Even as Violent Crime Falls, Killing of Officers Rises

[alcibiades_mystery]

Source: New York Tmes

WASHINGTON — As violent crime has decreased across the country, a disturbing trend has emerged: rising numbers of police officers are being killed.

According to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 72 officers were killed by perpetrators in 2011, a 25 percent increase from the previous year and a 75 percent increase from 2008.

The 2011 deaths were the first time that more officers were killed by suspects than car accidents, according to data compiled by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The number was the highest in nearly two decades, excluding those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

While a majority of officers were killed in smaller cities, 13 were killed in cities of 250,000 or more. New York City lost two officers last year. On Sunday, four were wounded by a gunman in Brooklyn, bringing to eight the number of officers shot in the city since December.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/defying-trends-killings-of-police-officers-are-on-the-rise.html?hp

---

Neither the reporter nor the source can fathom out the most obvious reason: sentencing has gone completely haywire. We now routinely sentence people to 60, 80, 100 years in prison for property crimes. Second and third time offenders get massive time for small offenses, traffic stop stuff, possession.

So, exactly what people who were against these insane "tough on crime" sentencing guidelines said was going to happen has started happening: perpetrators have simply started shooting the police in a bid to escape. What's the difference, after all, between 60 years in prison with little chance of parole and life without parole for shooting the officer? Not much. The tough sentencing guidelines are now getting the cops killed, just like anybody who pays attention to this stuff said they would. If this reporter bothered talking to anyone on the left who examines criminal justice, he would have received that answer straight away. Instead, it's just a "mystery" that nobody can quite figure out. Needless to say, it is ultra-taboo even in liberal circles now to say that sentencing guidelines are fucking insane and counter-productive, even to the point of getting cops killed.

[peacebird]

1. Law of unintended consequences....

[Remmah2]

21. That's what happens when criminals are released from prison too soon. nt

nt

[jtuck004]

2. Another facet to this is the militarization of police departments.

Did you know the cops you grew up with? I knew a few, at least by sight. It's MUCH harder to shoot someone when you know their name. The cops are completely divorced from the community, except in a few university towns where they actually sit at a diner counter with you.

Now try and approach a police car with a question - they stop you by broadcast 10 feet away and want your hands out. I understand, but that's not how one treats people with respect. And I am quite sure they are not safer because of their amped up profile.

They seem to be involved in a lot of arrests where they kill nice dogs, shoot old men and women that may not even hear them, beat up, spray and tase people with little or no provocation. And now they want to be safe?

I have trouble believing they are this ignorant, but I see it all the time, especially the arrogant young assholes. It's like they couldn't be a bully in civvies, but give a uniform they can get away with anything. They are reaping exactly what they are sowing. As this country has turned more war-like, the police have been adopting the same tactics, when what they (and the military) should be adopting more "policing" tactics, getting out and becoming a neighbor who is actually there to serve, not to shoot straight.

[Tom Ripley]

3. You are correct (n/t)

[Skittles]

4. it's harder to shoot someone when you know their name?

what the FUCK are you talking about?

[jtuck004]

6. Well, I am FUCKING talking about the connection to people that some have.

If one knows the other person, knows something about them, maybe that they have family, or that they at least have spoken with you respectfully, it is MUCH harder to shoot them. And the situations which involve shooting become less frequent.

We spend millions in war demonizing our enemies, disrespecting them, their religion, their culture, de-personalizing them. Makes it much easier to put a round, or more, in them.

The police departments do that on a regular basis simply by the way they operate. They set themselves apart, treat blacks far more unjustly than whites, are often not involved in community activities (except where someone pays them to be security whether it is really needed or not), creating a culture where virtually EVERYONE outside the department is a potential shooter or other threat.

And then they complain that people act like they do when people disrepect them.

[Skittles]

9. please

OMG I better get to know people lest I feel obligated to shoot them

[caseymoz]

14. There's some evidence it's true.

During World War II, research conducted by US Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall found that, on average, only 15% to 20% of American riflemen in WWII combat fired at the enemy.[35] In Civil War Collector’s Encyclopedia, F.A. Lord notes that of the 27,574 discarded muskets found on the Gettysburg battlefield, nearly 90% were loaded, with 12,000 loaded more than once and 6,000 loaded 3 to 10 times. These studies suggest that most soldiers resist firing their weapons in combat, that- as some theorists argue- human beings have an inherent resistance to killing their fellow human beings.[35] Swank and Marchand’s WWII study found that after sixty days of continuous combat, 98% of all surviving soldiers will become psychiatric casualties. Psychiatric casualties manifest themselves in fatigue cases, confusional states, conversion hysteria, anxiety, obsessional and compulsive states, and character disorders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

Yeah, it's from Wikipedia. Not a great source.

