More proof the police will shoot anybody - all recent shootings

[OutHouse]

Europe was built with dense cities before cars. People had to learn to live close to each other

and how many wars have then been in Europe in the past 1000 years?

 

[realibrad]

and how many wars have then been in Europe in the past 1000 years?

Different. Cities are in-group and countries are out-group. I'm not by any means saying that Europe is perfect or even better. I think it is clear that when it comes to violent crime, Europe tends to be much lower. Well, western Europe anyway.

Also, wars are done at the direction of leaders, and not by the people. The overall populace was not pushing for war, so much as the elite who wanted to benefit from war. Most of the people in the armies were there for money, and not for much more.

 

[woolfe9998]

Wrong, and you are not thinking critically. In the short run taking people and adding them into a dense environment will increase frictions and raise crime. Further, you increase the number of interactions and you will see a short term increase. In the long run, which is clearly what I was talking about, you see less crime. The reason for this is any successful society must learn to be less violent and or reduce crime. Long ago Europe moved into cities before major forms of transportation which forced people to interact. No doubt there was lots of problems from this but eventually those smoothed out.

No, you're trafficking in your own theory which seems logical to you. I am talking about the empirical evidence. Higher population density generally equals higher crime.

http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html

By and large, the available evidence increasingly tends to suggest that most types of crime tend to increase in levels of occurrence with increasing population density. This relationship, however, is moderated by SES. A cluster of affluent high-rise apartments in Mumbai or New York may have high density, but will also have a high level of guardianship, thus inhibiting crime. On the other hand, a high density poverty area will incorporate in its lifestyle incentives for predatory behaviours and disincentives for guardianship, given the hazards associated with confronting criminals (on their turf) or witnessing criminal acts.

The various studies on this focus on variables which can cut one way or the other. So closer proximity can stimulate frustration and aggression. Also, in city environments, people are less likely to know their neighbors, creating a sense of anonymity, which makes it easier to commit crimes. OTOH, in areas of high foot traffic, street crime can be lower because increasing the number of potential witnesses can be a deterrent. Yet on the whole, cities have always had higher crime than suburbs or rural areas.

What I haven't read in the literature is anything supporting your theory that in the long run, crime in high population density areas naturally declines as people learn to get along. You're going to need to supply some research to source that assertion. The causes and roots of crime are complex. I really don't think this is something you can just figure out while sitting in front of a computer screen.

As for social safety, explain cities all over CA that have high crime rates and huge social programs. For your claim to be true, you should see less crime in cities where they have massive social programs aimed at the poor.

Here, you're just not thinking critically. I posit robust social safety nets as one mitigator of crime, not a factor which guarantees a low crime rate. There are at least 10 variables which affect overall crime rates. Poverty is just one. In order to assess the impact of social programs on their own, you'd have to know the baselines crime rates without the social programs and then compare them to the actual crime rates with the social programs.

Even in regards to this variable, your aren't making any sense. The vast majority of public assistance programs apply everywhere in a state, or even in the entire nation. Very few apply only in cities, or only in high crime areas. I live in CA, and it isn't any easier to get Medicaid or food stamps if you live in high crime Oakland than it is if you live in a low crime suburb. The programs are the same, and the rules of eligibility are the same.

While it's difficult to tease out the precise impact of a specific social program on crime rates, what the literature says is that there is generally a correlation between poverty and crime.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/073401689301800203

Social programs tend to reduce poverty. If you compare the US with Europe, our average incomes are competitive, but our bottom 10% does worse than their bottom 10%.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/01/05/america_s_poor_vs_the_rest_of_the_world.html

Extreme poverty creates economic desperation, which in turn is an incentive to crime.

 

[realibrad]

No, you're trafficking in your own theory which seems logical to you. I am talking about the empirical evidence. Higher population density generally equals higher crime.

http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html

http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html

What you just linked does not disprove anything in terms what I said. The fact that you posted this shows you do understand what is being said.

My claim is that European cultures having lived in dense cities evolved to have less violent people. Social pressures promoted less crime. In the US, because of when it developed did not have to have the type of density like Europe and did not have to work through those same pressures as Europe. So, over hundreds of years, the culture of Western Europe has become less violent vs the US.
Your link examines if density drives down violent crime because of surveillance. Your link does not look at the long term effects at all. Zero. None.

