17
   

I saw a white man with a gun. I heard a policeman saying, "Place the weapon down on the ground, ple

 
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 05:29 pm
@giujohn,
Yeah, because cops always make sure there are witnesses. And relatives are never afraid of police retaliation, particularly if they are illegal immigrants.

If you're going to rely on insults every time you write something could you at least learn to spell?



FBM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 06:04 pm
@giujohn,
You might have taken the time to read that a little more thoroughly:

Quote:
DESIGN AND APPROACH
The IACP software provides an automated data capture system for local departments to
analyze their specific uses of force and force-related complaints. The program makes
the data collection software available free of charge to any interested department.
Three types of records may be contributed to the project: Summary Records include
descriptive statistics of community and department demographics, types of use of force
policies in effect and absolute numbers of force-related incidents and complaints.
Individual Incident data consists of detailed records of specific incidents, which can
include statistical data on the involved officer(s), subject(s), and third party(ies). Finally,
Complaint Records provide data on force-related complaints and their outcomes.
From the universe of software recipients, a smaller proportion contributes actual data to
the project. Because data contributions are self-initiated at the local level, completely
voluntary, and preclude any identifying information, the aggregate responses can be
considered a self-selected sample of the law enforcement community. Originally, seven
pilot states, through their respective State Associations of Chiefs of Police and the
support of the IACP SACOP Division, contributed data to the project: Arkansas, New
Jersey, New York, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington (state), and the U.S.
Border Patrol. More recently, the states of Illinois, Rhode Island, Missouri, Maryland,
Kentucky, as well as the District of Columbia have also provided data support.


Voluntary reporting of data a few local jurisdictions hand-pick to report, with only a handful of volunteering departments from a handful of states participating, most of them with mostly rural populations. Not every representative of much of anything. Try again.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 06:15 pm
Right there on page 2:

Quote:
Table 1
DATA CONTRIBUTIONS BY TYPE OF AGENCY
1999-2000
AGENCY TYPE PERCENT TOTAL
CONTRIBUTIONS – 1999
PERCENT TOTAL
CONTRIBUTIONS – 2000
Federal 0% 2%
State Police 14% 1%
County Police 14% 6%
Municipal Police 67% 81%
Sheriffs Department 0% 5%
Special Purpose 5% 5%
Totals 100% 100%


Practically no participation on the federal level, where dozens of departments have their own SWAT teams now. State and county police show minimal participation. The study basically shows what's happening only at the municipal level, which is the lowest administrative level with the least power. Municipal police are just preventive maintenance police. They don't get out there in the thick of things. Phht. What a waste of time to even publish it.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 06:26 pm
We're talking about nationwide militarization of the police, the dramatic rise in unnecessarily violent SWAT raids by state and federal agencies, and you're giving us reports on little Barney Fife-level jurisdictions that don't even allow their officers to use MACE:
Quote:

II. USE OF FORCE POLICIES – PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
Since the inception of the IACP project in 1995, contributing departments have
demonstrated an increase in the numbers and types of departmental policies used to
regulate and manage police use of force. The continued use of less than lethal force
can be tracked by department policies governing their use, as well as by the number
and types of incidents in which they are used. For example, in 1998, 87% of all
reporting departments did not allow the use of MACE by officers. This was up from 70%
of reporting departments in 1996.
In contrast, 97% of responding departments
approved the use of resin (OC products) during the same period, up from 82% of
respondents in 1996. Complete policy data can be found in Appendix B.


This is a red herring, anyway. Nobody is worried about the use of force in general. It's often justified. We're only interested in unjustified, excessive use of force, which that study does not address. Useless red herring.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 06:29 pm
@hingehead,
Quote:
If you're going to rely on insults every time you write something could you at least learn to spell?


o-k- d-u-m-b-a-s-s
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 06:40 pm
@giujohn,
Now that feels better doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 06:56 pm
@FBM,
Quote:

Voluntary reporting of data a few local jurisdictions hand-pick to report, with only a handful of volunteering departments from a handful of states participating, most of them with mostly rural populations. Not every representative of much of anything.


Yeah hold the phone cherry picker...

You left this out:

Since project inception (1995), a total of 564 agencies have provided
anonymous and voluntary use of force incident/complaint data to the
IACP. This data consists of 45,913,161 calls-for-service, 177,215
use of force incidents and 8,082 use of force-related citizen
complaints. The IACP utilizes this data to craft annual use of force
updates for the law enforcement community, the media, and the public.
A detailed summary of data contributions by data year is presented in
Table 2 (on page 3).

Data contributed for the years 1991–2000 represent a population of
149,940,551; 45,913,161 calls-for-service; 177,215 use of force incidents;
and 8,082 use of force complaints.

