this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
993 points (99.1% liked)

News

23300 readers
3478 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

At least 1,201 people were killed in 2022 by law enforcement officers, about 100 deaths a month, according to Mapping Police Violence, a nonprofit research group that tracks police killings. ProPublica examined the 101 deaths that occurred in June 2022, a time frame chosen because enough time had elapsed that investigations could reasonably be expected to have concluded. The cases involved 131 law enforcement agencies in 34 states.

In 79 of those deaths, ProPublica confirmed that body-worn camera video exists. But more than a year later, authorities or victims’ families had released the footage of only 33 incidents.

Philadelphia signed a $12.5 million contract in 2017 to equip its entire police force with cameras. Since then, at least 27 people have been killed by Philadelphia police, according to Mapping Police Violence, but in only two cases has body-camera video been released to the public.

ProPublica’s review shows that withholding body-worn camera footage from the public has become so entrenched in some cities that even pleas from victims’ families don’t serve to shake the video loose.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stembolts@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

The reasoning you just used was in the form of an anecdote, which undermines your whole point. Anecdotal thinking is one of the most common ways that humans arrive at irrational conclusions.

Why should you care? Well, if you believe what you stated, then you should want other people to believe it too. In order to do this the first step is to learn how to present it without any of the common logical flaws humans are born with.

Your argument pattern is, "Event X happened and I saw it, therefore Y". No. You need a much larger sample size to make a point. I can't teach you rational argument in one post, but hopefully you'll become curious enough to learn. Have a nice day.

[–] duffman@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yet most of the negative sentiment on cops comes from anecdotes. And of course now we have the Internet so now there's availability bias of all of the extreme cases that go viral. When a study asked how many unarmed blacks were killed by police each year most left leaning were wrong by an order of magnitude.

[–] tmyakal@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

most of the negative sentiment on cops comes from anecdotes

Oh, I thought it came from the years of empirical evidence of corruption, bias, and state-funded violence.

[–] JonEFive@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There are some biases inherent to the relevant data. For example, you might be right about this specific situation (police shooting unarmed black people), but what about other instances of violence or misconduct?

We need to consider where data about that comes from. Are we to trust the accuracy of police reports and their own statements as they pertain to misconduct? IA investigations that frequently find no wrongdoing even when it's plainly obvious that the situation was handled improperly? Or at least could have been avoided? Should we rely upon charges filed against police and their conviction rate?

There's no official national database for this stuff by the way, and localities almost never produce such metrics willingly, so it's up to someone to comb through public records. And that, like the case of body cam videos, assumes that police will properly follow FOIA requests.

I'm not suggesting that we assume the absolute worst, but we need to recognize that whatever the data says, the situation is almost definitely worse than that due to these biases.

[–] duffman@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Oh I'm sure it's definitely worse than the data we have suggests. I'm not arguing against police reforms or standardization. But in the situation I stated, there were a large percentage of people who believed it was in the thousands, or 10s of thousands on an annual basis.

The prevailing opinions and rhetoric on police paint them not as individuals, but as a cabal of cartoon villains.

[–] chitak166@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There are crazy, dangerous people in the world. If you can’t fight and you don’t own a gun, you are at the mercy of others to protect you.

Nothing about this is anecdotal.

[–] YeeterPan@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You're right, it's a broad generalization followed by a fear-based assumption.

That you segued into with an anecdote.

[–] chitak166@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago