Lawsuit: Virginia police officers threatened man during stop

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm saying his actions could certainly have justified their initial impression.  Are you stating otherwise?


I don't believe the armchair QB comment was directed at you, or anyone specifically.  You're also putting a lot of extras on my position that I have never argued.


Are you saying they didn't appeal?  You do know that process is not open to the public, right?  I am also not saying IA is automatically wrong.  What I am saying is that the current political climate has certainly skewed internal investigations against the officers.  I can state this as I have seen it first hand.  Many of my colleagues in other departments report the same thing.  The chief of a department is a political position.  Many of their decisions will be made in that vein.  Again, I'm not privy to all information on this case, like everyone else here.  I can state that the chief came out to the scene and decided that night that the officers were in the wrong.  How many minutes did he review facts before coming to that conclusion?  You don't think that influenced any subsequent investigation?  Seems like the outcome was a fait accompli at that point.



Oooh, this is quite the declarative statement.  Not exactly one conducive to any "real discussion" to be sure.



Dear god, this is a fact.


Now, I'm sure you'll blame Covid and the lockdown, because that's easier for you to explain away.  It is certainly a factor, but it doesn't explain it away entirely and it's not going to go away after Covid.  I suppose we'll see, but for you to claim this is a "false narrative" is patently absurd.  Certainly not conducive to a "real discussion".

I am saying those qualified to make those determinations disagreed with you. You present it as the fact they were justified and as evidence, by their punishments, it was not the case.

We know they lost the appeal because the disciplines stood and he was fired. There are two positions one can have, they were in the right or they weren't. My position of they were wrong is backed by an independent 3rd party who fired them after reviewing all facts, yours is your opinion backed by nothing yet you keep demanding facts.

So you are cherry-picking specific stats from specific places over small periods rather than using the industry-accepted UCR that shows crime in this country is going down and has been for decades? Sorry, you are wrong. UCR data is the golden standard for the overall climate of crime in the country and it's down and has continued to trend down for a very long time. Total 2020 data will be out in July and we can come back to this, but a claim of "sky rocketing" is going to be a pretty tough sell I am guessing.

[CJD]

(04-15-2021, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It may the first thing you see, but the first thing you hear is the initial officer ordering him to show his hands around ten times.  He's not reissuing the command because the Lt. is complying.  So, before you "see" anything you have two repeated acts of non-compliance, failing to pull over (which we have addressed) and repeatedly failing to follow instructions to show his hands.  If the initial officer wasn't justified in thinking the stop was high risk initially the repeated non-compliance subsequent would rather justify his thinking, at least in the moment.

Like I said, we didn't see what he was doing. Maybe the cop said "show me your hands" so he put them up (like "I surrender") inside his car. Maybe he was just confused and scared because they were already barking orders at him before even approaching him. Maybe he put one hand out. Maybe he tried to talk to them (like a normal person would) thinking it was a misunderstanding. There are hundreds of reasons why someone wouldn't immediately just stick their hands out of their car after being pulled over that aren't aggressive or hostile actions. 

I've been in a car that has been pulled over a total of 3 times in my life. All three times it was night time. All three times, the cop approached the driver side window. All three times the cop was calm, polite, asked for what you'd expect a cop to ask for, we would have some mild conversation, then he'd ticket/give us a warning and leave. I've never had a gun pulled on me, especially not from the very outset of the interaction and I've never had a police officer yell at me. I don't know what I'd do in that scenario but it likely would not be a perfect interaction from my part. You can see even after he has his hands out of the car, the man is begging the cops to just calm down and talk to him. But the police continue to escalate more and more and more and more to the point where they're literally just assaulting him. "He didn't open his door while doing nothing else hostile or aggressive, so we maced him" is not a thing that any one should even think about defending.

Quote:As stated, this was wrong, but it comes after repeated non-compliance with lawful orders.  Let's not pretend that this was the first thing that happened, because it wasn't.  Not even close.


I'd like to think you wouldn't be in that position to begin with because you'd have complied with initial instructions.  You're also ignoring his refusal to leave the car because, as he stated, he "doesn't have to".  This is false.


Again, you ignore the undeniable fact that this "threat" came well after repeated non-compliance.


