Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Jumble » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:25 pm UTC

This is all great but I suspect we are missing the point here. A terrifying number of US citizens are fighting for their lives in the face of a freak weather event. The US president refuses to accept the testimony of his own scientists on climate change.

I'm a Middle East conflict specialist, living 60km from the front line, in a city that I know contains those targeted to kill me. I'm a father. Trump is a bigger threat to my children.
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:05 pm UTC

Jumble wrote:This is all great but I suspect we are missing the point here. A terrifying number of US citizens are fighting for their lives in the face of a freak weather event. The US president refuses to accept the testimony of his own scientists on climate change.


But from the analysis I've read, that's not the major problem. I personally do believe in climate change, but the issue here is far more mundane and far more localized.

https://projects.propublica.org/houston-cypress/

Scientists, other experts and federal officials say Houston's explosive growth is largely to blame. As millions have flocked to the metropolitan area in recent decades, local officials have largely snubbed stricter building regulations, allowing developers to pave over crucial acres of prairie land that once absorbed huge amounts of rainwater. That has led to an excess of floodwater during storms that chokes the city’s vast bayou network, drainage systems and two huge federally owned reservoirs, endangering many nearby homes — including Virginia Hammond’s.


Pave over floodlands, build up higher levees to compensate for it, and eventually... those levees will break under the load of a freak storm. Then water has no where to go except everywhere, since all the Marshlands have been turned into Parking Lots and Malls. Poor zoning laws of the 90s and 2000s caused explosive growth in flood-prone areas. Some would argue that the Federal Flood Insurance program only encourages more buildings to be placed in these dangerous flood zones.

-----------

Case in point: the 2015 Floods and 2016 floods also caused major damage to Huston. The city itself just isn't planning properly for Floods, and instead claims that "Three separate 500+ year floods have occurred in three years".

Uh-huh... yeah, that just sounds like bad planning. You pretty much can only blame the first 500-year flood as a freak accident. By the time the 3rd one rolls around, its time to start considering that maybe your plans suck.

http://swamplot.com/where-houston-flood ... 015-06-11/

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/ ... -april2016

This is a recurring pattern in Houston. To compound the problem, Hurricane Ike didn't flood as much as people thought it would, so city officials declined to evacuate the city.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

idonno
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: double null

Postby idonno » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:21 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
idonno wrote:Is there something that makes being murdered a worse way to die than other industries' ways to die?

Taxi drivers are number one when it comes to the rate of on the job murders at over twice the rate for police and they have a comparable total fatality rate so I want to know when our government is going to start helping them militarize?
Would a group of teachers who were murdered in their classrooms while doing there job, be more horrible than a group of teachers who died on a school bus while traveling with students?

It is probably worse for the students that witness it. It isn't really any better or worse for the teachers though. Unless I missed something, we are talking about the officers not the bystanders. Dead is dead.

ucim wrote:It depends why you are comparing mortality rates. In this case it's to assess the appropriateness of mitigation and compensation for hazards faced by government agents who are paid to use deadly force against fellow citizens. So yeah, it matters. A lot.
Is the hazard of murder inherently more deserving of compensation than other deadly hazards?
Also, they are paid to protect fellow citizens and investigate criminal activity. While this may involve killing fellow citizens, that is not the purpose of the job. This is the primary issue with the current situation. Yes police may need to kill someone but the purpose of the killing should be to carry out their actual job.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:19 pm UTC

idonno wrote:Is the hazard of murder inherently more deserving of compensation than other deadly hazards?
Maybe. Maybe not. They are paid to be put in a situation where murder is (or might not be) an occupational hazard. Part of the compensation for this risk comes (or should come) in their salary. But to decide whether there should be any compensation, the particular occupational hazard has to be compared with the level of that hazard elsewhere. And to do that, you can't mix and match. Other jobs have other hazards. And arguably, the hazard of murder isn't a major hazard in police work (compared to other work). It's certainly said to be, and it certainly is hard (without facts) to argue against, but I don't know whether it's actually true or not, and the decision needs to be based on whether it is actually true.

And we pay them to take risks on our behalf. While I'm all in favor of their mitigating their risks, they should not do so at the risk of the general public. And that is what giving the police war equipment could do. Especially when the Commander In Chief says to "rough them up a bit".

This is how a fascist dictatorship starts.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:26 pm UTC

Might it be better to give them better body armour instead of higher rates of fire and larger projectiles?

Perhaps it'd be even better to have more police doing more soft-touch policing of the "being around and talking to people about stuff" kind rather than only ever showing up with guns and battering rams. Rather than shooting at / over the heads of people trying to escape flooding, greet them with bottled water, urns of tea and a big kettle of soup. Run a soup kitchen. Teach carpentry, or something. Woodworking tools are kind of expensive, but they last a long time in good hands and they can be used to turn timber into goods that can be traded for hope, and investigations are also expensive. I'm not saying Never Shoot Anyone, but it may be better to invest in not having to shoot quite so often.

Oh, hey, get rid of the corrupt arseholes and vicious, racist thugs in your ranks too, so people will be less motivated to shoot at you.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:30 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Jumble wrote:This is all great but I suspect we are missing the point here. A terrifying number of US citizens are fighting for their lives in the face of a freak weather event. The US president refuses to accept the testimony of his own scientists on climate change.

But from the analysis I've read, that's not the major problem. I personally do believe in climate change, but the issue here is far more mundane and far more localized.

https://projects.propublica.org/houston-cypress/
Scientists, other experts and federal officials say Houston's explosive growth is largely to blame. As millions have flocked to the metropolitan area in recent decades, local officials have largely snubbed stricter building regulations, allowing developers to pave over crucial acres of prairie land that once absorbed huge amounts of rainwater. That has led to an excess of floodwater during storms that chokes the city’s vast bayou network, drainage systems and two huge federally owned reservoirs, endangering many nearby homes — including Virginia Hammond’s.

Pave over floodlands, build up higher levees to compensate for it, and eventually... those levees will break under the load of a freak storm. Then water has no where to go except everywhere, since all the Marshlands have been turned into Parking Lots and Malls. Poor zoning laws of the 90s and 2000s caused explosive growth in flood-prone areas. Some would argue that the Federal Flood Insurance program only encourages more buildings to be placed in these dangerous flood zones.
-----------

Case in point: the 2015 Floods and 2016 floods also caused major damage to Huston. The city itself just isn't planning properly for Floods, and instead claims that "Three separate 500+ year floods have occurred in three years".
Uh-huh... yeah, that just sounds like bad planning. You pretty much can only blame the first 500-year flood as a freak accident. By the time the 3rd one rolls around, its time to start considering that maybe your plans suck.
http://swamplot.com/where-houston-flood ... 015-06-11/
https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/ ... -april2016

This is a recurring pattern in Houston. To compound the problem, Hurricane Ike didn't flood as much as people thought it would, so city officials declined to evacuate the city.

In general, this is more a Republican problem, (choosing development over the environment, and acting all shocked when the environment hits back). Trump's just so bad at his job that he makes everything seem like his fault. Do Democrats treat development this badly? Maybe Ray Nagin of New Orleans? I know a couple local democrats and governors that got sacked due to poor disaster response/planning.
Sableagle wrote:Might it be better to give them better body armour instead of higher rates of fire and larger projectiles?

Perhaps it'd be even better to have more police doing more soft-touch policing of the "being around and talking to people about stuff" kind rather than only ever showing up with guns and battering rams. Rather than shooting at / over the heads of people trying to escape flooding, greet them with bottled water, urns of tea and a big kettle of soup. Run a soup kitchen. Teach carpentry, or something. Woodworking tools are kind of expensive, but they last a long time in good hands and they can be used to turn timber into goods that can be traded for hope, and investigations are also expensive. I'm not saying Never Shoot Anyone, but it may be better to invest in not having to shoot quite so often.

Oh, hey, get rid of the corrupt arseholes and vicious, racist thugs in your ranks too, so people will be less motivated to shoot at you.
Well, one option might actually be union busting, because the fraternity of police are one of the worst unions out there. Everything republicans say is wrong with unions is true of the FOP. It's just that they support Republicans, so nobody has touched them. That, and the halo around cops.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6840
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:20 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Maybe. Maybe not. They are paid to be put in a situation where murder is (or might not be) an occupational hazard. Part of the compensation for this risk comes (or should come) in their salary. But to decide whether there should be any compensation, the particular occupational hazard has to be compared with the level of that hazard elsewhere. And to do that, you can't mix and match. Other jobs have other hazards. And arguably, the hazard of murder isn't a major hazard in police work (compared to other work). It's certainly said to be, and it certainly is hard (without facts) to argue against, but I don't know whether it's actually true or not, and the decision needs to be based on whether it is actually true.
Just to take off my "fuck-the-police" hat for a second:

While I believe it's factually indisputable that police work in the US is a safe profession in comparison to other occupations, the emotional and psychological cost of being a police officer is probably extraordinary. You can get murdered on any job (and, in fact, many jobs carry a significantly higher risk of getting murdered than police officer), but how many of those jobs call on you to do violence to others? Up to and including lethal violence? Not to mention exposing yourself to the aftermath of violence (investigations into murder and assault). Police don't put their lives on the line for us every day anymore than taxi cab drivers do. But police officers do put their emotional and psychological well-being on the line.

Now to put my fuck-the-police hat right back on:

There are plenty of jobs that handle these same issues and still somehow manage not to kill over a thousand people every year. So, yeah -- the psychological toll is undeniable, but if this is how you're going to address it, then I expect you to hand out tanks to EMTs and social workers, too.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:34 pm UTC

Hey, remember that Trump infrastructure press conference two weeks ago at Trump Tower (just before the question-and-answer session during which the president defended the "good people" "quietly" protesting among the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville)?

Trump infrastructure push rolls back environmental rules

August 15, 2017 - WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday rolled back rules regarding environmental reviews and restrictions on government-funded building projects in flood-prone areas as part of his proposal to spend $1 trillion to fix aging U.S. infrastructure.

Trump’s latest executive order would speed approvals of permits for highways, bridges, pipelines and other major building efforts. It revokes an Obama-era executive order aimed at reducing exposure to flooding, sea level rise and other consequences of climate change.


Because heck, why should we ask developers to deal with all that red tape when there is money to be made by building more stuff?
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:08 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6840
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:41 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:
You know you're in a bad place when pretty much every press release for the past 6 months has started with the same four words.

morriswalters
Posts: 6901
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

triple null

Postby morriswalters » Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:47 am UTC

Angua wrote:Is it better to have a job where you die more often by accidents in hazardous working conditions than a small chance of dying by murder? I don't really see why it makes a difference to compare different types of dying while on a job. If one job has a 50% chance of you falling to your death, and the other has a 5% chance of you getting shot, why are you saying that you can't compare the mortality rates? One is clearly more dangerous than the other.
It depends on what you are trying to say. Clearly more people get murdered than cops. But what jobs outside the Army, do we have, where the primary risk factor is murder? If you tell me while walking through a steam plant that the boiler meant to scald me to death if it could, you would freeze or go without electricity, before I would work in that plant. Industrial accidents, are just that, accidents, not malice. Do you understand that distinction? Because if you don't we don't have enough commonality to discuss this.

Since this is turning into to the Police Misbehavior thread, I am forced to ask, why do we have that thread? The one place where I won't post and it crawled out here. :cry:

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8741
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: triple null

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:24 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:But what jobs outside the Army, do we have, where the primary risk factor is murder?


Taxi drivers, with a murder rate even higher than the police. Prostitution as well, but it's arguable whether illegal jobs should be included. There's a joke in there somewhere about both professions having lots of overlap.

Leovan
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Leovan » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:26 am UTC

This sounds like the old "We shouldn't help group X because group Y has it just as bad" bit. There's cops being murdered, let's do something about it. That other professions also have a mortality rate doesn't change the fact that we should. Otherwise you're just stuck arguing in perpetuity who has it worse.
In addition, policing is one of the central duties of a government and therefore they are directly responsible for the safety of the officers in their corps. If there is something the government can do to help police forces then they should do this. Whether the best way of helping the police force is by improving their arsenal and defense, or through other means, can be discussed. But if the government believes that the police do need military weapons then it's their duty to supply access to them.
The means the government has to help taxi drivers not get murdered is by improving the police force (and by helping potential murderers not get into the situation where they do become murderers, but that's another topic).

