Political Roundtable - Part VII

[nate33]

Are we at the point where you just have to think you're in trouble to use lethal force? Is that where we are going? Is that how you justify a child, who you will only refer to as "the guy," being killed playing with a toy gun? Are cops being gunned down in the streets daily. Nope, turns out it's never been a safer time to be a cop.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/09/10/once-again-there-is-no-war-on-cops-and-those-who-claim-otherwise-are-playing-a-dangerous-game/

So, why do cops feels the need to kill anything that moves? You want to talk about the cop's point of view? Let's talk about the report he filed. Suspect was told repeatedly to drop weapon. Lie. Tamir was shot within 2 seconds of the officer extricating the vehicle which hadn't even come to a complete stop. Suspect pointed the weapon at me. Lie. Even in your grainy images at best it appears he is attempting to lift his jacket before he is on the ground bleeding out. At no point was he threatened. But no, cops need to ready to respond to any "perceived" threat, and a 12 year old black boy playing with a toy gun in an open carry state is as threatening as they come. Lifting up his jacket was all it took. They gave a child all of 2 seconds to decide how to act with guns trained on him. Coincidence, it's the same amount of time they gave John Crawford, who was shopping. This in your mind in "reasonable?"

This is where you are letting emotion cloud logic and reason. The fact that Tamir was a child is completely irrelevant. I can't stress this enough. The cops didn't know he was a child and that's all that matters. He was a human figure dressed in a bulky jacket who, to their knowledge, was a man reportedly pointing a gun a people. That man then walked briskly to the police car and reached under his jacket.

And you are right that there may not statistically be a war on cops, but that works both ways. There is statistically not a war being waged by cops against black people either. As I've pointed out several times before, black people get shot by police at a lower rate than other races relative to their proportion of violent crime.

What we have is a horrific accident that is being pumped up by the media to fit the current (false) narrative.

[JWizmentality]

Are we at the point where you just have to think you're in trouble to use lethal force? Is that where we are going? Is that how you justify a child, who you will only refer to as "the guy," being killed playing with a toy gun? Are cops being gunned down in the streets daily. Nope, turns out it's never been a safer time to be a cop.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/09/10/once-again-there-is-no-war-on-cops-and-those-who-claim-otherwise-are-playing-a-dangerous-game/

So, why do cops feels the need to kill anything that moves? You want to talk about the cop's point of view? Let's talk about the report he filed. Suspect was told repeatedly to drop weapon. Lie. Tamir was shot within 2 seconds of the officer extricating the vehicle which hadn't even come to a complete stop. Suspect pointed the weapon at me. Lie. Even in your grainy images at best it appears he is attempting to lift his jacket before he is on the ground bleeding out. At no point was he threatened. But no, cops need to ready to respond to any "perceived" threat, and a 12 year old black boy playing with a toy gun in an open carry state is as threatening as they come. Lifting up his jacket was all it took. They gave a child all of 2 seconds to decide how to act with guns trained on him. Coincidence, it's the same amount of time they gave John Crawford, who was shopping. This in your mind in "reasonable?"

This is where you are letting emotion cloud logic and reason. The fact that Tamir was a child is completely irrelevant. I can't stress this enough. The cops didn't know he was a child and that's all that matters. He was a human figure dressed in a bulky jacket who, to there knowledge, was a man reportedly pointing a gun a people, who then made a motion to point that gun at the cops.

And you are right that there may not statistically be a war on cops, but that works both ways. There is statistically not a war being waged by cops against black people either. As I've pointed out several times before, black people get shot by police at a lower rate than other races relative to their proportion of violent crime.

What we have is a horrific accident that is being pumped up by the media to fit the current (false) narrative.

You're right, there is no war on black people. It's the same as it has always been. We're just reporting it and video taping it now, and the world is waking up to the reality of these "horrific accidents."

Dispatch not relaying pertinent information, speeding up to the "killzone" of a potentially armed suspect, hiring an officer previously deemed unfit for duty, falsifying police reports, not rendering first aid. Every tragedy is a series of events and these officers and this department will never be held accountable because everything before and after is "irrelevant." I won't apologize for my empathy and I pray none of your loved ones becomes irrelevant.

I'm just numb to all the bullsh*t now. It's laughable. Then again this is the same department that fired 137 shots into a car with two unarmed people, the last 15 coming from a cop who had jumped on the hood. Yeah, that guy was acquitted. Just another day for reasonable use of force.

[bsilver]

Are we at the point where you just have to think you're in trouble to use lethal force? Is that where we are going? Is that how you justify a child, who you will only refer to as "the guy," being killed playing with a toy gun? Are cops being gunned down in the streets daily. Nope, turns out it's never been a safer time to be a cop.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/09/10/once-again-there-is-no-war-on-cops-and-those-who-claim-otherwise-are-playing-a-dangerous-game/

So, why do cops feels the need to kill anything that moves? You want to talk about the cop's point of view? Let's talk about the report he filed. Suspect was told repeatedly to drop weapon. Lie. Tamir was shot within 2 seconds of the officer extricating the vehicle which hadn't even come to a complete stop. Suspect pointed the weapon at me. Lie. Even in your grainy images at best it appears he is attempting to lift his jacket before he is on the ground bleeding out. At no point was he threatened. But no, cops need to ready to respond to any "perceived" threat, and a 12 year old black boy playing with a toy gun in an open carry state is as threatening as they come. Lifting up his jacket was all it took. They gave a child all of 2 seconds to decide how to act with guns trained on him. Coincidence, it's the same amount of time they gave John Crawford, who was shopping. This in your mind in "reasonable?"

This is where you are letting emotion cloud logic and reason. The fact that Tamir was a child is completely irrelevant. I can't stress this enough. The cops didn't know he was a child and that's all that matters. He was a human figure dressed in a bulky jacket who, to there knowledge, was a man reportedly pointing a gun a people, who then made a motion to point that gun at the cops.

And you are right that there may not statistically be a war on cops, but that works both ways. There is statistically not a war being waged by cops against black people either. As I've pointed out several times before, black people get shot by police at a lower rate than other races relative to their proportion of violent crime.

What we have is a horrific accident that is being pumped up by the media to fit the current (false) narrative.

There is plenty of information that has to be taken into account before referring to a "false" media narrative. Due to conflicting testimony, a murder conviction would be unlikely, but a case for gross negligence against the city and officers would not be that difficult to present.
1) The 911 call indicated the suspect was probably a juvenile, and the gun fake. That information is crucial and has to be provided to the officers.
2) Police said Rice was warned 3 times to put up his hands. Eye witnesses refute this and there's a good chance that it is lie given that the shooting occurred with 2 seconds of arrival.
3) Police originally said Rice pulled out the gun, but the video does not support this, so the story was changed.
4) There is reason to believe the shooting officer was mentally unstable. He was basically forced out of his job as an Independence OH police officer in 2012. "In a memo to Independence's human resources manager, released by the city in the aftermath of the shooting, Independence deputy police chief Jim Polak wrote that Loehmann had resigned rather than face certain termination due to concerns that he lacked the emotional stability to be a police officer. Polak said that Loehmann was unable to follow "basic functions as instructed". He specifically cited a "dangerous loss of composure" that occurred in a weapons training exercise, during which Loehmann's weapons handling was "dismal" and he became visibly "distracted and weepy" as a result of relationship problems. The memo concluded, "Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies." It was subsequently revealed that Cleveland police officials never reviewed Loehmann's personnel file from Independence prior to hiring him."
5) The driving officer had a history of excessive force, and the city had to pay a 100K settlement.

At this point, there's not sufficient evidence to believe the officers account, or disbelieve. there's no "true" or "false" narrative. Given that there many inconsistencies in their original version I would tend to disbelieve, but everyone is going to make up their own mind.

[dckingsfan]

I don't know if you have ever gone through gun training. But there are some great courses out there. They have realistic pop-ups that you have to make a split-second decisions on. It is hard not to shoot but with enough training you can get pretty good at controlling your emotions - although I am sure it is even harder in an actual situation (I've never been there).

Anyways, there are lots of competitions and we don't see enough police officers at those competitions in my mind. I think that many don’t like to compete in front of people who are not law enforcement - they don't want to look bad. Kind of like pro basketball players that don't want to play pickup games.

But I guess my point is that sometimes you go through the course and hit someone you weren't supposed to shoot. So, there is that...

I think the officers should have to compete - and if they don't pass, they don't get to carry a gun. Guess I would be in the minority on that one.

[nate33]

Dispatch not relaying pertinent information, speeding up to the "killzone" of a potentially armed suspect, hiring an officer previously deemed unfit for duty, falsifying police reports, not rendering first aid. Every tragedy is a series of events and these officers and this department will never be held accountable because everything before and after is "irrelevant." I won't apologize for my empathy and I pray none of your loved ones becomes irrelevant.

I'm just numb to all the bullsh*t now. It's laughable. Then again this is the same department that fired 137 shots into a car with two unarmed people, the last 15 coming from a cop who had jumped on the hood. Yeah, that guy was acquitted. Just another day for reasonable use of force.

FWIW, there is certainly some reason to believe that there was some institutional incompetence involved and that should be investigated thoroughly. But the report cited by the CNN article you linked appeared to just be commenting on the police officer's decisions:

S. Lamar Sims, the senior chief deputy district attorney in Denver, wrote one of the reports and concludes Loehmann's decision to shoot Rice as he approached the officers was "objectively reasonable"

"There can be no doubt that Rice's death was tragic and, indeed, when one considers his age, heartbreaking," Sims writes in his report. "However, for all of the reasons discussed herein, I conclude that Officer Loehmann's belief that Rice posed a threat of serious physical harm or death was objectively reasonable as was his response to that perceived threat."

On that issue alone, I can't really see how one can disagree. Based on what the officer knew and saw at the time, shooting the suspect was reasonable.

[fishercob]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrPhilRodgers/status/653255137251753985[/tweet]

I have a close friend from growing up who is one of the leading researchers on suicide in the world right now, and he just re-tweeted this.

Another interesting and important angle on gun control and why I think it should be looked at from a public health perspective as opposed to a political one.

[Severn Hoos]

fish, thanks for posting that slide. It certainly seems intuitive - using a gun is much more likely to lead to a successful suicide attempt than other methods. After all, taking a whole bottle of pills still leaves the possibility of being found and rushed to the hospital before the effects take their full toll, but a gun is often instantaneous.

I wonder if some of that disparity is based on the percentage of suicide attempts that are a cry for help from someone who doesn't really want to die. I'm not meaning to be insensitive, or trying to diminish the very real pain and suffering those people are going through, but how many of the other attempts were "serious" in the sense of the person truly trying to end his life? (Not meaning what needs to be taken seriously - that of course applies in all cases - but speaking to the primary intent of the person making the attempt.)

So the guy who goes into his garage and turns on his car would seem to be a bit more ambivalent to whether he wakes up or not than the guy who puts the gun to his temple and pulls the trigger.

Not sure I'm making much sense here, but wonder how many of the suicide attempts than are performed with a gun today would move to another method that is next in line in the calculation for "success", but still leave the person just as dead?

I guess I'm also agreeing that it should be a health issue in that people who are determined to kill themselves but don't have access to guns will likely try other methods, and some of those (driving into oncoming traffic?) might have consequences for others.


Editing to add: my main point is that someone who is serious about ending his life will most likely find a way to do it, so the bigger issue for me is getting that person help, than restricting every possible means at his disposal. There will always be another means, and the more intent he is in carrying it out, the more lethal the means he will select, but sadly he only has to succeed one time.

[JWizmentality]

S. Lamar Sims, the senior chief deputy district attorney in Denver, wrote one of the reports and concludes Loehmann's decision to shoot Rice as he approached the officers was "objectively reasonable"

"There can be no doubt that Rice's death was tragic and, indeed, when one considers his age, heartbreaking," Sims writes in his report. "However, for all of the reasons discussed herein, I conclude that Officer Loehmann's belief that Rice posed a threat of serious physical harm or death was objectively reasonable as was his response to that perceived threat."

On that issue alone, I can't really see how one can disagree. Based on what the officer knew and saw at the time, shooting the suspect was reasonable.

Ah, the American justice system. We don't care that you opened the barn door, we only want to know if it was reasonable that the horses ran out.

[nate33]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrPhilRodgers/status/653255137251753985[/tweet]

I have a close friend from growing up who is one of the leading researchers on suicide in the world right now, and he just re-tweeted this.

Another interesting and important angle on gun control and why I think it should be looked at from a public health perspective as opposed to a political one.

I see from the image that the study cited was from 2003. This news story references a study that aggregated several other studies on the matter between 1998 and 2005 and came out with a multiplier of 3x rather than 5x.

While I think these types of studies are informative, it's important to understand that guns also have a deterrence effect that is much more difficult to measure. How many crimes a thwarted before they start because criminals have a fear that the homeowner or victim may be armed? John Lott attempted to answer this with his book "More Guns Less Crime". Some scholars have done similar studies and agreed with Lott's assessment, and others have found reason to believe that Right to Carry caused an increase in assaults. I'm not sure we have the definite answer yet.

[nate33]

S. Lamar Sims, the senior chief deputy district attorney in Denver, wrote one of the reports and concludes Loehmann's decision to shoot Rice as he approached the officers was "objectively reasonable"

"There can be no doubt that Rice's death was tragic and, indeed, when one considers his age, heartbreaking," Sims writes in his report. "However, for all of the reasons discussed herein, I conclude that Officer Loehmann's belief that Rice posed a threat of serious physical harm or death was objectively reasonable as was his response to that perceived threat."

On that issue alone, I can't really see how one can disagree. Based on what the officer knew and saw at the time, shooting the suspect was reasonable.

Ah, the American justice system. We don't care that you opened the barn door, we only want to know if it was reasonable that the horses ran out.

But Officer Loehmann didn't open the barn door. Perhaps somebody else in the police department screwed up, but Loehmann shouldn't take the blame for acting reasonably in what he believed to be a life threatening situation.

[fishercob]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrPhilRodgers/status/653255137251753985[/tweet]

I have a close friend from growing up who is one of the leading researchers on suicide in the world right now, and he just re-tweeted this.

Another interesting and important angle on gun control and why I think it should be looked at from a public health perspective as opposed to a political one.

I see from the image that the study cited was from 2003. This news story references a study that aggregated several other studies on the matter between 1998 and 2005 and came out with a multiplier of 3x rather than 5x.

While I think these types of studies are informative, it's important to understand that guns also have a deterrence effect that is much more difficult to measure. How many crimes a thwarted before they start because criminals have a fear that the homeowner or victim may be armed? John Lott attempted to answer this with his book "More Guns Less Crime". Some scholars have done similar studies and agreed with Lott's assessment, and others have found reason to believe that Right to Carry caused an increase in assaults. I'm not sure we have the definite answer yet.

I think you misread. It says 2007.

Very difficult to measure the deterrence piece. Speaking personally, whenever I have thought about getting a gun for protection, I've decided that threat that it would be used in anger/depression/despondence outweighed the perceived safety from having it to protect family against an intruder.

[bsilver]

fish, thanks for posting that slide. It certainly seems intuitive - using a gun is much more likely to lead to a successful suicide attempt than other methods. After all, taking a whole bottle of pills still leaves the possibility of being found and rushed to the hospital before the effects take their full toll, but a gun is often instantaneous.

I wonder if some of that disparity is based on the percentage of suicide attempts that are a cry for help from someone who doesn't really want to die. I'm not meaning to be insensitive, or trying to diminish the very real pain and suffering those people are going through, but how many of the other attempts were "serious" in the sense of the person truly trying to end his life? (Not meaning what needs to be taken seriously - that of course applies in all cases - but speaking to the primary intent of the person making the attempt.)

So the guy who goes into his garage and turns on his car would seem to be a bit more ambivalent to whether he wakes up or not than the guy who puts the gun to his temple and pulls the trigger.

Not sure I'm making much sense here, but wonder how many of the suicide attempts than are performed with a gun today would move to another method that is next in line in the calculation for "success", but still leave the person just as dead?

I guess I'm also agreeing that it should be a health issue in that people who are determined to kill themselves but don't have access to guns will likely try other methods, and some of those (driving into oncoming traffic?) might have consequences for others.


Editing to add: my main point is that someone who is serious about ending his life will most likely find a way to do it, so the bigger issue for me is getting that person help, than restricting every possible means at his disposal. There will always be another means, and the more intent he is in carrying it out, the more lethal the means he will select, but sadly he only has to succeed one time.

I'm a gun control advocate, but agree with your point that most likely a determined person will commit suicide regardless of the availability of guns. It was surprising that the US is pretty much in the middle of comparable countries in regards to suicide. If guns were the determining factor, the US should have a higher rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

[fishercob]

fish, thanks for posting that slide. It certainly seems intuitive - using a gun is much more likely to lead to a successful suicide attempt than other methods. After all, taking a whole bottle of pills still leaves the possibility of being found and rushed to the hospital before the effects take their full toll, but a gun is often instantaneous.

I wonder if some of that disparity is based on the percentage of suicide attempts that are a cry for help from someone who doesn't really want to die. I'm not meaning to be insensitive, or trying to diminish the very real pain and suffering those people are going through, but how many of the other attempts were "serious" in the sense of the person truly trying to end his life? (Not meaning what needs to be taken seriously - that of course applies in all cases - but speaking to the primary intent of the person making the attempt.)

So the guy who goes into his garage and turns on his car would seem to be a bit more ambivalent to whether he wakes up or not than the guy who puts the gun to his temple and pulls the trigger.

Not sure I'm making much sense here, but wonder how many of the suicide attempts than are performed with a gun today would move to another method that is next in line in the calculation for "success", but still leave the person just as dead?

I guess I'm also agreeing that it should be a health issue in that people who are determined to kill themselves but don't have access to guns will likely try other methods, and some of those (driving into oncoming traffic?) might have consequences for others.


Editing to add: my main point is that someone who is serious about ending his life will most likely find a way to do it, so the bigger issue for me is getting that person help, than restricting every possible means at his disposal. There will always be another means, and the more intent he is in carrying it out, the more lethal the means he will select, but sadly he only has to succeed one time.

Sev, I have a lot of experience with very serious depression in my family. I have family members that have unsuccessfully attempted suicide by some of the means you describe, and I've asked myself whether they really wanted to die. I don't know the answer -- it's unknowable -- but I am thankful that they didn't have a gun close by.

Similarly, I am quite sure there are family members of suicide victims who shot themselves who anguish over whether they really wanted to die, or whether they just got to a really dark place for a moment too long and had a gun within reach.

I think the point of this research is that when it comes to suicide, "where there's a will, there's a way" is not all that true. People with access to guns are more likely to take their own lives.

[Severn Hoos]

fish, thanks for posting that slide. It certainly seems intuitive - using a gun is much more likely to lead to a successful suicide attempt than other methods. After all, taking a whole bottle of pills still leaves the possibility of being found and rushed to the hospital before the effects take their full toll, but a gun is often instantaneous.

I wonder if some of that disparity is based on the percentage of suicide attempts that are a cry for help from someone who doesn't really want to die. I'm not meaning to be insensitive, or trying to diminish the very real pain and suffering those people are going through, but how many of the other attempts were "serious" in the sense of the person truly trying to end his life? (Not meaning what needs to be taken seriously - that of course applies in all cases - but speaking to the primary intent of the person making the attempt.)

So the guy who goes into his garage and turns on his car would seem to be a bit more ambivalent to whether he wakes up or not than the guy who puts the gun to his temple and pulls the trigger.

Not sure I'm making much sense here, but wonder how many of the suicide attempts than are performed with a gun today would move to another method that is next in line in the calculation for "success", but still leave the person just as dead?

I guess I'm also agreeing that it should be a health issue in that people who are determined to kill themselves but don't have access to guns will likely try other methods, and some of those (driving into oncoming traffic?) might have consequences for others.


Editing to add: my main point is that someone who is serious about ending his life will most likely find a way to do it, so the bigger issue for me is getting that person help, than restricting every possible means at his disposal. There will always be another means, and the more intent he is in carrying it out, the more lethal the means he will select, but sadly he only has to succeed one time.

I'm a gun control advocate, but agree with your point that most likely a determined person will commit suicide regardless of the availability of guns. It was surprising that the US is pretty much in the middle of comparable countries in regards to suicide. If guns were the determining factor, the US should have a higher rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Another point in that regard: suppose person A is suicidal, and attempts 3 different times with means other than a gun (could be different means or the same), with two unsuccessful attempts before he succeeds. Person B uses a gun and succeeds the first time.

If the statistics are measuring the means, it would look like the gun was 3x more lethal than whatever means Person A used. But if you are measuring the individuals, both were 100% (in this example).

I'd be curious to know how the statistics were calculated, if that was taken into consideration.

[DCZards]

But Officer Loehmann didn't open the barn door. Perhaps somebody else in the police department screwed up, but Loehmann shouldn't take the blame for acting reasonably in what he believed to be a life threatening situation.

According to Independence deputy police chief Jim Polak, Officer Loehmann was not qualified to be a police officer--or carry a gun and badge.

Polak said that Loehmann was unable to follow "basic functions as instructed". He specifically cited a "dangerous loss of composure" that occurred in a weapons training exercise, during which Loehmann's weapons handling was "dismal" and he became visibly "distracted and weepy" as a result of relationship problems. The memo concluded, "Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies."

Officer Loehmann KNEW he was not fit to be a police officer. So, yes, he bears some responsibility/blame for killing that kid.

[Severn Hoos]

fish, thanks for posting that slide. It certainly seems intuitive - using a gun is much more likely to lead to a successful suicide attempt than other methods. After all, taking a whole bottle of pills still leaves the possibility of being found and rushed to the hospital before the effects take their full toll, but a gun is often instantaneous.

I wonder if some of that disparity is based on the percentage of suicide attempts that are a cry for help from someone who doesn't really want to die. I'm not meaning to be insensitive, or trying to diminish the very real pain and suffering those people are going through, but how many of the other attempts were "serious" in the sense of the person truly trying to end his life? (Not meaning what needs to be taken seriously - that of course applies in all cases - but speaking to the primary intent of the person making the attempt.)

So the guy who goes into his garage and turns on his car would seem to be a bit more ambivalent to whether he wakes up or not than the guy who puts the gun to his temple and pulls the trigger.

Not sure I'm making much sense here, but wonder how many of the suicide attempts than are performed with a gun today would move to another method that is next in line in the calculation for "success", but still leave the person just as dead?

I guess I'm also agreeing that it should be a health issue in that people who are determined to kill themselves but don't have access to guns will likely try other methods, and some of those (driving into oncoming traffic?) might have consequences for others.


Editing to add: my main point is that someone who is serious about ending his life will most likely find a way to do it, so the bigger issue for me is getting that person help, than restricting every possible means at his disposal. There will always be another means, and the more intent he is in carrying it out, the more lethal the means he will select, but sadly he only has to succeed one time.

Sev, I have a lot of experience with very serious depression in my family. I have family members that have unsuccessfully attempted suicide by some of the means you describe, and I've asked myself whether they really wanted to die. I don't know the answer -- it's unknowable -- but I am thankful that they didn't have a gun close by.

Similarly, I am quite sure there are family members of suicide victims who shot themselves who anguish over whether they really wanted to die, or whether they just got to a really dark place for a moment too long and had a gun within reach.

I think the point of this research is that when it comes to suicide, "where there's a will, there's a way" is not all that true. People with access to guns are more likely to take their own lives.

fish, I am so sorry to hear that - I have never been there, but understand intellectually that it is a very dark place where someone feels that suicide is the only way out, or that it would be some sort of "relief" to the pain they are going through.

And yes, I am agreeing that it is better to not have that option available to someone in that dark state. In fact, if the attempt is less serious, it can be a message to the loved ones of the person, and might give them a chance to change the way they relate to the person going through it - thus being a redemptive moment for both parties, rather than a tragic ending.

[Tangent for a moment - this is one of the reasons I have been reluctant to support legalization of drugs. Call it the Len Bias effect if you will, but if we are to believe that was the first time he did drugs, then it underscores that it only takes one time to be the last time. And that can go for overdose, as well as things that are done through impaired judgement. The intersection of freedom and protecting innocent lives is always a tricky one, and tough to navigate. If legalizing drugs meant X number of people died as a result, would it be worth it? And if passing a comprehensive ban on guns meant X number of people did not die, would it be worth it? Unfortunately, it's not that simple, much as I wish it was.]

I can see that people with access to guns are more likely to succeed in their attempts to take their own lives - that is certainly intuitive, as I stated at the outset. So it would also be intuitive to think that reducing the access to guns of people in that state of mind would reduce the number of suicides. The question then becomes one of how to go about achieving that goal, while balancing freedoms and other factors, including deterrence.

[tontoz]

Are we at the point where you just have to think you're in trouble to use lethal force? Is that where we are going? Is that how you justify a child, who you will only refer to as "the guy," being killed playing with a toy gun? Are cops being gunned down in the streets daily. Nope, turns out it's never been a safer time to be a cop.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/09/10/once-again-there-is-no-war-on-cops-and-those-who-claim-otherwise-are-playing-a-dangerous-game/

So, why do cops feels the need to kill anything that moves? You want to talk about the cop's point of view? Let's talk about the report he filed. Suspect was told repeatedly to drop weapon. Lie. Tamir was shot within 2 seconds of the officer extricating the vehicle which hadn't even come to a complete stop. Suspect pointed the weapon at me. Lie. Even in your grainy images at best it appears he is attempting to lift his jacket before he is on the ground bleeding out. At no point was he threatened. But no, cops need to ready to respond to any "perceived" threat, and a 12 year old black boy playing with a toy gun in an open carry state is as threatening as they come. Lifting up his jacket was all it took. They gave a child all of 2 seconds to decide how to act with guns trained on him. Coincidence, it's the same amount of time they gave John Crawford, who was shopping. This in your mind in "reasonable?"

This is where you are letting emotion cloud logic and reason. The fact that Tamir was a child is completely irrelevant. I can't stress this enough. The cops didn't know he was a child and that's all that matters. He was a human figure dressed in a bulky jacket who, to there knowledge, was a man reportedly pointing a gun a people, who then made a motion to point that gun at the cops.

And you are right that there may not statistically be a war on cops, but that works both ways. There is statistically not a war being waged by cops against black people either. As I've pointed out several times before, black people get shot by police at a lower rate than other races relative to their proportion of violent crime.

What we have is a horrific accident that is being pumped up by the media to fit the current (false) narrative.

There is plenty of information that has to be taken into account before referring to a "false" media narrative. Due to conflicting testimony, a murder conviction would be unlikely, but a case for gross negligence against the city and officers would not be that difficult to present.
1) The 911 call indicated the suspect was probably a juvenile, and the gun fake. That information is crucial and has to be provided to the officers.
2) Police said Rice was warned 3 times to put up his hands. Eye witnesses refute this and there's a good chance that it is lie given that the shooting occurred with 2 seconds of arrival.
3) Police originally said Rice pulled out the gun, but the video does not support this, so the story was changed.
4) There is reason to believe the shooting officer was mentally unstable. He was basically forced out of his job as an Independence OH police officer in 2012. "In a memo to Independence's human resources manager, released by the city in the aftermath of the shooting, Independence deputy police chief Jim Polak wrote that Loehmann had resigned rather than face certain termination due to concerns that he lacked the emotional stability to be a police officer. Polak said that Loehmann was unable to follow "basic functions as instructed". He specifically cited a "dangerous loss of composure" that occurred in a weapons training exercise, during which Loehmann's weapons handling was "dismal" and he became visibly "distracted and weepy" as a result of relationship problems. The memo concluded, "Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies." It was subsequently revealed that Cleveland police officials never reviewed Loehmann's personnel file from Independence prior to hiring him."
5) The driving officer had a history of excessive force, and the city had to pay a 100K settlement.

At this point, there's not sufficient evidence to believe the officers account, or disbelieve. there's no "true" or "false" narrative. Given that there many inconsistencies in their original version I would tend to disbelieve, but everyone is going to make up their own mind.

Seriously though some people just aren't going to question the police account unless they have a clear video showing the cop is lying.

[Zonkerbl]

Deterrance: proof or stfu

There is no statistical evidence whatsoever anywhere that having a gun in your house makes you safer.

Safer how? The people robbing your house have no idea if you have a gun. So unless you get the gun out in the middle of the robbery and shoot the robbers (which statistically speaking NEVER HAPPENS), there is no deterrent effect.

The general success rate of suicides, overall, is 10%.

The success rate of suicides using handguns is 90%.

The difference is so large that there's no point in guessing at the suicide attempter's motives. The availability of handguns undeniably lead to more successful suicides.

Furthermore, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about banning the manufacture and import of handguns. We could do it tomorrow if we were serious.

Unfortunately we've gone past the point as a society where we think your right to a substitute penis is more important than a child's life.

[dckingsfan]

But Officer Loehmann didn't open the barn door. Perhaps somebody else in the police department screwed up, but Loehmann shouldn't take the blame for acting reasonably in what he believed to be a life threatening situation.

According to Independence deputy police chief Jim Polak, Officer Loehmann was not qualified to be a police officer--or carry a gun and badge.

Polak said that Loehmann was unable to follow "basic functions as instructed". He specifically cited a "dangerous loss of composure" that occurred in a weapons training exercise, during which Loehmann's weapons handling was "dismal" and he became visibly "distracted and weepy" as a result of relationship problems. The memo concluded, "Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies."

Officer Loehmann KNEW he was not fit to be a police officer. So, yes, he bears some responsibility/blame for killing that kid.

Clearly, if you can't pass the psychological testing and basic weapons training with flying colors - you shouldn't be in law enforcement. It is ridiculous that there isn't a law enforcement database that shares this information.

[popper]

This is an interesting website that provides some context and insight into the prevalence of violent crime in the U.S. It's not necessarily focused on guns but does provide a perspective on violent crime that I have not seen before. I'm too lazy to delve deep into it but others may want to have a look.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/