Here's a counterargument. http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp

And then you have this:

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050925-israel-bullets.htm

How do you get soldiers to shoot straight? Dehumanize the enemy. It help if he covers his face, such as a blindfold in a firing squad, but you can also use racial epithets. In WWII, the Japanese were "Japs" or "Nips."

A lot of that might be from the use of suppression fire, still 250,000 for each insurgent killed sounds like lots of shots used to scare. But we've known about the reluctance to kill for a long time. Firing squads not only blindfold the condemned, they put in one blank round at random so the squad members can have some doubt whether they killed the prisoner.

Then there's the effects after killing:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LIY/is_11_90/ai_106763554/

One would think if it has so many lasting effects, the resistance to doing it is normally quite strong.

All I'm saying here, there is some evidence that police putting on riot helmets obscuring their faces, becoming impersonal and separating themselves from the public actually makes them more of a target, not less.

[duhneece]

20. Yes, yes yes

Your post made clear how difficult it is for one human to kill another, unless & until they are sociopaths or the government provides special training to make it easier for them to kill.

It's my experience that those who kill and those who witness the killing pay for it with ptsd and crippled lives...after they return....unless they were sociopaths to begin with.

[caseymoz]

28. Don't forget those who give the orders.

I really think the Cold War wouldn't have had so many WTF inhumane decisions on our side if officers from World War II hadn't been in charge. Things like overthrowing regimes that weren't even hostile. Paranoia was one effect, and it almost pushed the world into nuclear holocaust.

Definitely Vietnam wouldn't have happened, or wouldn't have been the enormous tragedy it turned into. Robert McNamara worked under General Curtis LeMay in the firebombing of Japan that killed a half million people. After you've already killed hundreds of thousands people, why would turning Vietnam into an abattoir be offensive to you? But it wasn't just McNamara, and it just wasn't Vietnam.

It was probably worse because we won World War II and came out as a superpower. So sacrificing other people was greatly rewarded. It had a perverting effect.

[pasto76]

7. bunch of gobbledegook

got rather tired last fall of the "militarization" of the police agencies blather. As far as I can tell, the cops I see dont look ANYTHING LIKE the squad I had when I was in Iraq. Language like that nothing but drama.

Disagree? Soldiers dont give warning shots. Our ROE were pretty damn clear about who and what qualified as hostile. And hostiles didnt have much of a chance if we could ID them.


yep, I dont approve of how so many officers behave these days. But "military"? I hardly think. They actually remind me of the third world militias. Armed with weaponry that looks tough to the uninitiated and poorly disciplined. Ive never though an automatic pistol with a 30 round magazine was tough.

[Skittles]

10. CORRECT

thank ya pasto

[jtuck004]

12. Must have learned to like sand, given that the above opinions sound like

they came from a perspective buried in it.

But thanks for proving my point - I didn't say they were military, just military-like. As in copying some of the actions, but without the discipline, or the mission. Like third-world "militias" (damn, that shoulda been a clue).

No tough doesn't come from a gun, but it isn't evidenced when the military killed children and old men in villages and burned their homes in Vietnam, or murdered civilians in the Mid-East, either. And it isn't evidenced by most of the cops I see either.

New York City now says they have the ability to shoot down errant airliners. I am guessing they don't mean with a 9mm. Tanks knocking down homes in Texas, other locations.

And hostile targets are identified here just as easily. No warning shots. 74 year old preacher with no gun in his hand. Dead. 30ish year old mentally challenged man holdoing a plastic bottle of coke, had committed no crime, beaten to the floor and choked even though the video shows NO aggression by anyone but the police officer(s). Dead.

And they do love dressing up in those uniforms, as if it means something...ymmv

[EFerrari]

13. Baloney. Police respond to peaceful protests with chemicals weapons

and behave as if they are on a battlefield. News for you, police aren't firing warning shots either. Ask Kenneth Chamberlain. They drive tanks through our cities. They're probably salivating for their own drones.

[BeGoodDoGood]

19. Militarized

?i=110908132056

Gwinnett County, GA SWAT team.

Looks militarized to me.

Walt

[Snake Alchemist]

25. How do you picture a SWAT team? nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. So unless they act EXACTLY like your unit in Iraq, they're not militarized?

I know you don't have to have a firm grasp of the English language to be a grunt but come on!

[ZombieHorde]

5. "Police officer" is just a label.

Killing a police officer is no more or less ethical than killing anyone else in my opinion.

[usrname]

8. Maybe if the police don't go all George Zimmermann

on people who look "funny", they won't get shot at by nervous people.

[MrScorpio]

11. Frankly, I would love to understand the circumstances behind each of these deaths

And though I would NEVER advocate for the death of any peace officer, in considering the epidemic of police misconduct we have in this country (http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/), I can only surmise that some of these deaths could have come about because an officer was engaging in activities that resulted unnecessarily in their own deaths.

