• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Point and Counterpoint Regarding Police Brutality - Which do you prefer?

Which position seems right to you?

  • Point: Sunil Dutta's "If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me."

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Counterpoint: Larry Womack's "They aren't enforcing the law, they are breaking it."

    Votes: 17 85.0%
  • Beer

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .

state hater

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
199
Location
new hampshire
Why are you questioning this conclusion? Have you any data supporting the contrary?

The statement in question: "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

Anecdotal "evidence" to the contrary isn't evidence at all. It's anecdote.

Even a large number of events to the contrary, even recorded on video, only supports the statement, if the number of events is but a tiny percentage of all events.

For example, let's say you managed to record 10,000 such events. Whoopee!

But let's examine that in the light of logical, reason, and rational analysis:

Given:

1. Let's temporarily assume you find evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality per year.

2. Briefings by the local police department report there are approximately 1,100 citizens in the U.S. for every police officer.

3. U.S. Census data reports there are 317 million citizens.

4. Do the math: 317,000,000/1,100 = 288,182 police officers.

5. Checking the math, the Bureau of Labor and Statics claims there are 780,000, not 288,181. Thus, the actual ratio is 406 to 1, not 1,100 to 1.

6. The average citizen interacts with law enforcement once every three years. Thus, there are 106 million interactions per year.

7. Out of 106 million interactions per year, you're holding up evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality.

8. Do the math: 10,000 / 106,000,000 * 100 = 0.009434%, or 1 event of police brutality for every 10,600 interactions.

One in 10,600.

THAT'S how I base this conclusion.

To be fair, the actual number of cases of police brutality are far, far less than 10,000 per year. In fact, here's a list of key cases for the last 60 years. It's a short list.

Even if you managed to find 10,000 cases each year, it would still come to just ONE case of brutality out of 10,600 interactions, lending tremendous credence to my statement, "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

The only way anyone could make any claim to the contrary is if they're incapable of doing basic math, or totally incapable of rational thought.

1557655_633528570015575_1996268806_n.jpg
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA

Gee, that was an intelligent response, state hater...

Not.

Police work for municipalities, run by elected politicians.

Municipalities are motivated by money, to maximize their tax revenue and minimize their expenses, as well as the long-term political aspirations of those politicians. Let's examine how that influences a police department's actions when it comes to policing their own:

A good police chief:

- In the eyes of the community, a good police chief takes care of his people on the force, but won't allow that duty to eclipse his overarching duty to enforce the law. Initial (academy) and ongoing training are handled well, with ethics as a strong component, and not an afterthought. Potentially bad cops are weeded out, first in the initial screening, but also throughout the time at the academy, their time as a rookie, and throughout their entire careers. Internal affairs investigations are handled objectively. Rules governing suspensions, discipline, dismissals, and preferring charges against criminal activity on the part of cops are followed to the letter, and decisions are made based on the facts, with sound reasoning and good judgement.

- In the eyes of the the mayor or city council, a good police chief is one who runs his department in such a way that it has the appearance of the previous description, not only to help the council members obtain reelection, but also to entice the higher-quality (wealthy) future residents and businesses. Politicians also wish to avoid any hint of corruption, so as not to result in current residents deciding to relocate elsewhere. Politicians are also gravely concerned about cutting costs, but without a lot of business acumen, they often make some pretty bad decisions in this area.

For example, the screening, selection, and training process for a police officer with ten years under his belt can easily eclipse a million dollars. That cost, however, is a sunk cost. It's money which has been spent, and is therefore not a factor in today's decision as to whether or not to dismiss a wayward officer. Similarly, an officer's previous decade of good service isn't a factor, either. All that matters from a cost perspective is "What will it cost us to keep him on the force vs what will it cost us to train up a replacement?" Even the latter question is largely irrelevant, as departments are always training up replacements. You've got a hundred replacements waiting in the wings, and the cost of their training is a sunk cost, as well.

The problem with most politicians is they are not all that savvy when it comes to basic principles of business. They hold onto sunk costs as if sunk costs have any bearing on the situation whatsoever. Thus, this is how they view the dismissal of a police officer:

- A "cost" to the community of a million dollars in "lost" training, rather than a normal factor of attrition.

- Loss of face: If we dismiss him or her, we're admitting we had a bad officer on the force, and people might get the idea we had other bad officers on the force.

In reality, not all officers can, or even should rise to the top, or make retirement. The military gets rid of roughly half its officer corps prior to the twenty year point. Approximately 1/3 of those are cut when they don't make major, and the rest quit when they decide the military isn't for them, that they want to make a career in some other field.

So, what's the real problem, here? Is it bad policing, a refusal or inability to police their own? Or is bad politicians, incapable of realizing the overall, long-term cost benefit of allowing a police department to run itself, with appropriate oversight, of course, to the first ideal, that of "in the eyes of the community?"

What's the real problem, here? I submit it boils down to politicians who aren't very capable of running a business, much less a community, elected by citizens who themselves don't know what it takes to run a business or a community, many of whom are just pie in the sky idealists who believe everything their favorite politician tells them, and citizens who are voting for whichever politician they believe will give them a larger (more than their fair share) slice of the pie. The latter trade long-term destruction (for example, see Detroit) not even for actual short-term gain, but merely for perceived short-term gain.

