FBI Director Comey calls out systemic bias and data suppression in US law enforcement

http://www.thenation.com/blog/198009/fbi-director-police-violence-everyones-little-bit-racist

Resurfacing this thread again, after dozens more questionable police killings since Ferguson. FBI Director Comey recently called out the lack of police accountability in deadly force incidents, as well as the undeniable racial element in policing. That seems to be a big deal, and Obama/Holder have not been that explicit. Most high ranking police leaders have failed to acknowledge public concerns/anger over alleged misconduct, preferring to look foolish pretending that the boys in blue can do no wrong.

As D said earlier, it's unacceptable (and likely deliberate) that there is very little data on police killings - especially on a national level. That has to change - data access in the hands of capable, ethical people never hurt a society, but the lack of it has. Only people who stand to lose or get punished are opposing transparency. This isn't about censorship of controversial information, this is hard data - a set of facts and testimonials as the historical record (or the closest we can get to it). So anyone who claims to be on the side of right can't justifiably argue against the sharing of data to enable analysis and insights that will likely lead to improvements. And what do we have to lose - it can't get any worse, right? Anyone who has reasons to oppose access by other people evaluate his/her performance on the job probably shouldn't hold that job.

Comey also raised the issue that law enforcement policies and actions can result in unjust and racially biased outcomes, yet the agents of those policies and actions (the officers) may not actually be "racists with a capital R". Some of them clearly are, but for the majority of officers, I doubt that they would be classified as virulent racists (people who actually hate another group and work toward their marginalization/persecution). It's more like unconscious bias and heuristics. Officers assigned to at-risk neighborhoods may not have much sensitivity, context, and psychology training. Week-in, week-out they get dirty looks (or worse) from mostly minority residents. The suspects they interact with (and in some cases physically confront) are all "stereotypical" black and brown young men, possibly engaged in the stereotypical bad behaviors. After a while, even a non-racist will start to associate black/brown man with negativity/crime/violence/

danger/etc. What can be done about this? Maybe suspicion and the rules of engagement have to be based on objective, scientific signals - not necessarily appearance and circumstances. But most of the beat cops out there are not qualified to do this effectively, if it's even possible.

The police's persecution complex

Oh for F sakes, the hits just keep on coming. Don't blame me for the spam, blame them. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/police-union-pushes-for-cops-to-be-included-in-federal-hate-crimes-law-183729328.html

So now the cops want violence against them to be classified as hate crimes. And of course the violence that they perpetrate on others (who disproportionately happen to be brown/black) are not. I don't know the full history, but I think hate crimes laws were created (on top of regular criminal laws) as an extra deterrent against such bias-driven crimes.

But there is already a ton of deterrent to violent crimes against cops: (a) angry cops will kill you with great prejudice (remember Dorner), and may kill you first before you have the chance to shoot them, (b) cops have a lot of protection and weapons, (c) the justice system will already come down on you like a ton of bricks (and maybe your family too). So I don't think the extra risk of a hate crime conviction on top of that will affect anyone's behavior.

You know what will stop people from attacking cops? Cops behaving better. It's not the only way, but it's probably the most impactful one, and one that they can control without asking the Feds to change the laws (which is slow and uncertain).  

“Enough is enough! It’s time for Congress to do something to protect the men and women who protect us,” Chuck Canterbury, the president of the [police] union, said in a statement Monday. The group has long lobbied for harsher punishment for those who harm law enforcement officers.

Ah, so now the cops are the ones saying "enough is enough"? That's pretty insulting, since that slogan was recently used by the victims of cop violence (that greatly outnumber cop deaths)?

----

This is so dumb on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I did some cursory research on the typical punishment for killing a cop, and (correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears that in most states this is punish-able basically by only a life sentence or death penalty. Hate crime laws tend to "only" add 5-10 years to sentences, so I don't really get the point of this.