Again, you ignore the undeniable fact that he was repeatedly non-compliant well before the "threat" was made.  He tried to argue and debate with the officers over what he would and would not do.  I've acknowledged wrong doing by one of the officers.  None of you on the other side of this argument have acknowledged any wrongdoing by the Lt., or how he greatly contributed to this scenario.  If you think the police were initially wrong to initiate a high risk stop, fine.  But the Lt's actions subsequent would have gone a hell of a long way towards justifying their initial impression of the situation.

I am not ignoring his non-compliance, I am contextualizing it. Like I said, if I was in this situation I would think these cops are insane and out for blood. They are not behaving like human beings and they definitely weren't treating him like a human being. They were treating him like a criminal piece of garbage, so it's not surprising that he wouldn't do everything they said.

We could say "he should have just done everything the police said" and, you are correct, the stop would have gone much more smoothly than it did here. But that hypothetical completely cuts human emotion out of the interaction and that's not something I'm willing to do when we're literally talking about a life or death situation for this man. You can't expect someone to behave rationally when you are threatening their life. I know you said he was "non-compliant" before the threat, but you're referring to the verbal threat. They had already threatened his life before they said a single word, as far as we can tell, by pulling their guns on him before even approaching the car. As soon as a cop pulls his gun, that's the threat. It can be nothing other than a threat. "I am prepared to kill you if I don't like what you do, so think very carefully about your every action during this incredibly high stress moment because every movement may be your last if I'm a twitchy person." is the message that is conveyed by a drawn weapon. That alone is enough for some people to completely shut down and not think or act properly.

This is exactly why I think open carry should be illegal in all states. The sight of a gun is a tangible, real and active threat to every person in the vicinity. It should be a last resort to pull a gun, not the opening move. So I'm not ignoring his non-compliance, I am understanding why he was non-compliant in the face of a mortal threat.

Quote:Not following initial instruction is unreasonable.  Let's go with your position in full, that the Lt. was in fear for his life from the very beginning, well before a "threat" was made.  If you're worried about being shot by police, why would you ignore around ten commands to put your hands out the window of your car?  You yourself stated you would make your hands visible and then not move them at all, for any reason.  While I understand the logic of that position if you are legitimately in fear for your life your whole position falls apart for the Lt. when he initially refuses to even show his hands.  What would you, as an LEO, think about someone who refuses to show their hands, what are they doing with them?  What are they preparing to do with the hands they refuse to show you despite being ordered to do so numerous times?  Your argument about being in fear falls apart from the very beginning because refusing to show your hands is not the action of a person who is afraid of being shot.

In one of the times that I was pulled over, the police asked for my driver's license. I gave it to them and they walked back to the car. I realized that they didn't ask for, and I didn't provide, my proof of insurance. For a brief moment, I was about to stick my arm out of the window with the POI in hand and say "hey, do you need this?" but I stopped myself because I knew that sudden motions could be misinterpreted by anyone and when that anyone has a gun, they could shoot you. I literally imagined myself sticking my arm out the window and my hand being shot off. That thought went through my mind. So I didn't move. So yes, I think him not sticking his hands out of the window, even when it was commanded, does not disprove the defense that he was in fear of his life. He has probably been trained through years of experience and stories about police that they treat sudden movements, even ones they command, as a threat and they MAY act on it. Maybe he was scared he'd put his hands out too fast and they'd "misinterpret" his actions and "think" they see a gun in his hand and open fire. No matter how slow he does it, he can't control their perception of his actions. Especially since they are already at 100, possibly unhinged and dangerous. 

This all ties back into the power dynamic between cops and the people they pull over. The person who is pulled over has no power. The cop has all of the power. While his statements of not wanting to come out of the car may have been technically illegal (The whole "what do you have to do when a cop approaches you" is a much debated topic and I think the written laws and the applied rules are often not the same), they are understandable given this gigantic disparity in power between the two parties.

When there is such a large power disparity, it is the responsibility of the ones with the power to control the situation. (We could have a broader conversation about power dynamics and how they affect interactions between different types of people and what the expectations of the powerful and powerless parties are, but that could begin to get a bit non-sequitur). These police CLEARLY did not, from the very outset. So you may interpret this as me not understanding what you're saying, but I do understand that he "did not comply" with the police. I just disagree that he should be expected to to the degree that you expect. If he were hostile and aggressive and attacked them, sure, use force. But he showed no signs of being a threat, even in his non-compliance, because he clearly just wanted to talk them like humans and he expected to be treated like a human as well. In fact, I think him mentioning that he was a veteran was his attempt to snap them out of their rage. Maybe if he humanized and related himself to them, they'd realize how irrational and dangerous they were acting and calm down.

Unfortunately for him, the police did not have that same desire.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 12:38 PM)Au165 Wrote: I am saying those qualified to make those determinations disagreed with you. You present it as the fact they were justified and as evidence, by their punishments, it was not the case.

And I've explained how the Chief showing up that night and admitting wrongdoing before having any chance to actually investigate the matter clearly indicates that a decision was made that night.

Quote:We know they lost the appeal because the disciplines stood and he was fired. There are two positions one can have, they were in the right or they weren't. My position of they were wrong is backed by an independent 3rd party who fired them after reviewing all facts, yours is your opinion backed by nothing yet you keep demanding facts.

One officer was fired.  Also, this didn't occur that long ago, there's zero chance the civil service appeals process has concluded in that matter, those take a long time to play out.

Quote:So you are cherry-picking specific stats from specific places over small periods rather than using the industry-accepted UCR that shows crime in this country is going down and has been for decades? Sorry, you are wrong. UCR data is the golden standard for the overall climate of crime in the country and it's down and has continued to trend down for a very long time. Total 2020 data will be out in July and we can come back to this, but a claim of "sky rocketing" is going to be a pretty tough sell I am guessing.

Sure, cherry picking.  And I'm the one not having a serious discussion.  You mentioned the UCR, which is good, as it shows that violent crime rose as high as 6% in the US, and that the only areas of the country that did not see an increase were areas with populations under 10,000.

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/explorer/national/united-states/prelim-quarter

Murder was up as high as 32% and rose across the board.  Aggravated assault was up by as high as 16%, with the only exception again being areas under 10,000 population.  As you said, the full year won't be out until July.  What will you say then if the numbers bear my assertion out?  Blame the entire rise on the pandemic?

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, cherry picking.  And I'm the one not having a serious discussion.  You mentioned the UCR, which is good, as it shows that violent crime rose as high as 6% in the US, and that the only areas of the country that did not see an increase were areas with populations under 10,000.

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/explorer/national/united-states/prelim-quarter

Murder was up as high as 32% and rose across the board.  Aggravated assault was up by as high as 16%, with the only exception again being areas under 10,000 population.  As you said, the full year won't be out until July.  What will you say then if the numbers bear my assertion out?  Blame the entire rise on the pandemic?

Again, you are cherry picking stats...from UCR for first half of 2020.

“The FBI’s Preliminary Uniform Crime Report, January–June, 2020, reveals overall declines in the number of violent crimes and property crimes reported for the first six months of 2020 when compared with figures for the first six months of 2019.“

You are keying in only on Murder and Assault while rape and robbery dropped. OVERALL violent crime, and property crime, was down for the six month period year over year. None of that is “crime is skyrocketing” as you claimed, but rather specific crimes in specific places sky rocketed for one small snapshot.

Overall, as I said, crime has been dropping for decades and even a “sky rocketing event (which isn’t happening) wouldn’t even take us back to levels from the early 2000’s which means this narrative of the nefarious characters over running the country is just that, a fake narrative.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 06:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: Again, you are cherry picking stats...from UCR for first half of 2020.

I'm not cherry picking a damned thing, I gave you the link with the relevant data for all crimes

Quote:“The FBI’s Preliminary Uniform Crime Report, January–June, 2020, reveals overall declines in the number of violent crimes and property crimes reported for the first six months of 2020 when compared with figures for the first six months of 2019.“

You are keying in only on Murder and Assault while rape and robbery dropped. OVERALL violent crime, and property crime, was down for the six month period year over year. None of that is “crime is skyrocketing” as you claimed, but rather specific crimes in specific places sky rocketed for one small snapshot.

Yeah, it's not a big deal at all that murder rates have risen by as much as 33%.  Let's put it this way, if your investment portfolio increased by 33% in one year, would you call that skyrocketing?  In any event, you're now having a semantic argument.  You prefer another adjective to "skyrocketing" fine.  It doesn't change the main point at all.

Quote:Overall, as I said, crime has been dropping for decades and even a “sky rocketing event (which isn’t happening) wouldn’t even take us back to levels from the early 2000’s which means this narrative of the nefarious characters over running the country is just that, a fake narrative.

Yes, it has been declining steadily, a point I have made several times myself.  That is, it was until the last two years, which have seen increases in both.  Whether the crime rate compares favorably to the early 2,000 is utterly meaningless as we're talking about current trends.  You're introducing an irrelevancy like it helps your argument.

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not cherry picking a damned thing, I gave you the link with the relevant data for all crimes



Yeah, it's not a big deal at all that murder rates have risen by as much as 33%.  Let's put it this way, if your investment portfolio increased by 33% in one year, would you call that skyrocketing?  In any event, you're now having a semantic argument.  You prefer another adjective to "skyrocketing" fine.  It doesn't change the main point at all.



Yes, it has been declining steadily, a point I have made several times myself.  That is, it was until the last two years, which have seen increases in both.  Whether the crime rate compares favorably to the early 2,000 is utterly meaningless as we're talking about current trends.  You're introducing an irrelevancy like it helps your argument.

...is crime as a whole down or up?

Two years? Crime was down 18-19 in both property and violent crime.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 12:44 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Like I said, we didn't see what he was doing. Maybe the cop said "show me your hands" so he put them up (like "I surrender") inside his car. Maybe he was just confused and scared because they were already barking orders at him before even approaching him. Maybe he put one hand out. Maybe he tried to talk to them (like a normal person would) thinking it was a misunderstanding. There are hundreds of reasons why someone wouldn't immediately just stick their hands out of their car after being pulled over that aren't aggressive or hostile actions.

It'd amazing that you can ascribe so many reasons for him to not comply, but can't seem to fathom even one reason for the police to believe this was a high risk traffic stop.  You keep glossing over this point, he had to be instructed to show his hands around ten times before he finally complied.  Give him the benefit of the doubt for the first five, which is excessive, that still leaves five more before compliance. 

Quote:I've been in a car that has been pulled over a total of 3 times in my life. All three times it was night time. All three times, the cop approached the driver side window. All three times the cop was calm, polite, asked for what you'd expect a cop to ask for, we would have some mild conversation, then he'd ticket/give us a warning and leave. I've never had a gun pulled on me, especially not from the very outset of the interaction and I've never had a police officer yell at me. I don't know what I'd do in that scenario but it likely would not be a perfect interaction from my part. You can see even after he has his hands out of the car, the man is begging the cops to just calm down and talk to him. But the police continue to escalate more and more and more and more to the point where they're literally just assaulting him. "He didn't open his door while doing nothing else hostile or aggressive, so we maced him" is not a thing that any one should even think about defending.

I've been in two instances in which the vehicle I was in was topped and the police had us at gun point.  In both scenarios everyone complied as instructed in a timely manner and they both ended completely peacefully with zero issue.

Quote:I am not ignoring his non-compliance, I am contextualizing it. Like I said, if I was in this situation I would think these cops are insane and out for blood.

This statement is borderline insane and indicative of just how much anti cop propaganda has permeated our society.

Quote:They are not behaving like human beings and they definitely weren't treating him like a human being. They were treating him like a criminal piece of garbage, so it's not surprising that he wouldn't do everything they said.

There is zero logic to this.  If he really thought the police wanted to kill him, why would he not follow their commands and make them even more suspicious of him?

Quote:We could say "he should have just done everything the police said" and, you are correct, the stop would have gone much more smoothly than it did here. But that hypothetical completely cuts human emotion out of the interaction and that's not something I'm willing to do when we're literally talking about a life or death situation for this man.

Ahh, human emotion for the guy pulled over, but not for the police who could very possibly have feared they were being set up.  I've mentioned before, and everyone ignores, an insane amount of felony arrests occur during routine traffic stops.  In fact, a traffic stop is one of the most dangerous things an LEO can do.

Quote:You can't expect someone to behave rationally when you are threatening their life.

That's odd, because my friends and I managed to comply with officer's instructions under the exact same set of circumstances.

Quote:I know you said he was "non-compliant" before the threat, but you're referring to the verbal threat. They had already threatened his life before they said a single word, as far as we can tell, by pulling their guns on him before even approaching the car. As soon as a cop pulls his gun, that's the threat. It can be nothing other than a threat. "I am prepared to kill you if I don't like what you do, so think very carefully about your every action during this incredibly high stress moment because every movement may be your last if I'm a twitchy person." is the message that is conveyed by a drawn weapon. That alone is enough for some people to completely shut down and not think or act properly.

Except this guy didn't "shut down" he continued to argue with the officers and tell them why he refused to comply.

Quote:This is exactly why I think open carry should be illegal in all states. The sight of a gun is a tangible, real and active threat to every person in the vicinity. It should be a last resort to pull a gun, not the opening move. So I'm not ignoring his non-compliance, I am understanding why he was non-compliant in the face of a mortal threat.

Got it, so now everyone has license to act a damned fool when held at gunpoint by law enforcement.  That kind of excuse making won't have any far reaching consequences at all.

Quote:In one of the times that I was pulled over, the police asked for my driver's license. I gave it to them and they walked back to the car. I realized that they didn't ask for, and I didn't provide, my proof of insurance. For a brief moment, I was about to stick my arm out of the window with the POI in hand and say "hey, do you need this?" but I stopped myself because I knew that sudden motions could be misinterpreted by anyone and when that anyone has a gun, they could shoot you. I literally imagined myself sticking my arm out the window and my hand being shot off. That thought went through my mind. So I didn't move. So yes, I think him not sticking his hands out of the window, even when it was commanded, does not disprove the defense that he was in fear of his life. He has probably been trained through years of experience and stories about police that they treat sudden movements, even ones they command, as a threat and they MAY act on it. Maybe he was scared he'd put his hands out too fast and they'd "misinterpret" his actions and "think" they see a gun in his hand and open fire. No matter how slow he does it, he can't control their perception of his actions. Especially since they are already at 100, possibly unhinged and dangerous. 

Yes, it is always best to be slow and deliberate.  It is also best to follow all instructions in a timely manner without argument.

This all ties back into the power dynamic between cops and the people they pull over. The person who is pulled over has no power. The cop has all of the power. While his statements of not wanting to come out of the car may have been technically illegal (The whole "what do you have to do when a cop approaches you" is a much debated topic and I think the written laws and the applied rules are often not the same), they are understandable given this gigantic disparity in power between the two parties.

Quote:When there is such a large power disparity, it is the responsibility of the ones with the power to control the situation. (We could have a broader conversation about power dynamics and how they affect interactions between different types of people and what the expectations of the powerful and powerless parties are, but that could begin to get a bit non-sequitur). These police CLEARLY did not, from the very outset. So you may interpret this as me not understanding what you're saying, but I do understand that he "did not comply" with the police. I just disagree that he should be expected to to the degree that you expect. If he were hostile and aggressive and attacked them, sure, use force. But he showed no signs of being a threat, even in his non-compliance, because he clearly just wanted to talk them like humans and he expected to be treated like a human as well. In fact, I think him mentioning that he was a veteran was his attempt to snap them out of their rage. Maybe if he humanized and related himself to them, they'd realize how irrational and dangerous they were acting and calm down.

Look, I get what you're saying.  However, if the police already believe the stop warrants high risk tactics then failing to comply only reinforces that position.  In both instances in which my friends and I were stopped the police were looking for another similar vehicle.  I know this because on one of them they flat out told me as they were wrapping up and the second because after they stopped us, we left our friend's house about ten minutes later and passed the exact same type of car pulled over by multiple units with gang members six gang members all on the curb cuffed up.  So, you have no idea why the police are responding the way that they are.  In 9,999 cases out of 10,000 if you've done nothing wrong and comply you'll leave the situation completely unscathed in any way.

Quote:Unfortunately for him, the police did not have that same desire.

Again, you assume a lot.  If the police feel the need to execute a high risk stop it's not your job to debate with them about why it's not necessary.  Just do what you're instructed to do.  You may have a point though, all the anti-cop propaganda may have affected this Lt. to the point where he's not able to act rationally when stopped by the police.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 06:53 PM)Au165 Wrote: ...is crime as a whole down or up?

Two years? Crime was down 18-19 in both property and violent crime.

I'm sure the fact that the overall crime rate was down was an immense comfort to all the people murdered in excess of the previous years.  Exactly how many categories of crime have to substantially rise for you to acknowledge that there's a problem?

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sure the fact that the overall crime rate was down was an immense comfort to all the people murdered in excess of the previous years.  Exactly how many categories of crime have to substantially rise for you to acknowledge that there's a problem?

Did you say crime was skyrocketing, or did you say murders were skyrocketing? Maybe the issue was when you think of crime you are referring just to murders and when I think of crime I think of the totality.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 07:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Did you say crime was skyrocketing, or did you say murders were skyrocketing? Maybe the issue was when you think of crime you are referring just to murders and when I think of crime I think of the totality.

I think we've mined this vein to exhaustion.  I don't think every single category of crime has to rise for crime to skyrocket.  Again, you want to have a semantic argument over that term, I'm not really interested.  I've made my point and backed it up with statistics.  You disagree on the scope of the problem.  We can leave it at that.

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 07:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think we've mined this vein to exhaustion.  I don't think every single category of crime has to rise for crime to skyrocket.  Again, you want to have a semantic argument over that term, I'm not really interested.  I've made my point and backed it up with statistics.  You disagree on the scope of the problem.  We can leave it at that.

Nah, I’ll leave it at your portfolio analogy. If one part of my portfolio sky rocketed while the rest remained relatively the same, or dropped, but it as a whole declined I’d tell people...my investments are down. I get you regret your word choice but it’s okay to admit you misspoke and you meant murders.

While murders being up is an issue, the fact crime as a whole is down makes the wide brush of lawlessness your trying to paint way more complex.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 07:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: Nah, I’ll leave it at your portfolio analogy. If one part of my portfolio sky rocketed while the rest remained relatively the same, or dropped,  but it as a whole declined I’d tell people...my investments are down. I get you regret your word choice but it’s okay to admit you misspoke and you meant murders.

Dear god, quit trying to win internet points and move on.  Semantic arguments are as pointless as they are boring.

Quote:While murders being up is an issue, the fact crime as a whole is down makes the wide brush of lawlessness your trying to paint way more complex.

How can murders and assaults see double digit increases but crime "as a whole" is down?  Are murders and violent assaults not part of "crime as a whole"?  Are you forgetting that your source of choice shows "violent crime" as a category to be up in every part of the nation except areas under 10k population?  That doesn't sound like crime "as a whole" is down.  It looks to me like you're upset your own source put the lie to your claim.

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 07:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How can murders and assaults see double digit increases but crime "as a whole" is down?  Are murders and violent assaults not part of "crime as a whole"?  Are you forgetting that your source of choice shows "violent crime" as a category to be up in every part of the nation except areas under 10k population?  That doesn't sound like crime "as a whole" is down".  It looks to me like you're upset your own source put the lie to your claim.

See, that’s how percentages work. So when murder is up 25% nationally from 16k that makes it 20k or 4K increase in incidents but when rape drops 17% from 139k to 115k that’s a 24k drop in incidents. When you realize that the most heinous crimes have the lowest numbers then you can realize that large increases still make their total incident occurrence MUCH lower than other crimes which makes crime as a whole...drop.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 08:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: See, that’s how percentages work. So when murder is up 25% nationally from 16k that makes it 20k or 4K increase in incidents but when rape drops 17% from 139k to 115k that’s a 24k drop in incidents. When you realize that the most heinous crimes have the lowest numbers then you can realize that large increases still make their total incident occurrence MUCH lower than other crimes which makes crime as a whole...drop.

I appreciate the lesson in statistics.  Kindly explain then how violent crime as a category was up 2-6% with one exception, areas under 10k population.  That would mean that the drops in other categories were not significant enough to prevent the rise in murder and violent assault from raising the category as whole.  As you are correct that murder is the lowest violent crime committed, by number of occurrences, one would logically infer that this means the rise in violent assault is not only very statistically significant, but that the drop in other categories was not.

