Protect and Serve . . . yeah right !

Sliver · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:01

Von Smallhausen said:
Thought what as much ? Careful with your roll eyes too.

Why, are emoticons a bannable offense now too ? :confused:

Von Smallhausen · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:15

Dear me, please wind your neck in.

I'll rephrase for you. Do you consider Russell Brand to be an authoritative figure on data police shootings in the US ?

Also, does he mention how many were actually justified ? It's a fact that police officers have to use force, sometimes lethal force and I doubt that fact has filtered up to Mr Brand's ivory towers that reek of champagne socialism.

Terminal_Boy · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:17

Sliver said:
Why is that worth noting ? We are not talking about RTA's here, we're talking about gun related deaths. Two completely different things and completely unrelated.

On the contrary, it shows Americans to be rather negligent with two different types of deadly weapon.

Schlong&Stable · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:17

Sliver said:
nvm

I see you removed your original comments where you claimed I was wrong. Did you do a quick Google search and realise that I was right? I think you did.

Now, please explain why I am racist for suggesting the problem lies primarily with black urban culture, which accounts for the majority of gun crimes?

Sliver · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:20

Von Smallhausen said:
I'll rephrase for you. Do you consider Russell Brand to be an authoritative figure on data police shootings in the US ?

No but he was right about the figures I quoted in my opening post link. Want to dispute them ? Crack on, dispute them, but please provide reliable sources.

fatiain · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:24

Von Smallhausen said:
Thought what as much ? Careful with your roll eyes too.

I'll join you in not asking Brand any questions too...

Von Smallhausen · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:31

Sliver said:
No but he was right about the figures I quoted in my opening post link. Want to dispute them ? Crack on, dispute them, but please provide reliable sources.

The figures are weak as water with the very vague parameters he uses.

In the last few years ..... 2 ? 5 ? 10 ? Also, the US is a country with a population of over 300 million people which will invariably influence the number due to the proportionately more incidents US law enforcement attend.

Sliver · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:35

Von Smallhausen said:
The figures are weak as water with the very vague parameters he uses.

In the last few years ..... 2 ? 5 ? 10 ? Also, the US is a country with a population of over 300 million people which will invariably influence the number due to the proportionately more incidents US law enforcement attend.

I quoted him saying this in my opening post:

He said that more Americans have been killed by the police in the last few years, than all of the service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. In America, you're 8 times more likely to be killed by a local policeman than by a terrorist.

If you dispute this please do so, as is your right, but please also provide reliable empirical sources to support your dispute.

Schlong&Stable · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:39

The death rate for US soldiers in the Iraq war was about 298 per 100,000 (4500 deaths in Iraq only). The death rate for victims of police shootings (estimated to be around 5000 in the last 12 years) over a similar period is 1 per 100,000.

Russell Brand is an idiot.

Sliver · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:41

Thompson_NCL said:
The death rate for US soldiers in the Iraq war was about 298 per 100,000 (4500 deaths in Iraq only). The death rate for victims of police shootings (estimated to be around 5000 in the last 12 years) over a similar period is 1 per 100,000.

Russell Brand is an idiot.

Sources please. Russell was talking about Afghanistan too, I noticed you conveniently left that out of your 'statistics' .

TheVoice · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:42

Sliver said:
If you dispute this please do so, as is your right, but please also provide reliable empirical sources to support your dispute.

It's a bit rich of you to be making such a request when you're seemingly unwilling to elaborate on the points you make yourself.

Sliver · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:44

TheVoice said:
It's a bit rich of you to be making such a request when you're seemingly unwilling to elaborate on the points you make yourself.

Why ? I posted a link to my source in the opening post. :confused:

After 252 posts I'm still yet to see anyone prove the information is wrong.

Schlong&Stable · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:48

Sliver said:
Sources please. Russell was talking about Afghanistan too, I noticed you conveniently left that out of your 'statistics' .

Wikipedia gives the US losses in Iraq and total troop deployment. I worked out the rate from that. There is no good source for deaths by police, but its reckoned to be between 500 and 1000 a year by various sources.

I didnt include Afghanistan as there was no need. It would only further increase the argument against you.

Plus its a dumb argument anyway. The number of US losses in both wars was extremely small.

Sliver · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:49

Thompson_NCL said:
I didnt include Afghanistan as there was no need..

No. You didn't include Afghanistan because it proved your argument false.

TheVoice · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:51

Sliver said:
Why ? I posted a link to my source in the opening post. After 252 posts I'm still yet to see anyone prove the information is wrong.

Because I've asked you twice to elaborate on your "remove all guns from America" strategy yet you still haven't. Presumably that's because Russell Brand hasn't either as this point I'm assuming you're just regurgitating his ramblings on the subject.

SciNeT · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:51

ThestigGT999 said:
what I don't get is why do they shot to kill instead of shooting their legs or use a taser to get the person to the ground

They're trained to shoot at the centre of mass until the target is no longer a threat. Shooting at a leg isn't always going to stop someone, neither is a taser, especially if the attacker is high.

Sliver · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:52

http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10

http://icasualties.org/

Some statistics to mull over. :rolleyes:

Sliver · 10 Mar 2015 at 18:53

TheVoice said:
Because I've asked you twice to elaborate on your "remove all guns from America" strategy yet you still haven't. Presumably that's because Russell Brand hasn't either as this point I'm assuming you're just regurgitating his ramblings on the subject.

I actually have explained why. You just need to read previous posts. :rolleyes:

Schlong&Stable · 10 Mar 2015 at 19:01

Sliver said:
No. You didn't include Afghanistan because it proved your argument false.

Okay lets do it then.

2200 US deaths in Afghanistan
4500 US deaths in Iraq
6700 total deaths

Estimated to be approximately 5000 people killed by police in the US in the last decade.

So your chances of being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan were VASTLY higher than being killed by a police in the US.

Sliver · 10 Mar 2015 at 19:06

Thompson_NCL said:
Okay lets do it then.

2200 US deaths in Afghanistan
4500 US deaths in Iraq
6700 total deaths

Estimated to be approximately 5000 people killed by police in the US in the last decade.
So your chances of being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan were VASTLY higher than being killed by a police in the US.

That is patently absurd and clearly false. The real figure is 30 thousand gun deaths per year, all in. Even if you narrow it down to just police shootings, only a few years surpass the casualties of war you posted. That was Russell's point, the casualties of war compared to police shootings over a few years.