[fasttense]

15. As violent crime has decreased across the country? Really?

I doubt the statistics. The method of counting crimes was changed when the bushes got into office. Many people complained back then that they were prevented from listing crimes which were normally counted into the system. Obama is still using the bushes system. So, I suspect the rise in police deaths is merely mirroring the rise in overall crime rates. It's just harder to hide the number of police deaths.

Just think about it. How in the world can our national crime rate be declining, when the US has more people in prison today than any other country in the history of the world? It just doesn't make sense. At least some of these people going to jail are committing crimes.

[hack89]

16. Can you show how Bush changed crime stats?

because I doubt you are correct.

Have you considered that one reason crime is at historic lows is because "the US has more people in prison today than any other country in the history of the world?".

Lots of violent criminals in prison would make society safer, wouldn't you agree?

[BeGoodDoGood]

18. Yes

It does seem that if you incarcerate the right people, crime would fall not rise.

That said, the "War on Drugs" and these draconian sentencing guidelines are just completely nuts, failures.


Walt

[leftynyc]

17. Simple

Our violent crime rate is going down but things like property crime and selling drugs is going up. That's how you get more people in prison but have violent crime rates going down.

[slackmaster]

22. Looking back a little farther, that number doesn't show any obvious trend

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a2uKrH2WcPM/Tqdqx8EWqLI/AAAAAAAAAWU/dv42GN2-fdQ/s1600/OfficerData2010.bmp

The figure of 41 killed in 2008 happens to be the lowest in at least 15 years.

[Remmah2]

23. Four Officers Wounded in Shootout

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577331922139038122.html

"Mr. Foxworth was released from prison in 2010, having served 10 years for attempted murder, robbery and selling drugs in prison, Mr. Kelly said. He had previously served two years for attempted murder. Neither Mr. Foxworth nor any representatives for him could be reached for comment."

Want to know how to keep criminals from getting firearms? Keep them locked up!

I love the part "Neither Mr. Foxworth nor any representatives for him could be reached for comment." What did they do, let him out again?

Bloomberg is a 1%. Keep that in mind when ever you see his lips flapping.

[saras]

24. It would be gross understatement to say that they're asking for it...

The article also assumes, falsely, that everyone who kills a cop is trying to avoid a long sentence. In some cases, they're trying to avoid "killed while trying to escape" which would be virtually guaranteed if they gave themselves up. Or they're killing what appear to be insane thugs, who only turn out to be police afterwards. And this "insane thug" assumption is ALWAYS a reasonable assumption for a cop in riot gear, until they show otherwise.

I see FAR too many news articles on DU where the sensible response of a sensible society would be to either kill the cop like a mad dog to make them stop, or to instantly remove them from the public and keep them jailed until their trial, conviction, and sentencing (preferably under current guidelines rather than newer, more lenient ones).

And if the honest cops would support this, they could turn around police culture in America in a single generation.

Will they?

I know he's not a real cop, but face it, by both common sense AND by the laws of the state, Trayvon Williams had every right in the world to shoot George Zimmerman to death (and NOT vice versa). And we'd all be better off (possibly excepting the blacks who get killed or harassed in the white reprisals) if it had happened that way.

Of course, it would be EVEN BETTER if Zimmerman had never been allowed to prowl the streets alone, OR to own a weapon.

[ieoeja]

26. "The War on Drugs has killed more police officers than anything else." - retired Chicago Cop

He said pretty much the same thing you said. Early in his career he never gave a second thought to pulling over a car. He sure as hell didn't put his hand on his pistol ready to draw and fire. There were times he would find a suitcase (!) full of drugs, confiscate it and poke fun at the guy he was taking it from who would just laugh (sadly) and go his way.

Later in his career if he found a baggie of pot the gun came out right away. This guy is as Rightist as they come. But he learned from experience that people had become far more violent when faced with extreme punishments.


I almost wonder if that 25% increase in 2011 could be from Chicago alone. In a typical year, Chicago has zero cops killed by a perpetrator. One day last year some guy the cops took in for questioning ran into a cop outside as he was leaving the police station, grabbed his gun and killed him. Over the course of the next few weeks there was an orgy of cop killings. They even started putting up graffiti along the lines of, "we kill cops here," and the like.

The badge and uniform of invincibility disappeared putting cops at the same risk as the rest of us.

I had that argument with cops before, pointing out that *I* risked my life more than they did every time I walked out the door. The cop killings, oddly, brought a couple of them to see my point. When a bunch of them *did* get killed over a few weeks, it sunk in just how unusual that was. Conversely, they think nothing about far more non-police officers being killed in that same time frame because that is normal.