As a work in progress, the IACP National Police Use of Force Database has
always had the ultimate goal of presenting a nationally representative picture
of police and subject use of force in America. There are two basic ways to
approach this goal. The first is to receive use of force data from a
representative sample of reporting departments. Sampling theory suggests
that a statistically valid sample should consist of no less than 10% of a given
population. At that rate, this project would require data contributions from
1,700 departments in order to construct a sample, which is nationally
representative of police departments nationwide.
The second method is to achieve national representation in terms of the
civilian population represented by comparing the combined jurisdictions of the
contributing departments, to the total civilian population of the United States.
The United States Census Bureau data from the 2000 Census puts the
population of the United States at 281,421,906. The sum of jurisdiction sizes
reported to the IACP for the year 2000 was 81,710,260. Thus, the IACP use
of force data for the year 2000 represents approximately 30% of the
entire US population.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 07:02 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Municipal Police 67% - 81%


From yore previous post:
Quote:
most of them with mostly rural populations


****...now your contradicting your own posts.

Give it up dumb ass, I just probvided you with hard cold facts that prove you're full of ****.
If you find yourself in a sand hole, stop digging

FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 07:14 pm
@giujohn,
It's still irrelevant, because it's
a) a study of all kinds of use of force, not the unjustified sort that this thread is about, and
b) it's voluntary reporting, not objective. Police are free to report what they want to report, are under no obligation to fully disclose and have no ostensible motivation to report any unjustified use of force committed by themselves.

It's a structurally flawed red herring.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 07:18 pm
@giujohn,
Most of the states that participated have predominately rural populations. Are you saying that rural states don't have municipalities? If so, then that means that the vast majority of that data had to come from just New York, which is hardly representative of the whole US.

Regardless, it's a structurally flawed red herring. That study does not even address the problem that this thread is about. Try again.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 07:36 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
study of all kinds of use of force, not the unjustified sort that this thread is about


Wrong again Chicken Little:



Between 1994 and 2000 there were 150,026 police use of force incidents reported to the project nationally by departments who also contributed accompanying complaints (as of April 2001). Of these, 750 incidents resulted in citizen or department originated complaints of excessive use of force that were subsequently sustained as alleged. Thus, the percentage of excessive use of force during the reporting period was 0.42%
of the total incidents
. This calculates to a rate of 42 instances of excessive use of forceper 10,000 incidents.

Sounds like they were unjustified to me!

Quote:
and have no ostensible motivation to report any unjustified use of force committed by themselves.


Wrong again Chicken Little
You left out one salient point...all the submissions were anonymous


Further more Mr. Racisit:

What are the racial characteristics of use of force incidents?
From 1995 to 2000 there were 8,148 reported incidents in which the
contributors included racial descriptors for both the involved officers
and subjects. Of this total, 3,169, or 39% involved white officers using
force on white subjects, 3,622, or 44% involved white officers using force on African American subjects, 585, or 7% involved African American officers using force on African American subjects and 277, or 3.4% involved African American officers using force on white subjects. Data for officer use of force by race is presented in Table 19 (on page 22). Specific data on inter vs. intra racial officer/subject force incidents
is presented in Table 48 (on page 45).


Seems like it's evenly divided to me!

I NOTICE IN YOUR VIDEO POSTS YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO FOCUS ON BLACK OFFENDERS...WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS WITH WHITE OFFENDERS MR. RACIST?

Face it...you're just full of crap...c'mon just admit it...you'll feel much better.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 07:48 pm
@giujohn,
Anonymous, voluntary, unverifiable, etc etc. They could just as well pull some figures out of their ass and nobody would know the difference. There's no oversight at all. That's not how a credible study is done. The margin of error on self-reported, self-selected data without oversight would be astronomical.

Structurally flawed red herring. Find something specifically about excessive use of force in which police data are independently verified and submitted for analysis. We went over this just a page or three back. There is a program for collecting such data, but police are under absolutely no obligation to participate in it, and there's no way to verify the data supplied by those few who do. That's why the results are grossly unreliable. Pay attention to the thread. We've been over this already.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 07:55 pm
@FBM,
If the study came from on high written on stone tablets you'd still squawk Chicken Little...it's what ya do.

What you're really saying is that the ICPA made it up...nows who's looking for conspiracies?
Why oh why didnt the ICPA cook the numbers to make themselves look even better? Where is the rebuttal from a source aligned with nuts like you?
(or do you speak for all the crack pots?)
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 08:12 pm
@giujohn,
Please pay attention this time. Here are experts talking specifically about the availability and quality of credible data with regards to police brutality/use of force:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/daily-show-police-civilian-shootings
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 08:31 pm
@FBM,
Ok let me get this straight... I give you a credible study and you counter with a comedy central skit for the daily show?????


Get the **** outta here! Ya got nothing!
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 08:33 pm
@giujohn,
There are some problems with that attempt at statistical analysis. If you have a true random sample then you might only need 10%. A survey that only uses submissions by those willing to respond is not a random sample. As such it should never be used to extrapolate any data beyond just those that responded.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 08:34 pm
@parados,
Good conclusion.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 08:35 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

Ok let me get this straight... I give you a credible study and you counter with a comedy central skit for the daily show?????


Get the **** outta here! Ya got nothing!


I've demonstrated thoroughly how your data are anything but credible and backed that up with expert testimony.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 08:36 pm
@parados,
Yup. Good point.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 08:39 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
I've demonstrated thoroughly how your data are anything but credible and backed that up with expert testimony.

With a skit from comedy central...RIIIIIGHT!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:44:12