California Launches Mandatory Data Collection For Police Use-of-Force (seattletimes.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the AP:
All 800 police departments in California must begin using a new online tool launched Thursday to report and help track every time officers use force that causes serious injuries... The tool, named URSUS for the bear on California's flag, includes fields for the race of those injured and the officers involved, how their interaction began and why force was deemed necessary.
"It's sort of like TurboTax for use-of-force incidents," said Justin Erlich, a special assistant attorney general overseeing the data collection and analysis. Departments must report the data under a new state law passed last November. Though some departments already tracked such data on their own, many did not... "As a country, we must engage in an honest, transparent, and data-driven conversation about police use of force," California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a news release.
It's an open source tool developed by Bayes Impact, and California plans to share the code with other interested law enforcement agencies across the country. Only three other states currently require their police departments to track data about use-of-force incidents, "but their systems aren't digital, and in Colorado's case, only capture shootings."
"It's sort of like TurboTax for use-of-force incidents," said Justin Erlich, a special assistant attorney general overseeing the data collection and analysis. Departments must report the data under a new state law passed last November. Though some departments already tracked such data on their own, many did not... "As a country, we must engage in an honest, transparent, and data-driven conversation about police use of force," California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a news release.
It's an open source tool developed by Bayes Impact, and California plans to share the code with other interested law enforcement agencies across the country. Only three other states currently require their police departments to track data about use-of-force incidents, "but their systems aren't digital, and in Colorado's case, only capture shootings."
This is mostly due to the idea that unarmed blacks are killed more often by cops than unarmed whites. But the data are scarce and police killings are so rare that it's hard to make this claim with any accuracy. The 800 pound elephant in the room that groups like Black Lives Matter refuse to address is that there's far more violent crime committed by blacks than other races, even when controlling for factors like socioeconomic status. Where's the outrage over all of the violent crime? Moreover, people who mention these statistics are usually dismissed as being racist, to avoid addressing these uncomfortable issues. Perhaps I should kneel and raise my first during the national anthem until progress is made to stop violent crime by blacks against unarmed whites, which is orders of magnitude more common than the killing of unarmed blacks by police.
There are "gang enhancement" laws. Why aren't they used against the gang in blue when they do evil things?
I don't think that collecting data is enough. Think of how many innocent people were killed by the police without being videoed. Our police are still allowed to be expert witnesses, in courts. I am sorry if this offends people, but there is nothing intrinsically different about police officers that makes them honest.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Maybe they need a tool to identify racial bias in all of their enforcement strategies. Self fulfilling prophecy and all that...
open source
You mean they didn't put together a bidding process for a $2.8 billion dollar project which will come in at 437% overbudget and finally be ready in 2028?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Up to this time the police have relied on the "Blue Line", which is to say their claim to infallibility which is backed up by every officer in the force agreeing on whatever an officer says. If an officer says it was a gun and not a book, then they all say they saw a gun.
In the past they believed that the was necessary to keep the public giving them money and respect
Nowadays, people are more familiar with quality improvement and the need to identify errors in order to correct them. The see a bunch of people in an organization claim to be faultless is spurious, to catch them in repeated lies due to cell phone videos is completely invalidating
If we can have six sigma (one error in a million products) on every commercial product that we own, then why the fuck can these same methods not be applied to the police
Fuck their egos and sense of infallibility, they are just another product that we purchase and we deserve higher quality
Won't make a difference. The Guardian's investigation showed that even police forces that were supposed to record all police shootings didn't, and that includes fatal shootings.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Use of force tracking with detailed reports has been the standard in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for a long time, including written reports from all employees who have witnessed the use of force. But for police, much more has to be done. Body cameras must be used, with files uploaded to the report and the reports must be "bundled" and cross referenced to allow administrators and the public to identify bad cops.
...and help track every time officers use force that causes serious injuries...
Who defines "serious?" They or the party involved? They mention something that excludes bruises...but I could be seriously psychologically or mentally harmed.
It's a positive first step if I may add.
1. Really surprised that all violence against civilians isn't recorded, whether necessary or otherwise.
I don't think that it isn't recorded, rather I think this is more of a tool to make statistical gathering/reporting easier. Everything the police do that involves some kind of formal report is recorded somewhere in excruciating detail, but in the absence of something like this, I doubt there's any kind of detailed statistical gathering.
By excruciating, what I mean is this: I did a police ride along once, and everything that involves some kind of citation, no matter how small, invariably requires a solid minimum of 30 minutes worth of sitting at a computer and typing, detailing literally everything that the cop did, saw, heard, etc. The cop I did my ride along with didn't even like to give out speeding tickets because it's that much of a pain in the ass. In fact, we got called to help out some girl who drove the left side of her truck on top of a median and flattened both of her left tires, and I was in one of the two cars that responded. She technically broke the law, (I don't recall which one) but they weren't going to write a ticket. However she indicated that she wanted to make an insurance claim, and so the cops told her that if she wanted to make one they'd have to issue a citation, which would include points on her driver's license and a fine. Otherwise she could fix her tires on her own dime. She of course opted for the later, thus saving the cops involved a lot of paperwork (and time) so that they could respond to other calls.
And from my observation in all of this, the only time cops tend to issue citations for minor infractions is when they have a quota that they need to fill for promotion or other purposes (ticket quotas are banned in my state, by the way, except in Indian reservation where I've literally been issued a citation for going 2mph instead of a COMPLETE stop for a stop sign, aka a rolling stop) or if the cop has a chip on his shoulder and just wants to be a dick, or if they notice you doing something blatantly unsafe (like driving unreasonably faster or slower than the rest of traffic -- I drive 80mph all the time where the freeway is 65, and cops I've driven past never care because that's practically the same speed everybody else drives.)
Anyways, what I'm getting at, is that if there's violence or other injury caused by a cop, 99.999% chance there's a formal (and likely very detailed) report.
It wasn't just cops backing each other up.
In the past, in cases where it was literally the cop's word against the defendant, the judges always assumed that the cop's testimony was more likely to be true.
I can see it now, this is going to turn out just like the federal seizure database
California is going to put all this data into the system, and 10 years from now, someone is going to ask "how many people have been killed by police so far?", and the police are going to say "We don't know, because it would crash the system if we tried to look it up".
And when the cop shoots you for following his "lawful orders"? How about when they shoot you before saying anything, like Tamir Rice or John Crawford?
No amount of authoritarian bootlicking will save your ass from a cop bent on shooting you.
Yeah. Hell, the ONLY reason these things are even making the news is because there is a/v evidence that it happened. But these things didn't just start happening now that portable video cameras are everywhere. They've been happening ALL ALONG, and the police have just been lying about it.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
The police, the prosecutors and the judiciary all play a hand it in
And in many cases they are washing each other's hands as well
Are the majority of police officers reasonable human beings? Yes.
[Citation needed] A simple examination of the rampant practice of "good" cops participating in coverups, committing perjury, and planting/fabricating evidence in the defense of "bad" cops will paint a very different picture.
Of your three cases, the officer in the first is facing criminal charges with up to 20 years in jail. Obviously the system works.
The second two were running around in public with realistic looking guns, and didn't quickly do what the officers ordered... Are you suggesting that people should be able to point fake guns at cops with no repercussions? Too many officers get killed on the job, already. Requiring psychic abilities in use of force decisions will make that number sky rocket.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I am no authoritarian bootlicking servant. In 99% of police interactions if you comply with their instructions, you will not be injured or worse... Are the majority of police officers reasonable human beings? Yes.
99% is far too weak a standard here (and don't even get me started on "majority"). One in a thousand is also too much (due to the base rate fallacy, look it up). One in a hundred thousand is a safe conservative estimate.
So, you're about three orders of magnitude off...
Stefan Axelsson
There is no evidence that they were pointing the guns at cops. They were simply carrying the guns. And, surprise, Ohio is an open carry state! So even if the guns were 100% real, the cops did not have the justification to shoot those people. There are white people occupying Chipotle with assault rifles but they never get shot. I wonder why?
No one is going to become a cop anymore. And if people though the police were tough on criminals, wait till they meet the citizen posse's who will NOT give the suspect a chance to repeat offend...
Not to mention, did the cops identify themselves and give some sort of order? Or did they just open fire in surprise?
If a cop tells you to put your gun down, IT DOESN'T MATTER if it's either "not a real gun" or a "legally owned and carried gun", you PUT THE GOWN DOWN, PERIOD.
It's not that hard.
In the US, police officers are sworn "officers of the court." Functionally, they are an extension of the court system. As such, their testimony may be admitted as evidence, where your common-citizen's testimony may not. That's usually the bias. Additionally, the courts tend to expect that their officers, being sworn, are operating to the rules and limitations imposed on them by the legal system. If that's not the case for the vast majority of situations, the legal system comes apart at the seams.
They got out of the car and immediately opened fire. It's on surveillance tape.
You seem to be saying that the trained police get to be impulsive and act out of fear, while untrained civilians are required to act responsibly and intelligently, and obey orders regardless of whether they can hear or perform them. Do you think this is rational?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Racist projection and hand waving noted. Cops are quite happy to screw over or murder innocent white people as well - just ask Michael Morton, Kelly Thomas and Cameron Todd Willingham.
The video has no sound. It was certainly a quick encounter, but the officers swear they ordered him to show his hands 3 times, and the video doesn't show enough to contradict their statement. There are no other witnesses to contradict them, either.
Non-experts analyzing videos often come to completely wrong conclusions. The conspiracy theories around the JFK assassination come to mind...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
"As a country, we must engage in an honest, transparent, and data-driven conversation about police use of force," California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a news release.
Obey the instructions of the police officer and let your lawyer / attorney / barrister handle any disputes. The solution does not even require technology. Priceless.
So you mean let your lawyer handle burying you in your grave?
In 99% of police interactions if you comply with their instructions, you will not be injured or worse.
Oh good. So only 1% of the time will I be injured or worse. And only in 1% of of the time when people are detained or arrested will they be injured or worse. That percentage is completely unacceptable.
Are there overjealous, brutish police officers? Yes, undoubtedly. Are the majority of police officers reasonable human beings? Yes.
The guards in the Standford Prison Experiment were reasonable human beings. This problem has nothing to do with the character of the officers. They are *trained* to act like thugs, to steal property, to evade the law, and extenuate circumstances to justify their own actions. The difference between law enforcement and common criminals is law enforcement expects your sanction of their actions. Common criminals are more honest.
The only recourse is to *always* exercise your 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights during *every* interaction with law enforcement with absolutely no exceptions. Of course doing this will get you injured or worse as well.
Key factor. THe video without the corresponding audio makes it kinda useless since there is so much left out of this particular equation...