Civilians can end your life "without trial" if its in the right circumstance just like a police officer can. These are the the rules the courts put into place. And just to be clear I have no issue with self defense. A reminder we are not talking about police doing things against the law or if they get away with it more often.
Civilians aren't universally armed with firearms and both formal and informal legal immunity. They aren't called upon to put an end tension situations.
If the worst a health professional can do is commit you to a mental institution, it's still likely to be an improvement over being shot to death.
you have a vanishingly small chance of being killed by a police officer if you are unarmed. this is on the order of tens every year in a country of 300m+ people.
I'm not sure what the proportion of citizens armed with firearms has to do with this. Its about rights of citizens in the country, all of whom can defend themselves and end life without trial in the correct circumstance, being self-defence (as it should be).
And nobody in the country should have the right to detain you without trial. If you really believe this I'm afraid that is quite short sighted.
I understand the media loves to hype these things when they happen, and they are all tragic incidents, but when you take a look at how often that actually happens compared to other things that can end your life, you realize it's really not actually that big a problem, compared to say... Murders or violent crime.
"Among men of all races, ages 25 to 29, police killings are the sixth-leading cause of death, according to a study led by Frank Edwards of Rutgers University, with a total annual mortality risk of 1.8 deaths per 100,000 people. Accidental death, a category that includes automotive accidents and drug overdoses, was the biggest cause at 76.6 deaths per 100,000, and followed by suicide (26.7), other homicides (22.0), heart disease (7.0), and cancer (6.3)."
So for every man killed by police (note that this is all police killings including those of armed suspects fighting the police) there's 42 people killed in accidents, 13 people commit suicide, 11 murdered by normal people's, 3.5 that die of heart disease, and 2 that die of cancer. And this is specifically for the demographic most likely to commit violent crime: young men.
Another way of phrasing this is, "even among the gender and age group most likely to be killed by police, people are an order of magnitude more likely to die of accidents, at the hands of non-police, or by their own hand than at the hands of a police officer."
That includes violent criminals being shot out of self defense. I wonder what the stat is for murder by cops when the victim didn’t have a deadly weapon.
It says "police killings are the sixth-leading cause of death".
"Police killings" by definition includes shootouts, when they were fired at fist, seriously threatened with firearms etc.
Sure, police interaction can and should be strongly looked-at and there have been much too much unwarranted deaths by police but just attributing some cause-of-death ranking to police killings without justified/unjustified contextualization is downright misleading.
> Our results show that people of color face a higher likelihood of being killed by police than do white men and women, that risk peaks in young adulthood, and that men of color face a nontrivial lifetime risk of being killed by police.
This is a problem. Whether you believe it is due to racial discrimination, societal pressures, or something else, the fact that BIPOC are being killed by police at a higher rate is a problem worth solving.
Sorry you have an issue with statistical facts and that equates to "white supremacy" to you. The rest of us are not going to dodge reality because its uncomfortable to discuss.
I'm confused why you are comparing risk of death to police action versus other causes. The linked research shows that of all deaths attributed to police action, people of color are extremely over-represented for their proportion of the population subject to police action. What does risk of death from other causes have to do with this conversation, and why do you think the research contradicts the results presented in the article?
Taking your numbers at face value, it seems we have an inequity problem regardless of police involvement. The question becomes, why are Black people committing over 50% of homicides, and what impact does our current policing strategy have on that number?
I'm not sure what the scope of the conversation is, then. The article is a report on a novel mechanism to reduce crime (novel in the US, that is). Your claim, as I understand it, is that the absolute number of excess deaths from police action in the Black population correlates with the outsized representation of the Black population in homicides, and you don't see a problem with this (please correct me if I misunderstand). I hypothesize, admittedly through leading questions, that addressing said outsized representation through means other than policing may have a beneficial effect on the overall crime rate, which seems to align with the reporting in the article. Is there something I'm missing?
So you believe that there are a significant amount of non-African-American murderers who managed to escape prosecution, and that these law enforcement agencies framed random African-Americans for murders they didn't commit? And you believe this happens across the country at rates high enough to change these numbers?
TL;DR: looking at numbers killed by police in absolute is meaningless. You also need to consider how many of these deaths occurred while the person who was killed by cops was also armed with a gun or deadly weapon. Hint: most of the people who get shot and killed by cops were trying to harm those same cops.
And this is the hyperbolic, overdramatic society we live in today, with no nuance or potential to see another side.
Qualified immunity -- qualified meaning limited. Yes it is easy to abuse and has been abused, but rest assured cops have gone to jail for murder and involuntary manslaughter.
I don't think they mean qualified immunity. I think they mean juries acquitting officers, judges throwing out cases, grand juries declining to indict, and D.A.'s deciding not to bring charges.
This happens all the time for officers and not for officers. It depends on what the political agenda is of the mayor and DA. Counterexample: look at what is happening in Portland right now. The DA is flat out refusing to bring charges against criminals.
(Also for a longer history of counter examples, see what happens to people who are criminal finaceers. Spoiler alert: nothing.)
What people fail to realize time and time again is so many of our contemporary issues come down to power struggles. It all has to do with power dynamics and how one set of grifters is vying to keep it over another set.
My answer has always been limitations. Limited powers, limited government, limited terms. But happy to hear of other realistic solutions that don't resemble an anarcharist approach.
Never fails IME people who say they favor “limited government” really mean “government for thee, not for me.” They want laws enforced, sure, but mostly just the ones about keeping the rabble from getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT.
It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering. Can’t have the rabble voting in their own welfare; that means higher tax rates on top earners —- aka “getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT” —- to pay for it.
It’s the inevitable conclusion, as we are seeing in the United States.
No, when I say "limited government" I mean just that. A government that has certain powers, but not others.
This is not just about enforcement of laws, it's about which laws are allowed to exist in the first place, and about government procedures adhering to those laws.
To give you concrete examples:
* I don't think "the government" (broadly defined) should have the power to stick some poor kid in Riker's Island for a few years while they think about getting around to trying them on a trumped-up charge.
* I feel like there is significant value in a number of protections enshrined in the US constitution (starting with the prohibition on ex post facto laws, as a pretty major one).
* I feel that asset forfeiture is a complete travesty and should never have been allowed under any sort of "limited government" approach.
That sort of thing. Of course then we have to have some debate about which powers governments should or should not have. And revisit that every so often as the situation (society, world power balance, technology) changes. But we should revisit it in a reasonable way, where everyone is clear that we are revisiting it, instead of the government just grabbing more power for itself unilaterally, whether it's through abuse of executive orders, pretending like everything is "interstate commerce", setting up secret courts, doing parallel construction, passing unconstitutional legislation and hoping no one notices, or whatever other things various governments in the US have tried over the last century or two.
This is sarcasm, right? There haven't been this many broad-as-daylight examples of "Laws for thee and not for me" than the authoritarian, wanna-be tiny-emperor governors and mayors, and representatives of a certain political ideology all across the country with their draconian, unscientific lockdowns.
> It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering.
You have been reading way too much propaganda. First of all, Gerrymandering is enjoyed by each side of our ruling class. So that invalidates the rest of your nonsensical point.
one "certain political ideology" stormed the capitol and murdered a police officer. maybe you saw it, it was led by a centaur furry right through them beating a cop to death on the steps of the capitol building. But sure, yeah, absolutely, it's the libs who are destroying america. Give me a break.
You're not a serious person. Go back to qanon or whatever new conspiracy theories you "liberatarians" are on to next.
edit: But since you're obviously struggling with a social life, I'll give you some help.
> I can't get people I am close with to even consider engaging in conversations about firmly held beliefs they have if I even remotely present myself as possibly holding a different opinion.
Yeah because you're an annoying asshole my guy. All you do is cast yourself as the victim. Gee whiz I wonder if you're a mediocre white-passing guy in tech, it's really a whole mystery. Have fun responding, I'll see you in 6 months when I check this account again.
Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, et all all called for similar insurrections during their favorite completely debunked conspiracy theory that we've heard about incessantly for the last 4 years. When businesses were being burned and looted during the summer, and 24 people died, they complicity supported it, and used it as an opportunity to advanced their political talking points, and attack their political foes.
Ok so how does this risk compare to the risk of being involuntarily committed, which you say is a high risk. Moreover, how many of those are permanent like you are claiming. Put numbers behind your arguments.
This comment expressing support & encouragement for state-sanctioned violence against its citizens is authoritarian propaganda employing classist and racist tropes.