But this also speaks to what police/police apologists don't get about this whole conversation. If you kill a cop, you get punished. I know in the more recent case the guy shot himself, but people don't get to kill cops and walk away scot-free. Cops on the other hand, as we have seen, kill people in unjust situations and receive no punishment or even the slightest bit of accountability. The delicate flowers that cops have turned into when it comes to any sort of criticism is crazy.

Quick thing on hate crime laws: my understanding is that they are applied to crimes that affect communities, not just the person injured/murdered/whatever. For example, if it's determined that a gay person was murdered for being gay, that's classified as a hate crime because that sends a threatening message to the whole gay community, not just the person killed. So based on my understanding, it's even more than just an extra deterrent against bias driven crimes.

----

Some statistics from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics 2012.

Law Enforcement Workers:   97 deaths, 30 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Supervisors, Sales workers: 100 deaths, 46 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Police apparently kill at least ~400 people per year in the US.  About 100 of those black.  This is excluding justifiable homicide and unreported killings.  

Law enforcement is not in the top 10 most dangerous occupations.  And it is worse if you include compensation for the risk since police are relatively well compensated (compared to say, fisherman or agriculture workers).

---

Agreed with both of you.

Yeah being a cop is statistically a better-than-average job for fatality risk. And as you said, they get huge risk comp in the form of earlier retirement (after 15-20 years I think), generous pensions (except broke places like San Jose and Detroit), and a lot of time off (to "de-stress" - I guess that is good for public safety). I hate to sound so harsh, but they are acting like "cry babies" as D alluded to. It's sadly getting to be like the police are a separate society/class with their own interests and rules. In no job should you have to put up with being shot at, but cops were not conscripted into the force - they volunteered with eyes open. OTOH, the uneducated poor more-or-less have no choice but to join the armed forces.

As D said, try to kill a cop or actually kill a cop, you are finished. Get beaten or killed by a cop, he probably won't be affected much, or he might get "early retirement" if there is enough media attention.

This is probably too expensive and controversial to implement, but why should cops have a monopoly on law enforcement? Even in wars, the US hires allies and mercs. Should we be able to pay for private professional security to keep the peace, as well as protect us from and watch the cops? I guess the rich can and already do have that, but the most at-risk communities can't afford it.  

---

"Law Enforcement Workers:   97 deaths, 30 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Supervisors, Sales workers: 100 deaths, 46 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Police apparently kill at least ~400 people per year in the US.  About 100 of those black.  This is excluding justifiable homicide and unreported killings.  "

I want to emphasize that last part, because the more people look into it the more it seems that there is a significant number of unreported killings, the very idea of which is insane to me.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/were-compiling-every-police-involved-shooting-in-americ-1624180387

http://regressing.deadspin.com/deadspin-police-shooting-database-update-were-still-go-1627414202

http://gawker.com/what-ive-learned-from-two-years-collecting-data-on-poli-1625472836

Two separate sections from that last article:

"The biggest thing I've taken away from this project is something I'll never be able to prove, but I'm convinced to my core: The lack of such a database is intentional. No government—not the federal government, and not the thousands of municipalities that give their police forces license to use deadly force—wants you to know how many people it kills and why.

It's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. What evidence? In attempting to collect this information, I was lied to and delayed by the FBI, even when I was only trying to find out the addresses of police departments to make public records requests. The government collects millions of bits of data annually about law enforcement in its Uniform Crime Report, but it doesn't collect information about the most consequential act a law enforcer can do.

...

This is the most most heinous thing I've learned in my two years compiling Fatal Encounters. You know who dies in the most population-dense areas? Black men. You know who dies in the least population dense areas? Mentally ill men. It's not to say there aren't dangerous and desperate criminals killed across the line. But African-Americans and the mentally ill people make up a huge percentage of people killed by police.

And if you want to get down to nut-cuttin' time, across the board, it's poor people who are killed by police. (And by the way, around 96 percent of people killed by police are men.)"

