigation and tracking, is the right response to fatal law enforcement encounters.
Objective incident reviews and careful evidence gathering should be standard in all such cases, with results compiled in a nationwide database.
The information can build trust and help find that hard-to-achieve balance point between restraint and use of force.
We need better understanding of officer-involved shootings
When a tragic event happens, we try to learn from the experience. We study the how’s and whys, search for repeating patterns, attempt to figure out where things went wrong, and use that information to prevent such tragedies in the future.
But when it comes to the divisive subject of police fatal shootings, the nation is neglecting an important learning opportunity. It is failing to maintain a thorough database of these complex episodes, leaving experts unsure even of how many occur each year in the United States.
According to The Washington Post, an independent researcher counted more than 600 cases of officers fatally shooting individuals in the line of duty in 2011. But the U.S. Justice Department’s database — widely acknowledged as incomplete — covers only about 460. Reporting, from thousands of local law enforcement agencies around the country, is largely voluntary.
The information gap makes it difficult to fully analyze these events, foster accountability, and draw up data-driven best practices on crime-fighting, use of force, mental health intervention and more. Additional data also might help enlighten public dialogue, defusing the intense controversy surrounding some of these shootings.
A more complete national database would help illuminate the many causes of officer-involved shootings, which are much in the news in the wake of a grand jury’s decision not to indict a white policeman in the death of a black 18-yearold in Ferguson, Mo. Other cities (New York, Washington and Cleveland among them at the moment) are wrestling with controversial cases as well. Though concerns of racial bias accompany many of these shootings, factors such as mental illness and confusion are involved in others.
It’s important to acknowledge that responding officers are thrust into unpredictable crises, nearly always shadowed by the possibility — thanks to the broad availability of guns — that their opponent will be armed. (Forty-four law enforcement officers were fatally shot in 2012, according to federally kept statistics; just last month in Florida, a Leon County deputy was killed.) Police also face situations in which a person is uncooperative, irrational, violent or suicidal. Because of these issues, use-of-force policies give considerable leeway to law enforcement officers, recognizing the high risk they face.
Use of lethal force is not without risk to the public, however. If bullets fly too soon, people can wind up dead or injured for too little cause. Policing strategies are needed that balance restraint with protection; a deeper national database — filled with real-life experience — could be useful in identifying them.
Ambiguity is often present in law enforcement- related shootings. Such cases leave lingering agony on all sides, for the deputies and for loved ones struggling to understand why a killing is deemed “justified.”
Transparency — full, fair investigation and tracking — is the right response to fatal law enforcement encounters. Objective incident reviews and careful evidence- gathering should be standard in all such cases, with results compiled in a nationwide database. The information can build trust and help find that hard-to-achieve balance point between restraint and use of force.