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:03 pm UTC

The issue isn't protecting cops or not protecting cops. The issue is the use of the idea of "protecting cops" in order to equip them to put down citizen protests. We have an administration (which is why it belongs in this thread) which is authoritarian, despotic, fact-averse, petty, divisive, racist, and has the attitude of being above the law. Arming government agents against its citizens always needs to be carefully considered; these kinds of armaments go far beyond what is arguably necessary in the pursuit of legitimate police duties, and enter into the suppression-of-dissent realm.

That is the problem.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:48 pm UTC


idonno
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:48 pm UTC

ucim wrote:the particular occupational hazard has to be compared with the level of that hazard elsewhere. And to do that, you can't mix and match. Other jobs have other hazards.
The particular hazard is death. If you think otherwise could you please explain what methods of death deserve differentiation and why.

Leovan wrote:This sounds like the old "We shouldn't help group X because group Y has it just as bad" bit. There's cops being murdered, let's do something about it. That other professions also have a mortality rate doesn't change the fact that we should. Otherwise you're just stuck arguing in perpetuity who has it worse.
In addition, policing is one of the central duties of a government and therefore they are directly responsible for the safety of the officers in their corps. If there is something the government can do to help police forces then they should do this. Whether the best way of helping the police force is by improving their arsenal and defense, or through other means, can be discussed. But if the government believes that the police do need military weapons then it's their duty to supply access to them.
The means the government has to help taxi drivers not get murdered is by improving the police force (and by helping potential murderers not get into the situation where they do become murderers, but that's another topic).

I don't think anyone here is of the opinion that nothing should be done to protect police officers but police are responsible to serve and protect the population. If innocent people are being killed in an attempt to protect police officers, that is directly at odds with their purpose. I guarantee that everyone here holds the same view to some extent even though there is debate about where the line between protecting the police and the population should be drawn.

Also, if the goal is to protect them, maybe we should stop letting officers work without their bullet proof vests on (over a 1/3 of officers shot and killed between 2003 to 2012 were not wearing their vests) and we should put sensors on all their seat belts and suspend officers for not buckling up (in 2015 police seat belt compliance was estimated at about 50% compared to 86% among the general populace).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /27165553/
If they aren't protecting themselves with the non lethal safety equipment already provided, it seems difficult to justify methods that increase the risk to the general population.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T402550 4830720 (NAD 83)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ivnja » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:01 pm UTC

Returning to some previous Trump news, SecDef Mattis recently appeared to countermand last month's transgender tweets by freezing the ban for currently-serving service members until a study can be completed to assess how the military should move forward with the issue. This was widely lauded by opponents of the ban, some of whom called Mattis heroic for standing up to the boss, and that characterization of the situation as the SecDef openly defying the President seemed to fit well with earlier stories that Mattis disagreed with the ban and the way that the military was blindsided by it. I was certainly happy when I saw the headlines.

However, as a WaPo Morning Mix article and others point out, Mattis isn't necessarily doing anything that wasn't already authorized in Trump's actual Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security (released Aug 25). Basically, it says that the current practice of not allowing enlistment by openly transgender soldiers (originally set by Obama to end July 1, 2017, but previously pushed back to Jan 1, 2018 by SecDef and the Secretary of Homeland Security) is to be continued indefinitely, that the ban on openly transgender service members will be reinstated March 23, 2018, and that nothing is to be done to currently serving transgender individuals until after the two Secretaries have presented the President with a plan for how to address their status (by February 21, 2018).

Slate's Outward blog (tagline: EXPANDING THE LGBTQ CONVERSATION) sharply criticized news outlets who mischaracterized Mattis' actions for "serv[ing] the administration’s narrative," and expressed great pessimism about the likely results of the study - essentially expecting it to be a politically-tinged cover to ignore the earlier comprehensive Pentagon-ordered study that ultimately resulted in the Obama administration allowing open transgender service.

I tend to agree with those who don't think the "freeze" should be counted as a victory, but the whole situation does make me wonder about a few things. The big question, obviously, is where Mattis, as SecDef, does stand on the issue, and whether he is willing to stick his neck out over it. He has not quietly acquiesced to Trump so far on issues he's felt strongly about, particularly where they concern the well-being of the troops. Of course, there's only so much he can do without being fired. I'd like to hope that he'll at least try (no matter what his personal feelings are) to ensure that the new study is unbiased, although from the wording of the memorandum it seems unlikely that any result could "provid[e] a recommendation to the contrary that I find convincing."
On a similar note, I'm curious who had input on the memorandum. It gives less than five months for a study to be completed and a recommended plan of action to be laid out, so I doubt that timeline was run past either of the Secretaries who will actually be in charge of implementation. The wording doesn't even try to imply that the reinstatement of the ban was a result of a request by the military rather than being the President's own political decision. I have to assume that this was basically all internal White House writing. Yet, the memorandum is a walk-back from the tweetstorm, in that it leaves room for the re-banning not to happen. Trump could very well have just written that all transgender troops would be banned from the military on March 23, full stop, and given SecDef until Feb 21 to determine how to muster them out. I mean, the tweets were pretty solid on that point. So is the change just a matter of the WH lawyers getting all the legalese in order, a sign of moderating influence from someone in Trump's circle, an attempt at "falsely portray[ing] the ban as more lenient or unsettled than it really is" (the Slate assertion), or something else that I'm missing?
Hi you.
She(?!)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: triple null

Postby Sableagle » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:17 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:It depends on what you are trying to say. Clearly more people get murdered than cops. But what jobs outside the Army, do we have, where the primary risk factor is murder?
Are you saying that a 0.01% chance of being murdered, a 0.008% chance of dying in an RTA, a 0.007% chance of suicide, a 0.004% chance of a fatal adverse reaction to the hallucinogens in the rations, a 0.001% chance of death by accidental firearms discharge and a 0.0009% chance of death by not throwing the grenade far enough add up to a more horrific prospect than a 0.1% chance of death by RTA, a 0.09% chance of electrocution, a 0.08% chance of suicide, a 0.07% chance of accidental self-immolation and a 0.03% chance of being murdered?