----

Yeah I don't think it would work out well - look at the case of private prisons in the US:


https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/private-prisons

I'm not sure what the answer is either. But overseas generally cops are a lot better behaved than in the US. Part of it I think is the training culture. They are trained as and are seen as a customer service job, not a paramilitary job where you occasionally have to talk to the plebs, and have much more oversight: http://www.quora.com/How-do-UK-police-compare-to-US-police

I know everyone is for states rights or whatever, but I honestly think they ought to federalize police or at least turn it over to the states and increase the professionalism of the police force.

Another aspect to look at is that if you give officers the option of deadly force, some will resort to it as a first resort rather than a last resort. They did a study where solo cops were much less likely to get into firefights with the bad guys and wait for backup than when cops went together, as one officer alone is more cautious. Likewise, when things get rough in the field (say a crazy guy that isn't listening to commands reaches into his pants), if you have a gun some will use it. Result: crazy guy dead because he was pulling a toothbrush out. A good cop would assess the situation, try to reason with him, and defuse it. Rambo cops will just shoot and claim they felt threatened (which is the bar for use of deadly force).

I'd think that increased professionalism, breaking down of old boy cop networks (in the UK they rotate police, for example), and tighter control over implements of deadly force would be really helpful here.

----

I guess when the public is dependent on some sort of paid entity with little oversight (whether it be for a ride home or law enforcement), corruption and abuse are bound to occur. For the more recent police killing in STL (of an armed black teen this time), I think the cop had a body cam but it wasn't on. I don't understand why the officer should have the ability to control the camera - that defeats the purpose.

That is a good initiative about compiling shooting data. If Waze & its users can track all the car accidents in the US, then the crowd should be able to do the same for shootings (that usually attract onlookers, unless it's a corrupt cover-up killing). I agree with you that the lack of transparency is likely deliberate. Just as the gun lobby has blocked most efforts to create a national gun registry/database/etc. Ironically the cops are against the gun lobby on that issue, but likely engage in the same practices when it suits them. 

----

I totally agree with you about the private prisons (and also mercs) - but remember that those "service providers" were hired because the gov't orgs were not equipped to do the job on their own. They were called in as spare capacity. But for the "private cops", they would be a hedge or alternative to the public cops. And since they would be hired by the community, they could be fired at any time. Of course all this sounds wonderful and perfectly smooth on paper, like libertarianism in general. :)

Ah - I forgot to make a joke about M's comments on mercs: Blackstone and Treadrock... "Treadstone" was the illegal CIA program in the "Bourne" movies, and BlackRock are the guys who have all our retirement cash. :) Blackwater are the corrupt mercs from Iraq, but they have been renamed to Xe, and then Academi (gotta love rebranding).

I agree about the rush to deadly force - when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Of course cops aren't shooting indiscriminately into crowds (usually), but they are empowered (and probably encouraged) to forgo de-escalation and end conflicts with guns. I guess a similar pathology to the stand-your-ground and mass-shootings phenomena in the US. So it comes back to the 2nd Amendment issue - fewer guns on the street and better regs will reduce the violence potential of the public. That in turn will likely make the cops less paranoid and trigger happy, or even justify patrolmen to be unarmed and backed up by armed specialists for hostile situations (like the UK). Maybe the gutting of public services and budget cuts are also contributing to this problem. Cops are the last ones to endure cuts, but they have had them. Now maybe more patrolmen have to go on duty solo. I would be curious to know what % of questionable cop shootings occurred when the cop was solo (but as we now know, stats are hard to come by).

A major reform is needed; I think the cop-first mentality and culture is too deeply ingrained that small changes won't help (esp. if they turn off their body cams). New training, hiring criteria, and oversight are needed - but who is going to write those laws? Any change-oriented candidate would get a lot of heat from the cop lobby, and his/her opponent would get their contributions.

I agree with you about federalizing the cops, since smaller police forces have poorer training/oversight, and likely contribute disproportionately to misconduct problems. Standardizing the police would create a lot of efficiencies (and sharing of best practices, etc.), but the states rights crowd would raise hell as you said.

