The seemingly endless
coverage of deadly police - civilian confrontations in the United States is
telling us that something is broken in law enforcement. According to
"The Counted", so far in 2016, 791 people
in the United States have been killed by police. By way of comparison, a
total of 1146 people were killed by American police in 2015 with 306 being
black, 581 being white and 195 being Hispanic/Latino. Is there some way
that this number could be reduced? Thanks to the Use of
Force Project and Campaign Zero , there are some polices
that could be adopted by police forces across America that are likely to at
least partially solve the problem of police-related civilian deaths along with
reducing retributive violence toward police.
As background, here is a
graphic showing the rates of killings (police killings per 1 million
population) by America's largest police forces between January 1, 2015 and July
15, 2016:
Interestingly, of the 100
largest urban areas in the study, only nine had police departments that didn't
kill anyone in 2015 or so far in 2016.
The Campaign Zero
Planning Team reviewed the use of deadly force policies of 91 of America's 100
largest police departments to see if they had any meaningful protections
against police violence and what percentage of police forces had each policy in place. These policies include:
1.) Requiring
de-escalation - 31 of the departments required that police officers de-escalate
situations where possible prior to using deadly force.
2.) A use of force
continuum - Here is an example of a use of force continuum which is required by
77 of the departments:
3.) A ban on chokeholds
and strangleholds - 21 of the departments have an explicit ban on chokeholds
and strangleholds and limit their use to situations where deadly force is
authorized.
4.) Requiring a warning
before using deadly force - 56 of the departments required the officer to give
a verbal warning where possible
5.) A restriction on
firing at moving vehicles - 19 of the departments prohibit officers from
shooting at moving vehicles unless that vehicle is posing a deadly threat (i.e.
the occupants are shooting at bystanders).
6.) Requiring that all
other means be exhausted before shooting - 31 of the departments required
officers to exhaust all other reasonable options before using deadly force.
7.) A duty to intervene
when deadly force is being misused by another officer - 30 of the departments
required that officers intervene to stop another officer from using excessive
force.
8.) Requiring
comprehensive reporting - 15 of the departments required officers to report all
uses of force including threatening a civilian with a firearm.
On average, of the 91
departments reviewed, only three out of the eight listed policies were adopted
with no police departments adopting all eight.
How important are these
policies? Here is a graphic showing how the restricted use of force
policies are associated with a drop in the number of civilian killings by police forces:
Basically, for each of
the eight policies, police departments that had implemented the policies saw a
drop in the number of civilians killed than police departments that had not
adopted the policies. Each additional use of force policy was associated
with a 15 percent drop in killings. Since, as I noted above, the average
police department has adopted three out of the eight policies, implementing all
eight policies would result in a very significant 54 percent drop in killings
on average. Here is a graphic that shows how the rate of civilian
killings drops as more policies are adopted:
With either zero or one
policy, the civilian death rate at the hands of police averages just over 12
per million population. With four or more policies adopted, the civilian
death rate drops to just under 8 per million population which is still high but
a significant drop from the death rate in non-adoptive jurisdictions.
While one might think
that the adoption of more rigid police use of force policies would result in a
rising assault against and death rate for police, in fact that is not the case.
Where there are zero or one of the aforementioned policies in place, the
assault rate on officers is 18 per 100 officers; this drops to less than 10 per
100 officers when 4 or more policies are in place. Where there are zero
or one of the aforementioned policies in place, the death rate of officers is
just under .12 per 1000 officers; this drops to just over 0.02 per 1000
officers when 4 or more policies are in place.
Obviously, the current
law enforcement situation in America's large and small urban areas is not
working. Universal adoption of the eight use of deadly force policies
recommended by the Campaign Zero Planning Team would go a long way to improving
the rapidly deteriorating relationship between the taxpaying public and their
police departments in America's largest cities.



I agree with some, but not all, of the comments above. But the statistics would and could be greatly reduced if civilians OBEYED OFFICER COMMANDS. Look at the situation in South Carolina (Slager/Scott). ULTIMATELY, the officer shot the man in the back and I do not agree with that shooting at all. But prior, the civilian RAN from a traffic stop. Then they struggled, a taser was deployed....the civilian ran again. I get the feeling that if he never ran from the vehicle, he would be alive today. Same for the verdict today....obey office commands and you greatly reduce the risk of dying. I would wager the last 100 cases of officers shooting civilians, verbal commands were ignored. I don't seem to recall any stories about an officer arriving on scene, not saying a word and shooting someone unarmed.
ReplyDelete