In the case of the British Army
Spoiler:
(back when it was still an army, before we had to admit we could only afford a ground defence force):


47 by IED
29 shot
20 by road traffic accident
19 by air crash
15 by ambush
15 by ground-to-air fire
10 by rocket or mortar
8 by friendly fire
6 suicides
3 by suicide bombers
7 "other"

Even in Iraq, 1 in 9 deaths were RTAs.

British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001

In all, 404 of the fatalities are classed as killed "as a result of hostile action" and 49 are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents, or have not yet officially been assigned a cause of death pending the outcome of an investigation. The Army has seen the heaviest losses, with 362 fatalities as of 1 May 2013. Typically those killed were aged between 20 and 29 and the biggest losses seen in 2009 and 2010. Of those killed, 439 were male and three were female.

For the period 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2013 centrally available records show that:

2,116 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals and categorised as Wounded in Action, including as a result of hostile action.
4,529 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals for disease or non-battle injuries.
293 UK personnel were categorised as Very Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
298 UK personnel were categorised as Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
6,663 UK personnel were aeromedically evacuated from Afghanistan on medical grounds, for whatever reason.

In February 2010, the British death toll in Afghanistan exceeded that of the Falklands War.


Those are both for active combat deployments. If you don't select for that:
One-third of deaths in Britain's military caused by accidents

A third of deaths in the British military happen because of safety failures, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. Figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday reveal that nearly 800 service personnel have been killed over 10 years in accidents ranging from car crashes to electric shocks.

MoD figures reveal that 201 members of the armed forces died in 2007; 73 of the fatalities were classed as “deaths due to violence”, including those killed in action. However, 80 of these deaths were caused by accidents, 50 of them in “land transport accidents”.


I think it was still around 100000 - 110000 people back then, so to keep it simple I'll call it 800 out of 100000 over 10 years or 80 per 100000 per year, just over twice the total death rate among 0-79-year-olds in the UK in 2010.


Now to turn to US police:
Spoiler:
US police shootings: How many die each year?

"There's a widespread perception in the American public, and particularly within law enforcement, that officers are more threatened, more endangered, more often assaulted, and more often killed than they have been historically," says Seth Stoughton, a law professor at the University of Southern Carolina and former policeman.

"I think it's a very strong perception. People truly believe it. But factually, looking at the numbers, it's not accurate," he says.

FBI data on police officers "feloniously killed" - killed as a result of a criminal act - indicates that the numbers have been falling, he says.

Looking at the 10 years from 2006 to 2015 the annual average number of police deaths was 49.6, Stoughton says, which he notes is "down significantly from the high".

At the same time the number of police officers has increased dramatically in the US.

{Graphic shows it about 720000 in 2013}

So when you consider the number of officers killed per 100,000, there has been a dramatic decrease. The annual per capita number of officers killed has dropped from 24 per 100,000 in the 10 years to 1980 to 7.3 per 100,000 in the 10 years to 2013 (the last year for which there is good data).


7.3 per 100,000 among US police compared to 73 of about 150,000 UK armed forces in 2007.



Of course, those are national average figures. Breaking it down by state may reveal that some forces have it worse than others. Baltimore and Washington, DC, for example, could be more dangerous than ... eh, Boulder, Colorado.

[url=http://www.governing.com/gov-data/law-enforcement-fatality-rates-by-state.html]Police Officer Fatality Rates by State

The following states recorded the highest combined death rates per 50,000 law enforcement and corrections officers over the five-year period:

Code: Select all

State               Avg. Annual Rate per 50K officers
South Dakota        11.5
Montana             10.8
Alabama             8.5
Mississippi         8.2
North Dakota        7.3
Oklahoma            7.2
Georgia             6.8
Arkansas            6.8
Louisiana           6.7
Maine               6.2
Numbers listed are for combined state and local law enforcement and corrections officers. There are less than 5,000 police and corrections employees working statewide in South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota and Maine, so relatively few deaths in these states can have a significant effect on per capita rates.
Doubling those for a more standard "per 100,000" number, the highest are 23, 21.6 and 19. That's total fatalities, not felonious fatalities. At the other end of the scale, Vermont's on 0.0, New York's on 3.4, New Hampshire's on 3.6, Wisconsin's on 4.0 and Rhode Island's on 4.2.

This page has some further info on causes of injury: fatals 55.7% by violence, 41.2% by transportation incident; non-fatals 27.0% by violence, 25.3% by fall, trip or slip, 21.4% overexertion, 14% by transportation incident.


For further comparison: Commercial fishing is one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States. During 1992--2008, an annual average of 58 reported deaths occurred (128 deaths per 100,000 workers), compared with an average of 5,894 deaths (four per 100,000 workers) among all U.S. workers. Seems to me US police work's not all that likely to kill a person, compared to commercial fishing or being in the British armed forces ... or the US forces?
Spoiler:
During the 14-year period 1980 through 1993, 27,070 men and women serving on active duty died, at an overall annualized rate of 94.9 per 100,000 military personnel.

For all services combined, overall fatality rates per 100,000 military personnel were: unintentional injury 57.3; disease and illness-related deaths 17.2; suicide 11.9; and homicide 5.1.

The number of suicides among males remained relatively constant (200 to 230 annually) while the rate increased by about 25% from 11.9 per 100,000 in 1980 to 15.0 in 1993.

The Marine Corps experienced the highest fatality rates per 100,000 for all causes (122.5), unintentional injury (77.1), suicide (14.0), and homicide (7.4) of all the services.

Yeah, I'd say those numbers are worse. There are six states whose police officers are more likely to die than a Marine is to commit suicide, but only four whose police officers are more likely to die than a Marine is to be killed and none whose police officers are more likely to die somehow than Marines are to die from unintentional injury.

Hippo raises a very valid point about death-related stuff related to police service:
Spoiler:
PC Sparkes is one of the scores of specialist officers across the country who tell people their loved ones are dead.

One of the more unusual cases involved a bigamist killed in a car crash between the homes of his two wives.

Before he was killed he had resumed a relationship with his first wife, whom he had never divorced. His second wife was unaware of the first wife, or their new relationship. When he was killed she thought he was returning from work.

The truth of his bigamy and "affair", says PC Sparkes, was "never divulged" on the grounds it would have caused massive and unnecessary additional misery.