Also agreed about changing the mentality from occupying army to service provider. Very few people complain about FDs, and there is much less misconduct. The PDs that have the best rep with the public (even among minorities), fewer violent incidents, and have shown the most reforms/improvements, all have robust community outreach programs. But currently they are recruiting and giving badges to macho/meathead/blindly loyal types, not empathetic/thoughtful/fair types.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201412230900

---

It seems like somehow police have been lumped in with the military as a must support or no chance of political office entity.  On the radio this morning Ryan seacrest (don't judge me!) Was complaining that there was crazy pressure to wear some "I support the police" hat during his new years eve show.  And subsequent death threats when he didn't.  If even seacrest thinks it is overboard imagine what your everyday douchebag must think.

And if you were an app maker, Waze for cop shootings would be a great release about now.  Now we just need a catchy name.  Raze?  hYelp?  

I'm hopeful that mandatory body cameras help and Los Angeles is implementing them which might help on the national level.

----

That's an interesting observation. I think it's very offensive (and undemocratic) for special interest groups to "pressure" the general public to show support for them - lest we be labeled as unpatriotic, soft on crime, etc. "If you're not with us, you're against us." That is another form of intolerant bullying. If you are so great, you don't need to convince anyone with slogans and shirts. It reminds me of a dictator's thugs forcing the citizens at gunpoint to come out and cheer at the dictator's parade, when they all actually hate his guts.

Already the cops get disproportionate support, resources, and political power. They want our love and admiration too? During the War on Terror, I didn't like those bumper stickers that said something like "USMC, thank me for protecting your freedom." My freedom was in pretty good shape without you shooting and bombing anyone. I didn't ask you to go over there, and I do show my thanks by paying taxes and doing other civic duties (incl. protesting when some leaders want to send soldiers to fight unnecessarily).

Cops mostly take evidence after crimes occurred, harass suspicious looking people, and enforce traffic laws. They rarely "prevent crime", except for the deterrent effect of their presence. It's not like Batman swooping in to thwart a bank robbery. So for the cops to imply that they are heroes tirelessly watching over the helpless masses, and keeping the rapists/murderers at bay, is getting it twisted. Violent crime has been on the decline in the US for the past 60 years or more, and policing may not be even a top 3 driver of that (more like economics and other social forces). But still, our gun violence rates are much worse than the EU and east Asia, but as we've discussed, it's concentrated on mostly poor minorities and not the rich (or the cops). If the police go out of their way to protect those folks with the least power, and who are the most at risk, then I would give them props. But they mostly just leave those "animals" to their own devices, keep the riffraff caged in prisons/ghettos and away from the suburbs and malls.

Yeah for all of the LAPD's past sins (and they still have many lingering problems), they have shown a lot of leadership in reforms like community policing, hiring and promoting minorities/women, and the use of some technologies.

Another controversial Stand Your Ground killing in Florida

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/03/270874416/murder-trial-reminiscent-of-zimmerman-case-to-begin-in-florida
http://news.yahoo.com/murder-trial-opens-florida-shooting-over-loud-music-060201995--sector.html;_ylt=A0SO8yR2u.9SE2gAsPNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--

Yes, again the shooter is a middle-aged, suburban, white man and the victim is an unarmed black teen. It all started when the victim (Davis) and 3 friends were filling up gas next to the shooter (Dunn). Davis' car was playing loud music and Dunn asked them to turn it down. They complied, but later turned it back up and allegedly made some threatening comments to Dunn. Dunn claims to have seen one of them "reach down for something" in the car, so he pulled out his 9mm from his glove box and fired 4 rounds. No warning shot, no "Stop what you're doing I'm armed!"... just shoot first. But here is the worst part - the youths then proceeded to flee (understandable), and Dunn fired 4 more rounds into the departing vehicle (GREAT job Reuters for failing to include that important detail - of course NPR didn't forget).


I am not sure if any of those "gratuitous" shots were the kill shot, and a later search of Davis' vehicle revealed no weapons. That seems to violate SYG to me - there was no more threat, why keep shooting? He is not Dirty Harry. Was he trying to stop them from blasting their music next time? Some people think that violence is the default response to difficult situations, and they don't consider how that perception will make things worse for everyone.

-----

Yeah, and it's not like these guys had no choice. Both Zimmerman and Dunn were not having a crime committed against them. In both cases, they did/could have called the police to resolve it, and not directly confront. And in both cases, their escalating actions made violence more likely to ensue. To be fair, if Zimm or Dunn did those things to you or I, likely no one would be dead at the end of the day. But that's the point - they have no idea who they are dealing with. So maybe they should think about whether loud music or a hoodie is enough of a problem to risk the possibility of a gunfight. But a gun in your belt/car suddenly makes you Mr. Badass, so it changes your risk calculations.

That is one of the biggest problems associated with SYG laws and America's gun culture in general. Like Bill Maher joked, America's foreign policy is "What the F you looking at!?!" Same with domestic - why is violence too often the default response to an unpleasant situation? And in a competitive, free society, unpleasant altercations are inevitable. Do we have to go OK Corral every time someone else does something we don't like? The hubris and egoism associated with the rationale behind SYG is shocking to me. I can't believe higher courts haven't looking into the Constitutional implications too.

Pretty much this is the only situation where vigilantism is justified, when a fanatical drug cult takes over your community, there is no rule of law, and your corrupt government/military is ineffective:


http://latinousa.org/2014/01/31/michoacan-101-inside-civilian-militia-uprising/

We do not and should not live in a comic book.

Private security firms

Mercenaries a.k.a. "private security contractors" (I'll abbreviate them as PSCs) in the Middle East:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/19/steve_fainaru_on_big_boy_rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002216.html

Although the first indictment of mercenary misconduct is pending (6 Blackwater Worldwide employees accused of slaughtering 12+ Iraqi civilians in the 2007 Nisour Square incident), the private security industry in the Middle East is thriving. The people from Blackwater may get off the hook as well, since they worked for the State Dept., not DoD. This was probably deliberate, because no laws exist to regulate State Dept. contractors overseas. Plus at the time, the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement gave private US contractors legal immunity in Iraq (which has now been nullified for 2009-2012), so they didn't face local punishment, and were probably whisked out of the country before anyone in government could respond. While PSCs have committed illegal killings probably every year of the Iraqi occupation, no previous incidents have made it to court due to the ambiguity of jurisdiction and challenges in procuring evidence. But the Nisour case, like the Marines at Haditha, was so blatant and publicized (especially among outraged Iraqis), that some heads have to roll. The accused have turned themselves in to authorities in Utah (one has already reached a plea bargain, probably to testify against others), hoping that they will get a more favorable, conservative-leaning trial than in DC.

We already know that the Bush administration has been the most prolific in terms of hiring private contractors to do government work, even crafting policy. And the Iraq War has been the most privatized war in US history. Part of that is due to the "sleek occupation" approach championed by Rumsfeld and Co., and an unwillingness to implement a military draft to make up the manpower shortfall. PSCs have fought in the Third World for decades, and were even involved in several successful or failed coups d'etat. But Iraq heralded their golden age (industry insiders gleefully refer to the "Iraq bubble"). Similar to the dot-com or housing bubbles, there are now tremendous demands and opportunities for their services. And with the gradual drawdown of US military forces in Iraq planned through 2012, PSCs will happily fill the void. Depending on how you measure, PSCs and non-combat support staff comprise a fighting force even larger than the Iraqi Army. They have their own helicopters, medics, explosives, and turreted armored vehicles (the poorer outfits like Crescent Security just use pickups with scrap metal plating). So really the US taxpayer is funding two armies (with very different priorities as well).

Some regular soldiers accept this with disdain. While they may earn under $30k/year putting their lives on the line for Uncle Sam, PSCs make $7-20k PER MONTH (higher-ups may make $200-300k/year). Plus the death/disability benefits for PSCs are much better than enlisted personnel, though it is unclear how many PSCs have actually been wounded/killed in Iraq because the companies are not required to disclose anything to the public. While PSCs do risk death on the job (and get in firefights on a near-daily basis), it's not like they have to do the grueling, tedious, confrontational work of uniformed soldiers like directing traffic, patrolling neighborhoods, and conducting counterinsurgency missions. PSCs mostly guard VIPs, Green Zone checkpoints, and vehicle convoys (that often come under attack, but again it's hard to estimate the frequency since companies don't release data). So they're paid nearly 10X an enlisted person's salary to do less work. No wonder Army recruiters are having difficulties reaching their quotas.

In addition, uniformed soldiers are bound by military discipline, Geneva Conventions, and the rules of engagement, while PSCs basically operate by the law of the jungle with practically zero oversight. Soldiers took an oath to defend the country (maybe all of them don't faithfully execute their commitments 100% of the time, but at least it's on their mind), while PSCs only have to answer to company management. A US soldier goes through hell to protect fellow Americans, the Constitution, and the interests of our country (yes, that includes access to oil). Bringing dishonor to the uniform is as unpalatable as defeat. They want to win wars cleanly, expediently, and then go home. PSCs have other priorities in mind, such as thrill seeking (seriously). In fact, it may be in the best interests of PSC firms to drag out wars indefinitely, which means a constant guaranteed paycheck. Despite the patriotic propaganda (PSCs are serving their country too... if the price is right), one has to question their loyalties. That is a big reason why it's always a risk to rely on mercenaries, dating back to Roman times. The Iraqis hate PSCs more than any other Westerners in their country. Probably the insurgents do too, which accounts for the higher number of kidnappings and other incidents.

Yet despite all this, many Iraq vets want to become PSCs after their service is completed. Some have trouble adjusting to civilian life (PTSD, etc.). Others were discharged from the military, but are addicted to adrenaline and miss the action. Though for most it's the money. With little education, it might be the highest-paying career they can get, and many military families endure significant financial hardships when a member goes abroad to serve. So they have little choice but return to the suck. Do we really want to leave our national defense and foreign policy objectives in the hands of people who are mostly concerned with profit, thrills, and may be mentally unstable? Again it's unclear, but there are at least 25,000 PSCs in Iraq, and the total could be as high as 50,000. That is larger than an entire military division. Apparently PSCs are paid out of the Iraq Reconstruction fund, not Pentagon coffers. The Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction estimates that they've paid out over $6B to PSCs since 2003, about 12% of the total reconstruction budget meant for roads, schools, utilities. But really they have little clue about the true financial burden of PSCs, not to mention the secondary costs of cleaning up their negative incidents and bad PR with Iraqis.

http://www.propublica.org/article/audit-us-fails-in-tracking-cost-of-iraq-contractors#When:17:30:00Z

PSCs are becoming as ubiquitous as conflict itself. During the Cold War, they were used by the CIA to train militants like the Nicaraguan Contras, or protect pro-US strong men like Augusto Pinochet. Besides Blackwater, other big outfits are DynCorp and AEGIS. Sourcewatch.org lists over 140 private security firms in total, and 77 have been used in Iraq. They are often based in British Commonwealth nations and tend to outsource to Third World conflict zones, where they can hire for less pay. They even operate within our borders: Blackwater USA trigger men were dispatched by DHS to New Orleans during Katrina to "maintain order" (I'd be unruly too if I went without food and water for days). Blackwater is also lobbying Washington to have its men patrol the Mexico border. So for the 500,000+ Americans who have lost their jobs this fall, maybe they should pick up a weapon and join an industry that is growing faster than health care or education. They pay is great and you might even get to kill a Muslim.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/20/blackwater_the_rise_of_the_worlds