I like to hold up Colorado Springs as a reasonably good example of how to do things right. They've dismissed a number of police officers over the last five years, for reasons ranging from the very serious to behaviors which are simply unacceptable, but repeated despite warnings and disciplinary action. They're not perfect, and neither is the city council or our mayor. Most of them are savvy enough to get most things right, however, and it shows: They do police their own.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Why are you questioning this conclusion? Have you any data supporting the contrary?

The statement in question: "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

Anecdotal "evidence" to the contrary isn't evidence at all. It's anecdote.

Even a large number of events to the contrary, even recorded on video, only supports the statement, if the number of events is but a tiny percentage of all events.

For example, let's say you managed to record 10,000 such events. Whoopee!

But let's examine that in the light of logical, reason, and rational analysis:

Given:

1. Let's temporarily assume you find evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality per year.

2. Briefings by the local police department report there are approximately 1,100 citizens in the U.S. for every police officer.

3. U.S. Census data reports there are 317 million citizens.

4. Do the math: 317,000,000/1,100 = 288,182 police officers.

5. Checking the math, the Bureau of Labor and Statics claims there are 780,000, not 288,181. Thus, the actual ratio is 406 to 1, not 1,100 to 1.

6. The average citizen interacts with law enforcement once every three years. Thus, there are 106 million interactions per year.

7. Out of 106 million interactions per year, you're holding up evidence of 10,000 events of police brutality.

8. Do the math: 10,000 / 106,000,000 * 100 = 0.009434%, or 1 event of police brutality for every 10,600 interactions.

One in 10,600.

THAT'S how I base this conclusion.

To be fair, the actual number of cases of police brutality are far, far less than 10,000 per year. In fact, here's a list of key cases for the last 60 years. It's a short list.

Even if you managed to find 10,000 cases each year, it would still come to just ONE case of brutality out of 10,600 interactions, lending tremendous credence to my statement, "The vast majority of law-enforcement officers are upstanding, if not outstanding."

The only way anyone could make any claim to the contrary is if they're incapable of doing basic math, or totally incapable of rational thought.

So you base your "upstanding or outstanding" to equate with simply not being brutal? Just to clarify what you meant of course. I did not make any claim - so I need not provide any proof.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It is not 317 million. Try using the numbers of citizens that will most likely interact with cops. Those under 16, those over 64 should be excluded. Also the number of folks who reside outside of the US. Then there are those who have minimal LE availability.

Essentially you really only need to focus on larger metro areas. A little more work, but it will give you a nore accurate picture.

Also, define brutality.

Bogus math does not a valid argument make.
 

state hater

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
199
Location
new hampshire
since9 also ignores cops who've never been brutal, but are habitual rude jerks. since9 also ignores the reality that all cops voluntarily signed up for something that entails enforcing unjust laws.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
since9 also ignores cops who've never been brutal, but are habitual rude jerks. since9 also ignores the reality that all cops voluntarily signed up for something that entails enforcing unjust laws.
Don't see that since9 ignores anything....that and being or appearing rude is not a violation of law.
 

state hater

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
199
Location
new hampshire
Don't see that since9 ignores anything

since9 ignored it by only considering brutality as a metric of badness. When someone types a lengthy post in the context of a discussion on badness, and that lengthy post only relates to one factor, that individual has ignored other factors and thereby leaves the impression that he or she thinks that badness is defined solely by that one trait.

....that and being or appearing rude is not a violation of law.

I choose to consider people who are unjustifiably rude as bad, especially when on my dime.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
since9 ignored it by only considering brutality as a metric of badness. When someone types a lengthy post in the context of a discussion on badness, and that lengthy post only relates to one factor, that individual has ignored other factors and thereby leaves the impression that he or she thinks that badness is defined solely by that one trait.

I choose to consider people who are unjustifiably rude as bad, especially when on my dime.
To devote a single post to a single aspect is definitely not restricting other considerations - such is not a complete package and hardly representative of the views/opinions held by another.

How you may consider or judge others is not on your dime - you pay nothing to be here.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
And technically he ain't paying much for a cop to be around either. The primary source of revenue for my little town's cop shop is property taxes. This adds up to about 500 buck a year I chip in to keep the cruiser motor running at the doughnut shop every morning of the year.

I eschew the "you work for me" claptrap.
 

state hater

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
199
Location
new hampshire
To devote a single post to a single aspect is definitely not restricting other considerations - such is not a complete package and hardly representative of the views/opinions held by another.

How you may consider or judge others is not on your dime - you pay nothing to be here.

He quite explicitly equated "good cop" with "one who does not practice brutality," and I was referring to me having every right to judge rude cops to be bad, especially since I am robbed to pay them.
 

state hater

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
199
Location
new hampshire
And technically he ain't paying much for a cop to be around either. The primary source of revenue for my little town's cop shop is property taxes. This adds up to about 500 buck a year I chip in to keep the cruiser motor running at the doughnut shop every morning of the year.

I eschew the "you work for me" claptrap.

They get all kinds of federal bacon, with the military equipment being but one example that's been in the news lately.
 
Top