One of the hardest cases PC Sparkes has ever been involved with concerned three teenagers who died in a road traffic accident. The driver passed his test on a Thursday evening, picked up his car at 09:00 the next morning, went to pick up his two friends. By 13:45, all three of them were dead.
That's got to take a toll too.

As for whether giving the police military hardware is the best way to make them safer, well ...

Spoiler:
Most British police officers are unarmed, a distinction particularly pronounced here in Scotland, where 98 percent of the country’s officers do not carry guns.

Forty minutes into a Scottish police commander’s lecture on the art of firearm-free policing, American law enforcement leaders took turns talking. One after another, their questions sounded like collective head-scratching.

“Do you have a large percentage of officers that get hurt with this policing model?” asked Theresa Shortell, an assistant chief of the New York Police Department and the commanding officer of its training academy, where several hundred officers graduate each year.

“How many officers in Scotland have been killed in the last year or two years?” Chief Shortell added.

Bernard Higgins, an assistant chief constable who is Scotland’s use-of-force expert, stood and answered. Yes, his officers routinely take punches, he said, but the last time one was killed on duty through criminal violence was 1994, in a stabbing.

There is poverty, crime and a “pathological hatred of officers wearing our uniform” in pockets of Scotland, he said, but constables live where they work and embrace their role as “guardians of the community,” not warriors from a policing subculture.

If armed people ratchet up emotions, the Scottish police seek to defuse them. They pay as much attention to moral standards as legal ones. They do not talk about “deadly” force and would shudder to see such words in their policies. Above all, a Scottish constable’s measure of success is whether everyone involved, not just the police officers, survives the confrontation.


The fact there isn't a first-page search result for deaths per 100,000 per year in the Scottish police may be indicative of something. I found this page:
Spoiler:
Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR)

RIDDOR requires employers to report certain serious workplace accidents, occupational diseases and specified dangerous occurrences (near misses).

The top three kinds of RIDDOR reported injuries to police officers in 2012/13 resulted from physical assault, slips/trips and handling accidents

The rate of physical assault to police officers is almost 12 times the “all occupations” rate.
Labour Force Survey – Self reported injury and ill-health

The high rates of injury seen in RIDDOR reported cases are reflected in the self-reported injury rates in the Labour Force Survey, where police officers' injury rates are up to 4 times the “all occupations” rate.

Code: Select all

Type       Fatal     Major
Assault        2       157
Slips/Trips    -       133
Handling       -        32
Falls          -        29
Animals        -         6
Vehicles       -         8
Substances     -         9


Call it 200,000 for simplicity.
Fatal assaults and total fatalities around 1 per 100,000 per year over here, then.

I could suggest some things like not having a civil war, standing up for fairness and treating poor people with respect, but I'd be suggesting going against the nature and, possibly, direct orders of the US C-in-C, wouldn't I?

Leovan, I've found a way to save 5 US police officers' lives per year. It'll require suspension of the measles, mumps, rubella, polio and tetanus vaccination programs currently in effect. Should I go for it? No? How about this other one that'll save 30 LEO lives per year at a cost of 40 non-LEO lives, 90% of them among the poorest 10% of the population, who are 90% black? 32 more poor, unarmed, black people die, another 8 more people die, 30 fewer LEOs die and ... good decision?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

morriswalters
Posts: 6901
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

nully

Postby morriswalters » Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:00 pm UTC

When you find that reality let me know. Of course I will have been dead untold time. Purely on death comparisons, I am past caring. However. If I want to study cancer, I look at people who have cancer. If I want to see how murder looks statistically I look at murder.

Since you were never a cab driver you sound like gmalivuk. Really nice taxi's would have a bullet proof shield between front and the back.

Passengers kill taxi drivers. Police have a similar problem. Nice bullet proof screens are a plus. Your passengers just might shoot you.

The fact that cops have those screens in most cases is because they ride alone, and they can't drive if someone in the back gets loose. It says something about how we value police and what they do. On the other hand you pretty much leave taxi's high and dry because it costs you money. Think about Uber's business. Having driven one the only surprise for me is that the murder rate isn't higher.

When talking about black murders, you have conflicting things nobody wants to talk about, because it's toxic. There are things we need to talk about and can't, because when you try, everybody is so busy talking they don't listen.

Back to taxi drivers and cops. They share another characteristic. They both move around a lot in a car. They speed, drive drunk, or do none of those things, and still will be in accidents because of the time they spend on roads.

Truck drivers are no different but they drive things with gross weight above 30000 lbs. That isn't a car. And they haul stuff that could kill people if they are involved in an accident.

I can compare anything and everything. But useful comparisons tell me something and useless ones don't.

idonno
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: nully

Postby idonno » Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:32 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:When you find that reality let me know. Of course I will have been dead untold time. Purely on death comparisons, I am past caring. However. If I want to study cancer, I look at people who have cancer. If I want to see how murder looks statistically I look at murder.

You might have a case if this were about studying something. This is about justifying an action based on claims of danger. Death by murder isn't more dangerous than death by anything else. Everyone who dies is in the same final state. Sure there are other dangers that police face but protecting them from death is the commonly cited reason to give them military equipment.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:36 pm UTC

idunno wrote:The particular hazard is death. If you think otherwise could you please explain what methods of death deserve differentiation and why.
Death by fire is different from death by bullet, which is different from death by auto accident, which is different from.... .... and the reason to differentiate these hazards is that mitigation methods differ. A bulletproof vest does little against fire, and an AIDS vaccine does little against bus crashes.

What is under discussion is giving civilian police the weapons of international war, under the guise of "protection". Because heroes.

But while we do want them to be able to quell a riot, we don't want them to be able to crush a political rally. Behind a tank, and under Trump, they are in danger of looking the same.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:50 pm UTC

There is such a thing as statistical value of life. Basically, it's estimated that people are willing to spend approximately $5-$10 million per life saved, on average, to reduce their risk of death (e.g. $1 per person spent by 5-10 million people which saves one of their lives). So the question is how much are the spending every year, and how many lives does it save. I suspect the total spending on military equipment per officer killed in the line of duty exceeds $10 million, and it's unlikely to reduce many deaths as it mostly sits unused.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T402550 4830720 (NAD 83)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ivnja » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:51 pm UTC

ucim wrote:But while we do want them to be able to quell a riot, we don't want them to be able to crush a political rally.

