Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep
from the 'I-feared-for-my-employment' dept
Late last month, rookie NYPD officer Peter Liang shot an unarmed resident of a Brooklyn housing project while entering an unlit stairwell. While opening a door, Liang's gun "discharged" (as they say). The bullet struck Akai Gurley in the chest, killing him.
It was an accident, but an avoidable one. Liang claims to have been opening the door to the stairwell with a flashlight in one hand and his gun in the other. While opening the door (possibly using his "gun hand), he inadvertently fired his weapon. That his gun was drawn was questionable enough. But this error in judgment was further compounded by his actions immediately following the discovery that he had shot someone in the stairwell.
The New York Daily News reports that in the crucial minutes following the shooting, Liang and his partner did not try to get medical attention for the grievously wounded man and could not be reached by either their commanding officer or the 911 dispatcher who fielded a call from a neighbor reporting gunshots.Let that sink in for a moment. An accidental shot hits a man in the chest and the two officers on the scene have zero interest in ensuring the victim receives medical attention. Both officers (both rookies) decided to go off the grid rather than deal with the mess they had created.
Liang knew he had screwed up. But he chose to protect himself as a man he shot lay dying. Instead of responding to queries and calls, he was texting his union representative.
If there's any entity that can keep cops from being held accountable for their actions, it's police unions. Through the power of labor agreements and arbitration hearings, unions can reinstate cops despicable enough that their own departments have disowned them. Liang may only be a rookie but he already recognizes who holds the most power.
His partner may have been following Liang's lead or was equally unsure of where to turn in the wake of this unfortunate incident. He may not have texted a union rep, but he also did nothing to ensure the victim received medical attention. He also chose to remain incommunicado. That decision may have been prompted by the fact that not only had the two officers been forbidden from performing this sort of patrol (called a "vertical") by their supervisor, but they also had no idea where they were.
Mistakes happen. But this collection of errors snowballed into an accidental shooting of an unarmed man. That part is excusable, but only if entirely separated from the events following the shooting. Texting a union rep shows that Liang's primary concern was for his own livelihood rather than the well-being of anyone around him. His partner's compliant silence pushes this situation from merely tragic into the arena of the possibly criminal.
The Daily News cites court insiders as saying "while the shooting may have been a mishap, the cops' subsequent conduct can amount to criminal liability."While I can appreciate the fact that the instinct for self-preservation can often override better judgment, police officers are held -- or should be -- to a higher standard. When someone's life is ebbing away thanks to your screwup, you need to take care of them first and worry about the extent of your ass coverage later. Police officers are already well-insulated against accountability. Talking to a union rep as a man lays dying is, no sickening pun intended, overkill.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: akai gurley, nypd, peter liang, police, police brutality, police unions, protection
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Imagining that, without privately owned guns, the police wouldn't have guns is incorrect. The UK was almost unique in not issuing firearms for routine police work. And that has changed. It's not uncommon to see sidearms routinely carried in some areas.
Did the police have their firearms drawn because they expected to enter a gun battle? Or even expected to use them? Almost certainly not. Exchanging gunfire is rare, and they wouldn't have entered the stairwell without backup if they expected it.
That suggests that they had their guns drawn as a means of intimidation. Not because they expected armed opposition, but because they wanted to "control the situation".
'Control the situation' is a now-common part of police training. And it now extends to all situations, even when no crime is being committed. It goes hand-in-hand with 'respect my authority', and quickly moves to feeling above the laws you are enforcing on the little people.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LEO exception
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Error
The original mistake is the second amendment, or at least its interpretation to include modern handguns.
The US does not actually allow an unlimited "right to bear arms". If it did then privately owned tanks, fighter planes and tactical nuclear weapons would be allowed. Clearly the 2nd amendment could be restricted to the kind of armaments that were available when it was written.
Without a plethora of privately owned handguns a police officer would not have felt the need to draw his gun in this situation and in fact would not even have needed a gun. UK police manage fine without them - and have resisted calls for them to be issued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Although I was watching some Youtube stuff not so long ago, and a private collector certainly managed to get some tank shells from somewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Excusable?
Accidental shooting? Hardly. Negligent shooting. No threat, no probable cause, but Barney Fife has his gun out and his finger on the trigger while he's opening a stairwell door.
Excusable? No. Negligent? Yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Imagining that, without privately owned guns, the police wouldn't have guns is incorrect. The UK was almost unique in not issuing firearms for routine police work. And that has changed. It's not uncommon to see sidearms routinely carried in some areas.
Did the police have their firearms drawn because they expected to enter a gun battle? Or even expected to use them? Almost certainly not. Exchanging gunfire is rare, and they wouldn't have entered the stairwell without backup if they expected it.
That suggests that they had their guns drawn as a means of intimidation. Not because they expected armed opposition, but because they wanted to "control the situation".
'Control the situation' is a now-common part of police training. And it now extends to all situations, even when no crime is being committed. It goes hand-in-hand with 'respect my authority', and quickly moves to feeling above the laws you are enforcing on the little people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Factory workers used to have strong unions, but not anymore. Teachers used to have strong unions, but not anymore. The police still have strong unions because politicians will bend over backwards to protect cops. Because they feel they have to be "law and order" in order to get elected.
We could weaken police unions just like we did every other union, but no one is willing to take that first step.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well the important thing is..
Q: is the Policeman's benevolent association and actual union or is it a professional association?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error
Ah, the sad delusions of gun nuts. Almost -- but not quite -- charmingly naive in their childlike simplicity.
Your guns are no deterrent at all to a government that has guided missiles, stealth fighters, drones, sonic weapons, cluster bombs, tanks, armored robots, infrared vision systems, and all kinds of other gear.
If you are inconsequential and irrelevant, then of course they won't bother with you. You're simply not worth the effort and the expense.
If you become consequential and relevant, then they will. And your guns will be incinerated along with you when a drone carrying high explosives closes on your position and detonates. Nobody will need to pry your gun from your cold, dead hand because your hand will be ash and your gun will be slag.
If you want to resist power, then you'll need weapons vastly superior to guns: reason, logic, facts, compassion, dignity, courage, empathy. These are the weapons of the brave; guns are the weapons of cowards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
Wrong beyond all possible ways of being wrong. Come back when you actually understand the intent and letter of the 2nd amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
As far as fighting the government, a good rifle and rifle man a the correct place and time can be more effective than all the aircraft and tanks in the military. If you need an example of that looks at the battles during ww2 where a single sniper held up the advance of the German forces into Stalingrad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error
That's not an accident, that is at the very least having fun. It might be worth checking other places that "patrol" has been for bullets in the wall and powder traces.
Whether or not somebody being in the corridor that got the bullet was unexpected, the shot itself can hardly count as coincidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
None of those will stop a drone strike either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
You seem to be pretty judgmental who says I'm not all of those and a proud owner of firearms , your ego and lack of logic , facts makes you look very ignorant and self centered , enjoy your life and while your at it have a great day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Natural selection depends on a positive (advantageous) reproducible (genetically inheritable) trait; choosing to own a handgun is not a reproducible trait.
However, being so stupid that you actually argue against reason, logic, and facts is reproducible. However, it's not at all positive, nor does low intelligence increase the probability of reproducing in the first place (unless you find your "equal" which only hurts the next generation's odds as far as natural selection goes).
Good luck!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
The issue is not about what, but more about where, when and especially why.
Why often gets lost in the discussion: Living in Alaska with bears tripping around, hell yeah, you have good reason to have a gun there.
In houses, it is a tossup: Bad neighborhood, you better. Rich neighborhood, hmm maybe. But carrying a loaded piece in public places and automatic weapons outside of very special circumstances, seems unreasonable.
Generally guncontrol debates like in this thread are unreasonable because the discussions boil down to what instead of how (in a broader sense)...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Haven't you noticed? The battles that matter aren't being fought with guns. They're being fought with words -- and, increasingly, with code. So if you really do value your freedom, then you need to spend less time training your marksmanship, and more time training your intellect.
Your adversaries are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Anyone and everyone should bash anyone and everyone who is complicit in a broken system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
I call BS.
Our founding fathers were fighting the most well equipped army in the world, the British. Pretty sure they intended that everyone can bear arms to defend themselves from the most well equipped armies in the world irregardless of how destructive the weapon might be.
Why else would they just use the word "arms"?
If they intended to limit it to guns of the time they would have replaced "arms" with "arms available prior to ratification of this document"
arms is defined as "weapons and ammunition" which would include nukes, fighter jets, tanks, bombers, automatic rifles, grenades and many other weapons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error
then why do they mentioned a well-regulated militia?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Nobody did. Narcissistic much?
Nice straw man fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
If that situation were to happen today, taking out that sniper would be no more trouble than swatting a fly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Wait... what?
I live in London. You see armed police at certain locations but you don't see armed police just wandering the streets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
You failed. Stop whining.
(Just for the record, _I_ own guns, plural. And I agree with everything he said).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
(So why not at the Bundy Ranch? My guess is that they were probably not important enough.)
"Tank Man", standing unarmed and alone, did more for the cause of freedom on this planet than any gun nut could possibly achieve. THAT is what courage looks like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The issue is this, everyone likes most cops, because most cops are good. No one likes bad cops, and the blue code of silence has to end.
Same with teachers, most of them are dedicated, hardworking and really do a good job. The ones that make headlines, the ones who parents hate, are the ones we can't get rid of.
Both bad teachers and bad cops give good ones a bad name and bring about a lot of hate towards them.
Look at what Frank Serpico (probably the most famous NY Cop ever)is saying about cops today. One article quotes him as saying "we (cops) used to carry a knife or a gun to plant on someone, now, they don't even bother."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error
Just look at the gun death statistics for UK and US.
Figures don't lie.
Fewer legal guns does inevitably mean fewer in the hands of criminals. Almost every criminal's gun starts life as a legal gun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Insulation from accountability is why police can afford to be careless, and why the first action of a cop who screwed up is CYA rather than *actually* controlling the situation - ie. arranging medical care and coordinating with emergency services/chain of command.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Second, there are such laws, but they're not enforced against cops as compared to the general population because politicians aren't willing to stand up against cops. No politician is willing to stand up against cops because s/he would likely not get elected unless s/he's strongly in support of law an order.
Once again, this is not the union's fault or the lack of laws, it's our fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Say what you want about unions, politicians, the general public, but the good cop should stand up and say "no more"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because if the police were not routinely armed and/or did not routinely expect to meet armed criminals (as in the UK) then this tragedy couldn't have happened.
Actually there is an even better reason for gun control.
One of the major causes of gun death is suicide - and this is very common even in countries like Switzerland which have lots of guns - but are otherwise much more law abiding than the US.
Suicide by gun is just so much easier, quicker and more certain than any other method.
You can't get around the fact that gun control saves many lives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Whoops.
Your gun ownership or lack thereof confers no special knowledge or status, and makes your argument no more valid. Plenty of folks who want to outright ban firearms either own or are guarded by security who carry firearms. It's the typical arrogant "oh, I'M responsible, but those common folks aren't trustworthy" attitude.
Attempting to defend the inferences of someone who opened by describing gun "nuts" as childlike and naive is genuinely pathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
disarm the police
Contract Tazer to make a multiple-discharge tazer gun. It may be abused but wouldn't be fatal at least. Then victims can press charges/sue, whereas dead men cannot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
LOL, You called me stupid, then proceeded to make the exact same point I was making in my original post.
My argument was that defending yourself from a criminal using fact, logic, and compassion was not in itself logical, and would quickly get you killed. As you said in your reply, arguing against logic is "reproducible". You made my point for me, then called me stupid.
It's ok to be a dumb ass, but I would appreciate it next time if you would keep it to yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
mental health is more the problem than the inanimate tool used to end the life. some people will kill themselves, that is just the way of the world. some will use guns, some will use razor blades, some will use cars, some will use buildings and bridges. we can keep removing tools but suicidal people will find a way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: disarm the police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: disarm the police
negligent/not justified applies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
I assure you that's not the case. Try looking into reading comprehension sometime.
As you said in your reply, arguing against logic is "reproducible".
No, I said stupidity is reproducible. If you knew anything about this "natural selection" you brought up, you would know enough to realize that "arguing" is not reproducible.
... then called me stupid.
Because you are stupid.
I'll break this down for you: In my post I stated that stupid is the reproducible trait. What came after that word ("that you actually argue against reason, logic, and facts") is a modifier of stupid, the degree, if you will, of stupid. You got that all mixed up, thinking that "argue" was the subject rather than "stupid"
Not real bright.
It's ok to be a dumb ass, but I would appreciate it next time if you would keep it to yourself.
You really need to follow your own advice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: disarm the police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Apparently not.
I'm glad you like your big words.
Intelligent people like to use them sometimes. I guess that's not your normal crowd.
It is just too bad you don't have any clue how reality works. Gun violence is the least common result of owning a weapon.
Sorry, I do know how reality works. So do these folks:
Displaying a weapon to someone breaking into your home will end 99% of all crimes. For the remaining 1%, they already had a weapon, and were ready to use it regardless of your possession of one.
Where did you get those stats? Just pulled them out of your ass, didn't you? They sure smell that way. Here's some that don't stink so much:
Feel free to feel high and mighty...
Thanks. I will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Hate to break it to you, but it won't end well for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where I diverge is in seeing this as a problem for the mental health system and development of support networks for former troops and other at-risk citizens, rather than simply blanket banning firearms. But there's no easy solution and no black and white in this part of the debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Police Unions
My educated gues is that the unions eveolved their current attitude because the same power-tripping cops who cause problems for the public are the ones who become boss and apply that same bully attitude to their subordinates, jumping to conclusions and happy to throw anyone under the bus to appease public pressure and higher-ups. It doesn't take too many of those before the bottom rank police become militant about their own protection - especially in a job where one mistake could be career-ending or life-threatening.
Not that I'm a great fan of police or their current lack of accountability. I just suspect the police brotherhood attitude doesn't come from nowhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
Wait, maybe the gun statistic was lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Police Unions
I've noticed this as well. It really does seem that companies which have asshole management get asshole unions, and companies that have reasonable management get reasonable unions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No - just that they are more likely to complete the act successfully. If they are unsuccessful that gives the mental health system an opportunity to kick in and resolve the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Cover-Your-Own-Ass culture...
That's exactly what's happening here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
The good news is I can correct my terrible phrasing, you on the other hand, will always be an an asshole. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Whoops indeed.
But go ahead and keep on hanging on to your outliers and trying to pretend they prove anything. The rest of us will just keep on snickering at you.
Your gun ownership or lack thereof confers no special knowledge or status ...
No one said it did. I was just pointing out that one can be a gun owner without being a gun nut.
Attempting to defend the inferences of someone ...
It possible for someone to make inferences. You, as a "receiver" can infer things and draw inferences from them. The word you're looking for is implications.
You don't help your argument much by making yourself look so stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, our brave men in blue...
But of course, not at the risk of their steady paychecks or retirement benefits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
... it's actually a very good read. I would say the data actually points overall to responsible gun ownership having more benefits than not. Here is some more interesting reading.
* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]
hmmm...
Murders: 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]
Guns in Defense (5 year span): "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Or understood what I said better in the first place, thus avoiding all of this.
my point was that arguing against logic is stupid
You're absolutely correct. But the point you're trying to make isn't back up by data, facts, or reason and therefore not logical:
The good news is I can correct my terrible phrasing
But you'll probably still never start accepting facts that disagree with your opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
Just a few exceptions for your perusal.
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Columbia
And many other places. Guerilla warfare is about more than high tech arms.
Oh yeah, there is one huge point you missed, the people in Uniform that man those high tech weapon systems? Those are our sons and daughters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Bullshit! The other link you posted acknowledges that millions of people used guns in defense of life or property. You posted the link!
If you don't want to own a gun, then don't. The supreme court has stated that the police are not there to protect you, they are there to enforce the law. Your protection is your own responsibility. It's your choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I live in London. You see armed police at certain locations...
Isn't that exactly what DB said?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
How can you call that a good cop?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: disarm the police
According to at least two recent grand juries, gunning someone down on a street, or choking someone to death on camera isn't even serious enough to go to trial, where the 'justified/not justified' bit would be determined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
so, as per usual, actions which are ABSOLUTELY illegal for us 99%, are just fine when our 'superiors' do it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
The militia, in the United States, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, were......the PEOPLE.
If the founding fathers intended only for LEO and military to have "arms," it would've been worded that way.
You forget about the second clause of the amendment, "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (emphasis added).
The PEOPLE mentioned in the second clause of the Second Amendment are the same PEOPLE mentioned in the rest of the Bill of Rights, as well as the Constitution itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
... it's actually a very good read.
Yea, it is a good read. Maybe you should read and comprehend it next time instead of cherry-picking that sentence from the rest of the paragraph.
I would say the data actually points overall to responsible gun ownership having more benefits than not. Here is some more interesting reading.
Yea, that's what you would say. Too bad the data points to the opposite. The last 2 sentences are saying that you are more likely to be a victim of a homicide if you own a gun.
The first of your other two references doesn't say anything at all, just a number. The second one ... do you really think that a stat from .05% of the population that quotes them saying they had to use their gun or get killed, people who have every reason to lie and/or exaggerate, proves anything?
It doesn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I get this feeling they are being trained to be brutal with unarmed suspects, to beat up people they have detained. To shoot unarmed and unresisting citizens just because they can.
Be good to know if police are being trained to make war on their citizens or if the police as a whole can be saved from the corruption drowning it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
There was the sleeping 7 year old girl shot in the face by a cop who kicked in the wrong door by "mistake", then the 12 year old boy recently shot within 2 seconds of the police pulling right up to him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 19,990
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
Murders: 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general
vrs.
Guns in Defense (5 year span): "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year
I realize you absolutely cannot fathom that you are wrong. Thats ok, Troll's aren't expected to admit anything. But you ARE wrong, and no amount of bullshit is going to change that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Define 'good'
I don't, because as far as I can tell most cops aren't 'good'.
Sure most cops might not be likely to beat you senseless for fun, or come up with trumped up charges to make your life miserable just for kicks, but most of them will cover for those that are doing those things, with silence if nothing else. As soon as they cover for the rotten, corrupt cops, they become rotten, corrupt cops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
No, it wasn't me. It was you who tried to pull a single sentence out of a whole body of research to try to prove your bullshit. And got caught.
FACT: having a gun in the home increases your risk of being a victim of a homicide. It was right there in the paragraph you tried to cherry-pick that sentence from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Same with guns. If I believe it is my constitutional right to bear arms, you will never change my opinion with statistics.
What are the odds a gun will ever save my life? Very slim. What are the odds I will be murdered with a gun? Very slim. What are the odds I will win the lottery? Very slim, but millions of people play it everyday.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No amount of gun control...
The police in the US get to do what they want, and they love their toys, especially their little bang-bangs.
So no, if there were no legal guns, these guys would still have been out playing with their guns until one got spooked and discovered the hard way that guns are not toys.
Someone got needlessly shot and gun control wouldn't have fixed it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The code of silence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Terror Nation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error
In 2011, approximately 32,163 individuals were killed by guns in the U.S. (including accidental deaths). The U.S. had 15,953 homicides, 11,101 of which were caused by guns. In 2011, there were about 310.5 million people, with a similar number of guns owned (estimates range from 270 million to 310 million) and both legal and illegal ownership is estimated at 101 per 100 people.
Now, compare this to Russia, which has strict gun control laws. In 2011, Russia had a population of around 143 million. The latest data of gun ownership in Russia is about 12,750,000, or around 8.9 guns per 100 people. Although we do not have exact numbers from Russia specific to guns, in 2011 they had 13,826 homicides.
Oh, huh, that's a little odd. Russia, with 10% of the guns per capita and 46% of the population, has a total homicide rate about 2,000 individuals less. Per person, the homicide rate in the U.S. is 1 homicide per 19,463 people and the rate in Russia is 1 homicide per 10,342 people. So the U.S. had 90% more gun ownership, 54% higher population, and a 47% lower homicide rate than Russia.
Here are four countries with higher murder rates than the U.S.: Venezuela, Belize, South Africa, and El Salvador, with homicide rates per 100,000 people of 70.2 El Salvador, 45.1 in Venezuela, 39 in Belize, and 30.9 in South Africa (The U.S. is 4.7). The U.S. has a gun rate per 100 population of 101. Those other countries? Venezuela 10.7, Belize 10, South Africa 6.9, and El Salvador 5.8. The rate of gun homicides per 100,000 people is 39.9 El Salvador, 39 Venezuela, 21.8 Belize, 17 South Africa, and 2.8 United States.
So there are five countries with less guns but higher rates of gun violence, and violence in general, than the U.S. (significantly so!). Are there countries out there with lower gun ownership and lower violence/gun violence than the U.S.? Of course, there are many. But you don't just get to ignore the ones that don't correlate with your theory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Try these:
"Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home." Source
"Conclusion: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm." Source
"... we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7)" (That means almost 3 times as likely) Source
"The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2" (That means more that twice as likely). Source.
I could go on all day because all the studies say the same goddamn thing you can't or won't get through your thick skull: that owning a gun increases your chances of being a victim of a homicide.
Good luck trying to cherry-pick a seemingly contradictory sentence out of each one of those. ;-)
Go ahead, keep trying to argue against what is glaringly obvious. Keep making yourself look like a stubborn moron. It really is quite amusing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
All that crap your parroting is the equivalent of saying "If you own a car, you are more likely to be in a car accident". They, and the people like you noob shit who pick out one part of the overall picture, and try to bend the entire study to match that view, are idiots.
""Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home." Source"
Read the fucking sentence you linked retard, think about what they are telling you. You are more likely to die from a homicide, but they don't add the comparison as to how likely you would be able to defend yourself or your property should you actually have a gun, vrs running like a scared coward. When you defend yourself, there is indeed a chance you will be killed in the battle. Such is life. If you don't stand and fight, your odds of not dying increase right? I didn't need a fucking study to figure that out.
11 thousand murders, of that lets say 7 thousand own guns. They don't fucking tell you about the 162,00 that were able to defend themselves successfully do they? Just the amount that owned guns and were killed. That's fairly disingenuous don't you think?
""Conclusion: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm." Source"
That sentence is just fucking stupid. On the rare occasion someone kills themselves at a friends house, or steal's a gun, it's really fucking hard to kill yourself with a gun unless you own one isn't it noob shit?
""... we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7)" (That means almost 3 times as likely) Source"
Notice again, they only tell you that it increases the risk, the study doesn't include the number of successfully defended homes by persons with a firearm, they only point out the increased risk.
11 thousand murders, 162 thousand successfully defended. My point was that although it raises the "risk" of homicide times 2, it raises your ability to defend yourself by 16 times. The studies actually point to responsible gun ownership is more advantages than not doesn't it? Isn't that what I said you fucking retard?
Your parroting facts from studies you don't understand is funny in a sad way. You jump all over people on this thread like you know what the fuck your talking about, and all your doing is confirming your a dumb ass. Again I say; pack up your shit, and go home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
And what did he achieve for freedom? Thousands of people still died in Tianemen Square, China still represses freedom of religion and speech. Still forcefully aborts babies, etc.
Exactly what did he achieve?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LEO shows true colors by engaging in CYA prior to assisting the innocent person he just shot for no reason
and, of course this results in arguments about gun ownership amongst the public.
Not sure why I expected anything other than this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Hmm, why don't you have links to those? Oh, I know. Because you're full of shit.
Even if you do manage to find a study or two that finds flaws in that one that I referenced, what about all other the other studies that find the exact same thing!
11 thousand murders, 162 thousand successfully defended. My point was that although it raises the "risk" of homicide times 2, it raises your ability to defend yourself by 16 times.
How do you square against this:
How is it possible that in an actual scientific study they conclude that a gun doesn't prevent you from being victimized in a crime, yet according your hoo-ha a gun owner is 16 times better at protecting themselves? Something doesn't jive there. And it's pretty obvious, if you have any understanding of stats, what it is. The study you're relying on is self-reporting from people who have every reason to embellish or straight-out lie to a)the police; b)their own conscience; c)their friends/family; d)the media; e)the "perp's" family/friends; f)their "god"; g)their "church"; h)society as a whole.