The various studies on this focus on variables which can cut one way or the other. So closer proximity can stimulate frustration and aggression. Also, in city environments, people are less likely to know their neighbors, creating a sense of anonymity, which makes it easier to commit crimes. OTOH, in areas of high foot traffic, street crime can be lower because increasing the number of potential witnesses can be a deterrent. Yet on the whole, cities have always had higher crime than suburbs or rural areas.

What I haven't read in the literature is anything supporting your theory that in the long run, crime in high population density areas naturally declines as people learn to get along. You're going to need to supply some research to source that assertion. The causes and roots of crime are complex. I really don't think this is something you can just figure out while sitting in front of a computer screen.



Here, you're just not thinking critically. I posit robust social safety nets as one mitigator of crime, not a factor which guarantees a low crime rate. There are at least 10 variables which affect overall crime rates. Poverty is just one. In order to assess the impact of social programs on their own, you'd have to know the baselines crime rates without the social programs and then compare them to the actual crime rates with the social programs.

Even in regards to this variable, your aren't making any sense. The vast majority of public assistance programs apply everywhere in a state, or even in the entire nation. Very few apply only in cities, or only in high crime areas. I live in CA, and it isn't any easier to get Medicaid or food stamps if you live in high crime Oakland than it is if you live in a low crime suburb. The programs are the same, and the rules of eligibility are the same.

While it's difficult to tease out the precise impact of a specific social program on crime rates, what the literature says is that there is generally a correlation between poverty and crime.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/073401689301800203

Social programs tend to reduce poverty. If you compare the US with Europe, our average incomes are competitive, but our bottom 10% does worse than their bottom 10%.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/01/05/america_s_poor_vs_the_rest_of_the_world.html

Extreme poverty creates economic desperation, which in turn is an incentive to crime.

I'm going to leave this link.

https://hbr.org/2017/07/crowded-places-make-people-think-more-about-the-future

The US has new cities. The majority of Europe and Asia have old large cities. Those cities show much lower crime rates when compared to American (North, Central, South) cities. Societies that have been built around dense cities have very different crime rates. The US ranks very low in terms of population density globally.

Yes, other things can influence crime, but some cultures are more violent than others. This is known.

 

[woolfe9998]

What you just linked does not disprove anything in terms what I said. The fact that you posted this shows you do understand what is being said.

My claim is that European cultures having lived in dense cities evolved to have less violent people. Social pressures promoted less crime. In the US, because of when it developed did not have to have the type of density like Europe and did not have to work through those same pressures as Europe. So, over hundreds of years, the culture of Western Europe has become less violent vs the US.
Your link examines if density drives down violent crime because of surveillance. Your link does not look at the long term effects at all. Zero. None.

No, the link is research which examines the relationship between population density and crime. And I quoted it directly saying that there is a positive overall correlation between the two. It examines competing theories for why high density could mean higher or lower crime, surveillance being the theory of why it might produce lower crime. But the conclusion is that higher density = higher crime.

I'm going to leave this link.

https://hbr.org/2017/07/crowded-places-make-people-think-more-about-the-future

What does this article have to do with crime and population density? It says this:

Their analysis revealed that people in more-populated areas showed a significantly stronger preference for activities with a long-term payoff. The team’s conclusion: Crowded places make people think more about the future.

And says nothing whatsoever about crime.

The US has new cities. The majority of Europe and Asia have old large cities. Those cities show much lower crime rates when compared to American (North, Central, South) cities. Societies that have been built around dense cities have very different crime rates. The US ranks very low in terms of population density globally.

Yes, other things can influence crime, but some cultures are more violent than others. This is known.

Yes, I understand this is your personal theory. I'd like to see some actual research to back this up. For one thing, if you are correct, you'd expect to see older cities within the US have lower crime rates than newer cities. New York is our oldest city, founded originally by the Dutch in the 17th century. Yet throughout our history it has had one of our highest crime rates, often topping the list. It's only been in the last 20 years where its crime rate relative to other cities has declined. Did it take 350 years for New Yorkers to suddenly figure out how to get along, or is New York's very recent declining crime rate a function of community policing, and other variables which have affected the national crime rate?

This is what I mean by having empirical evidence to back up a theory. What you're offering here is just your arm chair opinion. And it's rather novel. I've never heard anyone saying - until now - that our higher crime rate compared to other industrialized countries is a function of our lower population density. Can you find me one criminologist - or anyone who's done research on crime - to back this opinion?

 

[realibrad]

No, the link is research which examines the relationship between population density and crime. And I quoted it directly saying that there is a positive overall correlation between the two. It examines competing theories for why high density could mean higher or lower crime, surveillance being the theory of why it might produce lower crime. But the conclusion is that higher density = higher crime.



What does this article have to do with crime and population density? It says this:



And says nothing whatsoever about crime.



Yes, I understand this is your personal theory. I'd like to see some actual research to back this up. For one thing, if you are correct, you'd expect to see older cities within the US have lower crime rates than newer cities. New York is our oldest city, founded originally by the Dutch in the 17th century. Yet throughout our history it has had one of our highest crime rates, often topping the list. It's only been in the last 20 years where its crime rate relative to other cities has declined. Did it take 350 years for New Yorkers to suddenly figure out how to get along, or is New York's very recent declining crime rate a function of community policing, and other variables which have affected the national crime rate?

This is what I mean by having empirical evidence to back up a theory. What you're offering here is just your arm chair opinion. And it's rather novel. I've never heard anyone saying - until now - that our higher crime rate compared to other industrialized countries is a function of our lower population density. Can you find me one criminologist - or anyone who's done research on crime - to back this opinion?

I'm not going to spend my time trying to explain how the factors that go into crime rates are reduced in cities where cultures have lived in dense cities. If you cant find the link in what I posted and those factors being reduced, and connect that to lower crime rates in those same cities, then there is little to no point going further. You simply cannot understand things well enough to be worth the effort.

The data is there.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm not going to spend my time trying to explain how the factors that go into crime rates are reduced in cities where cultures have lived in dense cities. If you cant find the link in what I posted and those factors being reduced, and connect that to lower crime rates in those same cities, then there is little to no point going further. You simply cannot understand things well enough to be worth the effort.

The data is there.

I find it highly disingenuous for you to claim I am unable to understand your point, which is not difficult to comprehend at all, when the fact is you are advancing a theory with zero empirical evidence to back it up. You say "the data is there." What data? Your link draws no conclusions whatsoever about correlating population density and crime. You are attempting to indirectly extrapolate certain conclusions about crime from the observations in your link.

I'm asking you for evidence, and you know you don't have any, so you want to shut down the discussion by claiming I'm unable to understand what you're saying. Either man up and admit you don't have any evidence to support your theory, or show some actual evidence to support your theory. Or run away. That's fine too. But it's obvious that's what you're doing.

 

[realibrad]

I find it highly disingenuous for you to claim I am unable to understand your point, which is not difficult to comprehend at all, when the fact is you are advancing a theory with zero empirical evidence to back it up. You say "the data is there." What data? Your link draws no conclusions whatsoever about correlating population density and crime. You are attempting to indirectly extrapolate certain conclusions about crime from the observations in your link.

I'm asking you for evidence, and you know you don't have any, so you want to shut down the discussion by claiming I'm unable to understand what you're saying. Either man up and admit you don't have any evidence to support your theory, or show some actual evidence to support your theory. Or run away. That's fine too. But it's obvious that's what you're doing.

Jesus.

The crowded life is a slow life: Population density and life history strategy.

Yet, research on the psychological effects of human population density, once a popular topic, has decreased over the past few decades. Applying a fresh perspective to an old topic, we draw upon life history theory to examine the effects of population density. Across nations and across the U.S. states (Studies 1 and 2), we find that dense populations exhibit behaviors corresponding to a slower life history strategy, including greater future-orientation, greater investment in education, more long-term mating orientation, later marriage age, lower fertility, and greater parental investment.

Density promotes lower birth rate (lowers crime), investment in education (lowers crime), long term mating (promotes dual parent households which lowers crime) ect.

You are looking data you do not understand. The reason crime is higher in cities is because of opportunity. So when there is friction, the density exacerbates the situation and people act out. But, that does not mean that people are more violent in cities. What it does mean is that if people do have a conflict, its much harder to hold back because you are going to interact more often. That said, density promotes societies that are less violent.

 

[woolfe9998]

Jesus.

The crowded life is a slow life: Population density and life history strategy.



Density promotes lower birth rate (lowers crime), investment in education (lowers crime), long term mating (promotes dual parent households which lowers crime) ect.

Like I said, you've got no data to suggest that high population density means lower crime. As I directly linked to you before, it is the opposite. What you are doing here is indirectly extrapolating from conclusions in your link. And it's not that I don't understand these extrapolations. It's that they don't matter because for whatever reason, crime is higher where population is denser.

You are looking data you do not understand. The reason crime is higher in cities is because of opportunity. So when there is friction, the density exacerbates the situation and people act out. But, that does not mean that people are more violent in cities. What it does mean is that if people do have a conflict, its much harder to hold back because you are going to interact more often. That said, density promotes societies that are less violent.

I don't have an issue with your first 5 sentences here. Except that it undercuts your argument. In Europe they have higher population density, so all your logic suggests that they should have higher crime because, as you said, "the density exacerbates the situation and people act out." Yet they don't. They have lower crime rates.

To be clear: the underlined assertion requires empirical proof. Not some study that says city dwellers are more "forward looking," but one which shows that actual crime occurs less often in higher population density areas. You don't have any such data because it doesn't exist. The data says the opposite.

I posit several obvious differences as accounting for higher violent crime in the US: widespread availability of firearms, glorification of violence in our popular culture, materialism/greed which are traits more endemic to the US than other first world countries, and the fact that poverty is worse here. All of those things are facts. If you want to go with your own unproven theory because you don't like those explanations, fine. It's still unproven.

 

[realibrad]

Like I said, you've got no data to suggest that high population density means lower crime. As I directly linked to you before, it is the opposite. What you are doing here is indirectly extrapolating from conclusions in your link. And it's not that I don't understand these extrapolations. It's that they don't matter because for whatever reason, crime is higher where population is denser.



I don't have an issue with your first 5 sentences here. Except that it undercuts your argument. In Europe they have higher population density, so all your logic suggests that they should have higher crime because, as you said, "the density exacerbates the situation and people act out." Yet they don't. They have lower crime rates.

To be clear: the underlined assertion requires empirical proof. Not some study that says city dwellers are more "forward looking," but one which shows that actual crime occurs less often in higher population density areas. You don't have any such data because it doesn't exist. The data says the opposite.

I posit several obvious differences as accounting for higher violent crime in the US: widespread availability of firearms, glorification of violence in our popular culture, materialism/greed which are traits more endemic to the US than other first world countries, and the fact that poverty is worse here. All of those things are facts. If you want to go with your own unproven theory because you don't like those explanations, fine. It's still unproven.

Let me point out something to you. You have been going on and on about crime, and I did not bring up crime.

The US was built at a time when sprawl was possible and as such people expect personal space and stronger property rights. The downside is that people for the most part did not have to deal with being cramped like in Europe. Social frictions were smoothed in Europe in the cities where the majority of people live. In the US, our culture has not evolved to deal with people in the same way. Things are just different and more violent here.

I have been under the impression you are talking about crime to link to societies being violent/nonviolent. You are literally talking about crime rates, which is not what I have ever been talking about. I did not start this with crime rates. Look back at my quote, and then look at what you started talking about.

You can have a society that is less violent and have higher crime rates.

 

[sdifox]

meanwhile in Oklahoma City police shoot and kill a developmentally challenged man while bystanders yell "he is deaf" at the police.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ot-deaf-man-despite-yells-of-he-cant-hear-you


Police in Oklahoma City on Tuesday night fatally shot a deaf man who they say was advancing toward them with a metal pipe as witnesses yelled that the man was deaf and could not hear them.

It's the fifth officer-involved shooting in the city this year, according to the Oklahoma City Police Department.

Officers were responding to a hit-and-run accident around 8:15 p.m., Capt. Bo Mathews, the police department's public information officer, told reporters Wednesday. A witness of the accident told police a vehicle involved went to a nearby address.

Lt. Matthew Lindsey arrived at the address and encountered 35-year-old Magdiel Sanchez, who was on the porch holding a 2-foot metal pipe with a leather loop in his right hand. Lindsey called for backup and Sgt. Christopher Barnes arrived.

Enlarge this image
Magdiel Sanchez is pictured in an undated photo. Witnesses said they told officers Sanchez was deaf and he couldn't hear their orders.

Courtesy of the Sanchez family via AP
Police ordered Sanchez to drop the weapon and get on the ground, Mathews said. Both officers had weapons drawn — Lindsey had a Taser and Barnes a gun. Sanchez came off the porch and was walking toward Barnes.

"The witnesses also were yelling that this person, Mr. Sanchez, was deaf and could not hear. The officers didn't know this at the time," Mathews said.

Both officers fired their weapons at the same time when Sanchez was about 15 feet away from them; more than one shot was fired, the police captain said.

Emergency Medical Services Authority personnel pronounced Sanchez dead at the scene.

"In those situations, very volatile situations, when you have a weapon out, you can get what they call tunnel vision or you can really lock into just the person that has the weapon that'd be the threat against you," Mathews told reporters.

"I don't know exactly what the officers were thinking at that point, because I was not there. But they very well could not have heard, you know, everybody yelling, everybody yelling around them."


Hidden Brain
The 'Thumbprint Of The Culture': Implicit Bias And Police Shootings
"We were screaming that he can't hear," witness Julio Rayos told The Oklahoman. Rayos told the paper that Sanchez had developmental disabilities and didn't talk.

"The guy does movements," Rayos told The Oklahoman. "He don't speak, he don't hear, mainly it is hand movements. That's how he communicates. I believe he was frustrated trying to tell them what was going on."

Neighbor Jolie Guebara told The Associated Press that Sanchez "always had a stick that he would walk around with, because there's a lot of stray dogs."

She heard five or six gunshots before seeing police outside, she told the AP. She lives two houses from where the shooting happened.

Barnes is being placed on paid administrative leave.

It's being investigated by the department's homicide unit as a criminal case, as all officer-involved shootings are, Mathews said. The investigators will provide their findings to the Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office, which will decide whether the shooting was justified. Then the police department's internal affairs will investigate.

Some of the department's officers wear body cameras, but neither of the two police officers at the scene were wearing them at the time.

Sanchez had "no criminal history that I could locate," Mathews said. The car involved in the hit-and-run was driven by Sanchez's father and Magdiel Sanchez was not in the car at the time.

The two officers are white and Sanchez was Hispanic, Mathews said.


Protests over police shootings, especially of black men, have been ongoing around the country since 2014. Sanchez is the 712th person to be shot and killed by police in the U.S. so far this year, according to a Washington Post database.

Just this past weekend, protests erupted in St. Louis over the acquittal of a white police officer who was charged with murder of a black man in 2011. They continued on Wednesday as protesters shut down a suburban St. Louis mall.

Law enforcement officers in Oklahoma have faced charges multiple times in recent years.

In May a jury acquitted a white former Tulsa police officer, Betty Jo Shelby, who shot and killed unarmed black motorist Terence Crutcher in 2016 while he was walking away with his hands up. That verdict sparked protests.

In 2016, a former volunteer reserve deputy in Tulsa was convicted of second-degree manslaughter after the 2015 shooting of an unarmed black man who was on the ground. He said he meant to use a Taser instead of a gun.

And a former police officer in Oklahoma City was convicted in early 2016 of multiple rapes and sexual assaults.

 

[Puffnstuff]

meanwhile in Oklahoma City police shoot and kill a developmentally challenged man while bystanders yell "he is deaf" at the police.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ot-deaf-man-despite-yells-of-he-cant-hear-you

Killing deaf people now because nobody should be allowed to live that can't hear. I just found that story on CNN providing a different source to the same incident.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/us/police-shoot-deaf-man-oklahoma-city-trnd/index.html

 

[Puffnstuff]

Here we have a NYPD officer threatening a cyclist with a gun and by some miracle he was arrested for it. As you read the article pay attention to this waste of skin's salary.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...oving-threatening-cyclist-with-gun/ar-AAsj845

 

[urvile]

So one cop fired a less than lethal (taser) while the other fired his sidearm multiple times. The taser I get. The gun not so much but why at the same time? Surely it would have made more sense to fire just the taser?

I think US police training needs a serious overhaul. Because when you look at the outcomes it isn't good.

 

[The Merg]

one big problem with your calculation, not all Americans have equal contact with law enforcement. i, for example, rarely have contact with law enforcement, whereas Philando Castile was pulled over 49 times in 13 years. my odds of being shot by the police are far less than his were and no math will show all of the reasons behind that.

No argument there. I was pointing out straight mathematically what the percentage was.