Perhaps I'm missing where you're going, but having the tools to do the one - and I don't even mean tanks - will by necessity give them the tools to do the other, at least for equivalently sized crowds. That's a rules of engagement / leadership question, not an equipment one.

ETA: There are Police Powers and Use of paramilitary police to control or supress protest threads already existing in SB. Perhaps this police stuff should migrate into one of those, since it's taking on a life of its own here in the Trump thread.
Hi you.
She(?!)

morriswalters
Posts: 6901
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: nully

Postby morriswalters » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:20 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
morriswalters wrote:When you find that reality let me know. Of course I will have been dead untold time. Purely on death comparisons, I am past caring. However. If I want to study cancer, I look at people who have cancer. If I want to see how murder looks statistically I look at murder.

You might have a case if this were about studying something. This is about justifying an action based on claims of danger. Death by murder isn't more dangerous than death by anything else. Everyone who dies is in the same final state. Sure there are other dangers that police face but protecting them from death is the commonly cited reason to give them military equipment.
Your not really saying anything. So there is nothing for me to say. The part I bolded has zero meaning. Absolutely none. It's a truism. You have no idea of how much is spent to make you safer in the workplace. So on a purely money basis I suggest you need to study. Whats on the military surplus list? First I suggest there are no tanks. Maybe armored personnel carriers. What kind of rounds do they fire? I've never seen, or heard anybody say, cops fire on civilians with a machine gun. Here, does this help?
Wikipedia wrote:The most commonly obtained item from the 1033 program is ammunition. Other most commonly requested items include cold weather clothing, sand bags, medical supplies, sleeping bags, flashlights and electrical wiring.[15] The 1033 program also transfers office equipment such as fax machines, which many smaller police departments are unable to afford. The DLA also offers tactical armored vehicles, weapons, including grenade launchers, watercraft, and aircraft.[10][16]
Maybe the thing to fear here is the people stealing this shit. I have no idea.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:36 pm UTC

ivnja wrote:Perhaps I'm missing where you're going, but having the tools to do the one - and I don't even mean tanks - will by necessity give them the tools to do the other, at least for equivalently sized crowds. That's a rules of engagement / leadership question, not an equipment one.

Yes, exactly. Now, where is our leadership going with this? Given the answer to that question, how much additional power to quell, suppress, and intimidate political opposition do we want to give the police... especially when there is no demonstrated need for some of this war equipment in our civilian police department.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

iamspen
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:38 pm UTC

Nobody is suggesting police officers shouldn't be allowed the equipment necessary to mitigate the risks they face on the job. What we ARE saying is that if it's not a particularly dangerous job to begin with, why are they allowed to blast anyone they perceive as a threat in any given moment in the name of protecting ourselves? And why do we allow a government program that provides material equipment that only emboldens that sort of insane workplace culture while providing no real practical benefits except in the case of actual domestic warfare? I would posit that police forces don't need refurbished M113s or thousands of rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition even in the case of a riot, and that the paramilitary culture of American policing only reinforces the idea that cops should protect and serve themselves first, and only then worry about the people whose tax dollars pay their salaries.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:42 pm UTC

Thousands of rounds is a few hours of target practice. Well, maybe not with precision rifles, but the point stands. The military should sell surplus ammunition to the public and police, because if it's not surplus, it's new ammunition and that consumes more resources.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T402550 4830720 (NAD 83)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ivnja » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:49 pm UTC

I missed this earlier today, but SecDef Mattis also clearly contradicted Trump's most recent inflammatory tweet about North Korea ("The U.S. has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer!"), saying that the US is "never out of diplomatic solutions." Secretary of State Tillerson had said something similar over the weekend.

I appreciate that some cabinet members are willing to push back (or, looked at another way, that they are unwilling to let their own morals or reputations be dragged down by Trump). Even Jeff Sessions, for all his faults and his loyalty to Trump, was honorable in recusing himself from the Russia investigation when that began.
Hi you.
She(?!)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:17 am UTC

ivnja wrote:I missed this earlier today, but SecDef Mattis also clearly contradicted Trump's most recent inflammatory tweet about North Korea ("The U.S. has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer!"), saying that the US is "never out of diplomatic solutions." Secretary of State Tillerson had said something similar over the weekend.

I appreciate that some cabinet members are willing to push back (or, looked at another way, that they are unwilling to let their own morals or reputations be dragged down by Trump). Even Jeff Sessions, for all his faults and his loyalty to Trump, was honorable in recusing himself from the Russia investigation when that began.

The biggest fear isn't that Trump will refuse to talk to North Korea, it's that he might actually make a deal. An awful deal that benefits China/N. Korea with marginal benefits to Trump, but his name splashed everywhere. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/p ... ml?mcubz=0
But a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim, these experts said, could open the door to ratifying North Korea’s nuclear status or scaling back America’s joint military exercises with South Korea. That could sunder American alliances with Japan and South Korea and play to the benefit of China, which has long advocated direct dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang.

“What the North Koreans are angling for is to bring the danger and tension to a crescendo, and then to pivot to a peace proposal,” said Daniel R. Russel, who served until March as the assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs. “All of this is focused on pressuring the U.S. to enter direct talks with Kim on his terms. That is the big trap.”
Previous presidents avoided that trap, Mr. Russel said, even if Bill Clinton briefly contemplated meeting Mr. Kim’s father, Kim Jong-il. But Mr. Trump brings a deal-maker’s swagger to the North Korea issue that his predecessors did not. He has in the past expressed a willingness to sit across a table from the willful young scion of North Korea’s ruling family.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:15 am UTC

Robert Mueller Eliminates Trump’s Trump Card

Spoiler:
Jonathan Chait wrote:Donald Trump’s ability to issue presidential pardons has been the ultimate weapon looming over Robert Mueller’s investigation. Trump could potentially pardon himself of any crimes. More importantly, he could dangle a pardon to his former staffers to encourage them not to supply Mueller with any incriminating information on Trump. Mueller is apparently handling his investigating like the prosecution of a mob boss, pressuring underlings to flip on the boss. Trump’s advantage is that, unlike a mob boss, he can give out an unlimited number of get-out-of-jail-free cards. Trump has reportedly mused in public about using the pardon — and his pardon of Joe Arpaio flaunted his willingness to use it on behalf of a political ally, even in outrageous fashion.