Yea, those are some reeeaaallly reliable numbers. hahahaha. What a dumbass you are.
Aside from the fact your 162,000 is a bullshit number, comparing it to ~10,000 murders and coming to the conclusion that this makes gun owners 16 times more able to defend themselves is also bullshit. First off, you're starting with bullshit numbers. Second, it's not a valid comparison. Here's why: you don't (and can't) know how many of the former are part of the latter. Why can't you know? Because they're from independent studies. And you're dumb enough to try to mix their results and draw a conclusion.
Leave statistical analysis to people who actually understand how it works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
I'm sure I'll run into in another thread somewhere and crush you once again. Until then, have a nice life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
The numbers, and the studies that contradict the one you linked, are used as references in the link you provided you fucking retard. The study you linked acknowledged them, and to some degree even pointed out that there is contradicting evidence. The study you linked, points to references, some of which are compiled in the link below.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Lets take this a step further. Here is some additional info.
"If guns have a countervailing benefit—that lawful firearm owners frequently or even occasionally use guns to defend themselves and their loved ones—then determining how aggressively to curb private possession becomes a more complicated proposition."
"What’s the upshot?
1. We don’t know exactly how frequently defensive gun use occurs.
2. A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
htt ps://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
The fact is, we don't know for sure how many times a year someone has to use a gun to keep from getting killed. Conservative estimates put it at 100K, and less conservative estimates put it around 600K
"Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in."
This is from Hemenway, and he compiled his data from "A National Crime Victimization Survey report". Now, his data is from 1997, current estimates are around 100K. So even the guy that's spewing this bullshit is acknowledging that for every 1 murder, a gun is used to defend life or property around 10 times. How the fuck does that not reduce your risk of being injured in a break in? The conclusions he's reaching don't jive with the numbers he's giving us.
"A National Crime Victimization Survey report, controlling for many of the methodological problems in Kleck, supported Hemenway, finding 65,000 defensive gun uses per year (NCVS Report, 1997). Current NCVS estimates are in the 100,000 range."
Bullshit. If conservatively 100k people use a gun to protect themselves, and only 11K are murdered, then as a gun owner you are 10 times more likely to use a gun to defend yourself than to be murdered by one (suicide aside). That's using the very research and numbers the study your linking states.
Stop drinking the cool aid troll, and start thinking for yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
In the UK the intentional homicide rate is 1.0
In the US the intentional homicide rate is 4.7
Source
In the UK the crime rate is 41.00
In the US the crime rate is 50.16
Source
How is it that a country with guns has a significantly higher intentional homicide rate and crime rate than a country without guns when, according to your (utterly flawed) analysis, guns make you 10 or 16 (or whatever bullshit number you decide to use depending on your mood) "more likely to use a gun to defend yourself than to be murdered by one"?
They do not have guns, yet get murdered nearly less frequently.
Those are hard numbers, not just suppositions like you're trying to use in your feeble attempt to make it look like a gun makes you more safe. They don't.
Over and over and over and over, studies point to the same fucking thing but you're too dense to get it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Odds are that you're one of those who like to use your gun to bully people. No doubt you have a small dick, too. hahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
There never has been a question that if you take away the guns, you will have less gun violence It's a simple math problem. But in doing so, we give up our freedoms. Our forefathers made sure that we couldn't be a U.K. or an Australia, as a matter of fact, you could make a solid argument that we were granted rights for firearms BECAUSE of England. They knew that one guy with a rifle up against the government was suicide... but a government who's citizens are well armed may be a deterrent for a rouge government heading down the road of tyranny. At least perhaps it would give them pause. Unfortunately, having a gun culture has its problems too, but that's what we have.
The point of my argument was not to prove that guns are not dangerous. They are, everyone knows that. Simply having one provides the chance that someone gets shot. I have conceded that point, logic prevails. However, because we have these liberties/freedoms in a gun ownership culture we have to balance how much freedom/liberty we have, vrs safety. These one sided studies, on both sides are disingenuous and filled with research errors or out right lies. Spewing research findings from a very pointed study, then pointing at another country who's culture and liberties are completely different than ours in an effort to prove your point, is a sad display of your stupidity... but keep trying troll, I'm enjoying this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
"Odds are that you're one of those who like to use your gun to bully people. No doubt you have a small dick, too. hahaha"
What makes you think I'm male? You might be getting your ass handed to you by a girl. Get back under your bridge noob shit troll. Your weak ass insults and arguments are pathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
Where do you get these silly ideas? They're certainly not supported by facts.
Go here and note where the US ranks against UK and Australia for freedom. That's with all values set to .50 except Gun Control which I set to 0 (since you're trying to say that we have more freedoms because of a lack of gun control it seems prudent to remove that from the equation). Hell, even if it Gun Control is weighted the same as the rest, AUS still comes out on top.
In this here Freedom in the World Index, all three come out exactly tied.
And in this Economic Freedom Index, both UK and AUS come out more free than the US.
This Index of Freedom of the World puts AUS ahead and the UK somewhat behind.
There never has been a question that if you take away the guns, you will have less gun violence It's a simple math problem. But in doing so, we give up our freedoms.
Sorry, that's just false and not supported by facts, just like all of the other shit you've been spewing.
It must be so frustrating for you to have everything you say destroyed by factual, researched, proven evidence. Sucks to be you. No wonder you have such a shitty reputation around here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
1) Don't you mean "you're"? Gonna blame that on the keyboard again? hahaha
2) At least it's research, which is a helluva lot more than you can say.
You might be getting your ass handed to you by a girl.
But I'm not getting my ass handed to me. YOU are but you're too stupid to realize it. The best you've got is "it's one-sided" or "let me pull this one sentence out of one body of research that sorta kinda contradicts the points being made."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
By giving up guns your not giving up freedoms? I hope your not being serious. Again; not even a good troll.
Australia, the U.K., and others that have made it extremely difficult to own guns, have significantly lower gun deaths, but they also don't have the freedoms we have.
"Where do you get these silly ideas? They're certainly not supported by facts."
I can run down to walmart, fill out a form, and if I pass a very basic background check, walk out of walmart with a semi-auto rifle or shotgun... complete with ammo. In the U.K., it is a long and drawn out process and some firearms are outright illegal.
http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974
https://www.gov.uk/shotgun-and-firearm-certificates
http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_ States_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
You keep spouting your bullshit as "facts", yet when i look the links you post and read, they contradict your statements or are blatant propaganda. Keep trying troll!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
That's a tautology. I won't even bother to give you a link. Do your own homework.
Come back after you learn how a tautology is a logical fallacy.
What other freedoms have they given up in AUS and UK, as you suggested? If you do any research you'll find the answer is none. Yet, they still have lower crime and homicide rates even though they can't protect themselves with guns. Amazing! hahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
You started it. On yourself of all things!!! Then tried to blame your keyboard. Now that is fucking pathetic. hahahaha.
your child like attempts at making yourself look superior.
I don't have to try to make myself look superior. I just am.
(By the way, "childlike" is one word. That darn keyboard again? hahahahaha)
You say the stupidest shit. No wonder everyone around here thinks you're an asshole. No wonder you don't make an actual account (don't want the stupid shit you say coming back on you, do you?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What they did was basically the same, but with a gun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why things don't change.
What is telling here is not only that the two officers were acting outside their duty orders, but also feel the same necessity to CYA first before responding to the emergency.
Our society has become so desperate, so aware that a single mistake or unfortunate event can cause the cascade ruin of our lives that we have to think first about numero uno even when we have cause -- even a duty -- to respond to crisis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Unfortunately, as Frank Serpico proved, that can get a good cop killed. He even left the country because his life was still in danger from dirty cops long afterward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All it takes for bad cops to prevail is for good cops to...
There's bad cops and cowed cops.
And yeah, the blue brotherhood is behaving far more like a mob or street gang than a state-run institution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
Banning guns does nothing but make people choose different weapons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error
[ link to this | view in thread ]