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 08:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate the lesson in statistics.  Kindly explain then how violent crime as a category was up 2-6% with one exception, areas under 10k population.  That would mean that the drops in other categories were not significant enough to prevent the rise in murder and violent assault from raising the category as whole.  As you are correct that murder is the lowest violent crime committed, by number of occurrences, one would logically infer that this means the rise in violent assault is not only very statistically significant, but that the drop in other categories was not.

Easy, all other crime accounts for 5.5x violent crime and saw a drop of 8%. Which again means, crime as a whole dropped yet again in the country.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 08:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: Easy, all other crime accounts for 5.5x violent crime and saw a drop of 8%. Which again means, crime as a whole dropped yet again in the country.

Not violent crime.  I'll point out, for those interested in an honest discussion, that the aggravated assault category encompasses a lot of crimes.  Attempted murder, assault with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon and assault by means liable to produce great bodily injury.  There are others, but suffice to say if you get shot at but not killed your attack falls under "aggravated assault"  Seeing as how that category of crime is up from 7-16% (again the only exception being areas under 10k population) we're talking about a very serious rise in some very serious crimes committed at large numbers, making the percentage increases, as you so helpfully pointed out, especially significant.  But ignore that, crime "as a whole" is down, so consider yourself fortunate.

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 08:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not violent crime.  I'll point out, for those interested in an honest discussion, that the aggravated assault category encompasses a lot of crimes.  Attempted murder, assault with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon and assault by means liable to produce great bodily injury.  There are others, but suffice to say if you get shot at but not killed your attack falls under "aggravated assault"  Seeing as how that category of crime is up from 7-16% (again the only exception being areas under 10k population) we're talking about a very serious rise in some very serious crimes committed at large numbers, making the percentage increases, as you so helpfully pointed out, especially significant.  But ignore that, crime "as a whole" is down, so consider yourself fortunate.

Did you say violent crime was skyrocketing?

See you act like that’s semantics, but your original statement was meant to insinuate the world was going to hell in a hand basket. While murders did “skyrocket” violent crimes uptick wasn’t insane and crime as a whole was down. You attempted to use the statement in a retort regarding police accountability and the movement around it potentially leading to some sort of Wild West.

Police accountability is good. The cops in this case were wrong. Police are still a needed part of society. The country as a whole is in a weird place.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 08:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: Did you say violent crime was skyrocketing?

Quote:Yup.

Quote:See you act like that’s semantics, but your original statement was meant to insinuate the world was going to hell in a hand basket. While murders did “skyrocket” violent crimes uptick wasn’t insane and crime as a whole was down. You attempted to use the statement in a retort regarding police accountability and the movement around it potentially leading to some sort of Wild West.

It wasn't insinuating anything, it was a declarative statement.  Police accountability is fine, police vilification is not.  There are many in this "movement" who want to eliminate law enforcements ability to do its job or to eliminate it altogether.

Quote:Police accountability is good.

Agreed.

Quote:The cops in this case were wrong.

one of them was.

Quote:Police are still a needed part of society.

Not according to Rashia Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley

Quote:The country as a whole is in a weird place.

Also agreed.  Expect it to get much worse before it gets better.

[fredtoast]

(04-15-2021, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I've mentioned before, and everyone ignores, an insane amount of felony arrests occur during routine traffic stops.  In fact, a traffic stop is one of the most dangerous things an LEO can do.

So I guess that is why all LEO are trained to pull thie guns and order the driver out of the car at EVERY traffic stop?

[TheUberHuber]

(04-15-2021, 08:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not violent crime.  I'll point out, for those interested in an honest discussion, that the aggravated assault category encompasses a lot of crimes.  Attempted murder, assault with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon and assault by means liable to produce great bodily injury.  There are others, but suffice to say if you get shot at but not killed your attack falls under "aggravated assault"  Seeing as how that category of crime is up from 7-16% (again the only exception being areas under 10k population) we're talking about a very serious rise in some very serious crimes committed at large numbers, making the percentage increases, as you so helpfully pointed out, especially significant.  But ignore that, crime "as a whole" is down, so consider yourself fortunate.

So you would agree firearms are a problem then?