But there turns out to a flaw in Trump’s strategy. The presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes. As NBC reported last night, it is possible for state governments to press charges in some of the alleged crimes committed by Trump’s cronies. “You would have to find that one of those [election] crimes occurred in New York,” Jennifer Rodgers, a former federal prosecutor, told NBC. Of course, some of the alleged crimes almost certainly did take place in New York. And sure enough, Josh Dawsey reports, Mueller is teaming up with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. “One of the people familiar with progress on the case said both Mueller’s and Schneiderman’s teams have collected evidence on financial crimes, including potential money laundering,” he notes.

Trump can pardon anybody facing charges from Mueller, but not from Schneiderman. It is probably significant that Mueller is letting this fact be known to Trump’s inner circle. Trump’s biggest source of leverage over Mueller just disappeared.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2476
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:25 am UTC

That the guy who complains about bad deals having being made with Iran, to avert its potential nuclear status, could then make a deal with Best Korea, over an actual nuclear status… So bad! Repeal and replace! Make Trump Great Again!

(Please observe the honey thick drops of pure sarcasm oozing out, by the end of that paragraph. I had intended to parody a Tweet, not the Fake Twitter, but TrueTwitter, perhaps from @realDonaldTrumpJr currently incumbant in the United State Of Florida's subsea presidential residence, Mar A Lago A Mar, between rounds of subaqua-golf. But would I be going to far? Or not far enough? Best not to risk it.)


And, in light of the last message, does that also mean that Arpaio is now even more likely to be submitted to (at least the possibility of) further state prosecutions? With a fair wind (depends on the state officials) it could be quite entertaining. Never mind the rest. At least from this distance.

idonno
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: nully

Postby idonno » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:44 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
idonno wrote:
morriswalters wrote:When you find that reality let me know. Of course I will have been dead untold time. Purely on death comparisons, I am past caring. However. If I want to study cancer, I look at people who have cancer. If I want to see how murder looks statistically I look at murder.

You might have a case if this were about studying something. This is about justifying an action based on claims of danger. Death by murder isn't more dangerous than death by anything else. Everyone who dies is in the same final state. Sure there are other dangers that police face but protecting them from death is the commonly cited reason to give them military equipment.
Your not really saying anything. So there is nothing for me to say. The part I bolded has zero meaning. Absolutely none. It's a truism. You have no idea of how much is spent to make you safer in the workplace. So on a purely money basis I suggest you need to study. Whats on the military surplus list? First I suggest there are no tanks. Maybe armored personnel carriers. What kind of rounds do they fire? I've never seen, or heard anybody say, cops fire on civilians with a machine gun. Here, does this help?
Wikipedia wrote:The most commonly obtained item from the 1033 program is ammunition. Other most commonly requested items include cold weather clothing, sand bags, medical supplies, sleeping bags, flashlights and electrical wiring.[15] The 1033 program also transfers office equipment such as fax machines, which many smaller police departments are unable to afford. The DLA also offers tactical armored vehicles, weapons, including grenade launchers, watercraft, and aircraft.[10][16]
Maybe the thing to fear here is the people stealing this shit. I have no idea.
Actually I have a pretty good idea exactly how much is spent to make me safer and all the various sources of that money. You have no idea what I do for a living. Did Obama make it harder to get these items you listed and is Trump making it easier?
Banned Items
    Tracked Armored Vehicles
    Weaponized Aircraft, Vessels, and Vehicles of Any Kind
    Firearms of .50‐Caliber or Higher
    Ammunition of .50‐Caliber or Higher
    Grenade Launchers
    Bayonets
    Non woodland or desert patterns Camouflage (I'm really not why on this one. It might be to look less military except actual uniforms are allowed)
Restricted requiring justification and agreement of use
    Manned Aircraft, Fixed Wing
    Manned Aircraft, Rotary Wing
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
    Armored Vehicles, Wheeled
    Tactical Vehicles, Wheeled
    Command and Control Vehicles
    Specialized (NOT service issue which require not justification) Firearms and Ammunition Under .50‐Caliber
    Explosives and Pyrotechnics
    Riot Batons
    Riot Helmets

If you are talking about other items, you aren't talking about the restrictions implemented by Obama and being relaxed by Trump.

You can claim I am saying nothing but this all started with your claim that "The Great Hippo" was "using a category mismatch" when using mortality rates to talk about danger and asserted that for a fair comparison you have to look at murder rates of various jobs. My point is that different deaths are pretty much equally dangerous and can be directly compared when discussing how dangerous any given activity is. This is what I am saying and it is directly counter to your claim.

Also, it is entirely possible for deaths to be directly comparable, for police to not be in the top 10 most dangerous jobs, and for the danger to police officers to justify providing them with things like bayonets. For example, I could see a pretty strong argument to allow Alaskan police access to the incredibly dangerous snow camouflage. There are valid arguments to be made but "you can't compare murder deaths to non murder deaths" is not one of them.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:25 pm UTC

idonno wrote:The particular hazard is death. If you think otherwise could you please explain what methods of death deserve differentiation and why.


Comparing overall death rates doesn't get to the nuance of the situation. Yes there are plenty of jobs more dangerous than policing in terms of raw numbers. And in each of those jobs various methods are used to reduce that danger. The difference is that danger to police (at least some of it) comes directly from other people, often those breaking the law. Since the police are the force that backs our laws, there's necessarily going to be conflict there. And reducing the danger to police can come at the cost of them hurting more people. Clearly that's not where we should go FIRST. The ideas presented above about ensuring they are wearing vests, seatbelts and the like are MUCH better ideas than giving them bigger guns. But the overall point is that comparing the death rates alone is not useful in determining the mitigating actions.

idonno
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:04 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
idonno wrote:The particular hazard is death. If you think otherwise could you please explain what methods of death deserve differentiation and why.


Comparing overall death rates doesn't get to the nuance of the situation. Yes there are plenty of jobs more dangerous than policing in terms of raw numbers. And in each of those jobs various methods are used to reduce that danger. The difference is that danger to police (at least some of it) comes directly from other people, often those breaking the law. Since the police are the force that backs our laws, there's necessarily going to be conflict there. And reducing the danger to police can come at the cost of them hurting more people. Clearly that's not where we should go FIRST. The ideas presented above about ensuring they are wearing vests, seatbelts and the like are MUCH better ideas than giving them bigger guns. But the overall point is that comparing the death rates alone is not useful in determining the mitigating actions.

That is all well and good if the issue being discussed is mitigating actions. This entire conversations started around The Great Hippo using mortality rates to measure danger. I don't think anyone here has contended that cause of death doesn't matter when trying to determine how to mitigate those deaths.

cphite
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:12 pm UTC

ucim wrote:What is under discussion is giving civilian police the weapons of international war, under the guise of "protection". Because heroes.


People keep getting caught up on this concept of these being weapons (or vehicles or whatever) "of war" but that term really doesn't mean anything. There are still a lot Hummer vehicles on the roads being driven by ordinary citizens; some of the models are directly derived from vehicles used in combat. So what? Aside from getting horrible gas mileage they aren't really a problem. Likewise, the "tanks" that police departments are buying aren't armed with cannons or machine guns like they would be in a war zone. It's not the same thing.

Police departments buy heavy armored vehicles mostly because they're very difficult to damage. If you park a squad car in the middle of a riot, and that car is damaged, not only are you spending money to repair the car but that is one car that can't be used for other purposes for potentially weeks. If police need to fall back from a position, they can leave weapons and other gear in an armored vehicle with much less chance of it being stolen.

If police are involved in a shooting situation - bank robbery gone wrong, hostage situation, and the like - it is much safer inside or behind an armored vehicle than inside or behind a car.

A lot of departments have requested large caliber weapons in recent years. Not because they have any intention of using them on people - large caliber weapons are completely unnecessary for that purpose. They're extremely expensive, harder to maintain, and more difficult to use. So why have them? Well, one reason is that over the past several years there have been more and more occurrences of vehicles being used as weapons; and a 50-cal automatic weapon is one way to stop a vehicle.

Grenade launchers can be used to project tear gas and other non-lethal weapons.

But while we do want them to be able to quell a riot, we don't want them to be able to crush a political rally. Behind a tank, and under Trump, they are in danger of looking the same.


A riot is a crowd of people, often armed, who are committing acts of violence. A political rally is a crowd of people, usually not armed, and not committing acts of violence. The ability to quell a riot by definition includes the ability to crush a political rally; there simply isn't a way to give police departments the former without also giving them the latter.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:23 pm UTC

Cphite, what does it say about the police if the only thing they care about is to rapid fire rubber bullets or tear gas every time they feel the slightest twinge of danger. Which coincidentally happens whenever they see a crowd of black people. There's a mindset where the cops think they're in danger from every little thing, which justifies buying and using everything in the arsenal to protect their amygdala, justified or not.

Tldr police have implicit or even explicit bias against black people and are trained to fear everything. Giving them extra tools merely let's then use them where there is no need.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:44 pm UTC

idonno wrote:That is all well and good if the issue being discussed is mitigating actions. This entire conversations started around The Great Hippo using mortality rates to measure danger. I don't think anyone here has contended that cause of death doesn't matter when trying to determine how to mitigate those deaths.


But the initial discussion was to give police equipment to protect themselves from danger. The mortality rate was then used to measure the danger even though the "protection from danger" was only really "protection from other humans being violent towards you" and hence the mortality rate discussion is misleading at best or a non-sequitur at worst. I mean there are definitely arguments to be made on why police shouldn't be armed. But none of them are "because police work is less dangerous than logging, statistically".

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:03 pm UTC

You folks realize there is a police discussion thread right next to this one, right. I get that there's some policy stuff going on, but it is getting pretty goddamn tangential.

Edit: heh, literally ten seconds after I post that, a cop car pulls someone over in front of me as I'm walking. Shoulda been pulling over this thread tbh.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:41 pm UTC

We need a "Thread police misbehavior thread" to discuss Liri now. Keep him honest.

But seriously, Trump.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:18 am UTC

Okay, one plate of hot, steaming Trumpitude, coming right up!

Somewhere way up thread, several of us were talking about Trump's failure to appoint people to run various agencies. I feel a delicious shiver of schadenfreude at the possible personal consequences of Trump's "self-created mess" in that regard, shown in the bolded portions below:

Exclusive: Mueller Enlists the IRS for His Trump-Russia Investigation: Will the accountants take down key members of Team Trump? Or force the president’s tax returns into the open?

Special counsel Bob Mueller has teamed up with the IRS. According to sources familiar with his investigation into alleged Russian election interference, his probe has enlisted the help of agents from the IRS’ Criminal Investigations unit.

This unit—known as CI—is one of the federal government’s most tight-knit, specialized, and secretive investigative entities. Its 2,500 agents focus exclusively on financial crime, including tax evasion and money laundering. A former colleague of Mueller’s said he always liked working with IRS’ special agents, especially when he was a U.S. Attorney.

And it goes without saying that the IRS has access to Trump’s tax returns—documents that the president has long resisted releasing to the public.

[...]

As special counsel, Mueller is subject to the same rules as U.S. Attorneys. That means that if he wants to bring charges against Trump associates related to violations of tax law, he will need approval from the Justice Department’s elite Tax Division. Trump hasn’t yet named his pick to run the division, which is a post that requires Senate confirmation. At the moment, career officials are helming the division.

One former Tax Division prosecutor told The Daily Beast that this could cause trouble for Trump.

“The fact that there is not a senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, and that the Trump people have disregarded it despite warnings as far back as December that they needed to fill the AAG’s spot… shows what a self-created mess the Trump administration has found itself in,” said the former prosecutor, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “They have no one to keep Mueller and his Brooklyn team honest. They should be concerned about that.”

The former prosecutor said it could have benefitted Trump if he had an appointee in the division as these proceedings unfold—and that he’s now missed that opportunity.

“They could have picked any two people in the world,” he added, “and they picked nobody.”

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5652
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Angua » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:28 am UTC

I think this is my favourite click bait article about a Trump tweet so far:

Trump experiences devastation from Harvey first hand.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests