Thursday, August 28, 2014

The Growing Number of Americans Killed by the Police




The media are finally onto an issue about which I have been fretting for several years: the growing number of Americans killed by cops. Have I been ahead of the curve, aware of an emerging social problem which others are only now beginning to recognize?

This is a sensitive subject. I want to tread carefully and present a nuanced perspective. I hope that you read on before you jump to the conclusion that I am a knee-jerk, left-wing cop hater.

No doubt the high-profile killing of Michael Brown by officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO has much to do with increasing public awareness of this problem.

Of course, there are several intertwined issues here: bad race relations, economic injustice, the ever greater number of weapons in circulation, the public’s rightward move and its growing repressive tendencies (for example,  more  twice as many people favor capital punishment now as  than two generations ago). But today, I want to focus on just one aspect of this complicated problem: the growing number of Americans killed by law enforcement.


When a society becomes more repressive, the agency which is charged with implementing the new attitude is the police. If cops kill more citizens, wouldn’t that be prima facie evidence that a majority of Americans support this? Michael Brown is not an isolated case. It is estimated that the police kill over 1,000 Americans every year. (See Sacramento Bee editorial, Aug. 24, ‘14).

I hope (and still believe) that a majority of these killings fall into the categories of “justifiable use of deadly force” and “suicide by cop,” and that only a minority of the cases are “murders by cop.”

Nor do I know how many of the dead are black or white, rich or poor. I venture to guess that not very many of them are rich white guys. However, the fact that those killed are by no means all black suggests that the problem transcends race.

And of course, who do we call first the moment we face the slightest problem? 911; The police! We ALL do it - conservatives and liberals; black people and white people; We call the police when we get into an accident and when we get burglarized or mugged, and some call 911 when they have a sore tooth. It would be wrong to deny that society requires a robust police force.

However, the growing use of lethal force by the police is worrisome. As a professor of criminology for several decades, I have used the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports assiduously. The report, published annually by the Department of Justice, has been my bible, so to speak. It meticulously compiles and publishes all the important crime statistics for the entire nation, as well as data pertaining to law enforcement, for example the number of peace officers killed in the line of duty. But it does NOT provide any information about the number of Americans killed by policemen. This is scandalous.

The growing violence between the police and the community should be deplored by both sides. Should cops not oppose the growing number of weapons in the hands of the populace? Would it not be logical for law enforcement and the NRA to be mortal enemies?

To be sure, one should not exaggerate the danger to which cops are exposed on the job: In 2011, 72 peace officers were murdered nationwide by criminals in the line of duty. This is a relatively small number. During the heyday of civil unrest in the 1960s, with groups such as the Black Panthers and Weather Underground acting up, the number was more than twice as high, even though America’s population was only two thirds of what it is now. In general, cops are safer on the street than you and me. They are armed and they are trained.

Nevertheless, we see the progressive militarization of the police. Law enforcement in peaceful communities such as Davis, CA are acquiring tank-like armored vehicles and other military gear. Police departments begin to resemble armies of occupation. But given the growing number of weapons in everyone’s hands, I can understand why policemen have become more trigger happy.

Whatever the proximate causes are, the trend is towards more citizens being killed by cops. When this happens in a society, we call it a police state. And in the extreme, it becomes fascism.

But it seems to me that America can only become a police state, if the (white) majority wants it so. The facts that the media pay little attention to this problem and that the government does not even collect or publish national data on the number of Americans killed by police suggest, so far, a callous indifference to this ominous trend, but hopefully not its embracement.

Every single jurisdiction should have an independent civilian review board which looks over the police department’s shoulders so as to preclude whitewashes. “Internal investigation” is an oxymoron. How can an agency be expected to investigate its own alleged wrong-doings?

The Department of Justice should collect and publish data on all police use of deadly force, classifying them into legitimate and illegitimate cases. leave comment here

© Tom Kando 2014


5 comments:

Gordon said...

Tom, This is indeed a growing problem, and there are several factors at play. The primary factor is whether police view themselves more as a member of the community, or the member of a police force. In the second case, the mindset is more likely become "us vs. them."

This problem exists at some level in any impersonal government bureaucracy. Members of the bureaucracy are concerned about their pay, might unionize, and might moan the death of "one of their own" more than the death of someone on the streets--who is not "one of their own."

A second problem, that is somewhat derivative, is the militarization of the technology police are using, making them more like "soldiers" than police, even further distancing themselves from members of the community.

A Ferguson, Mo. race may have been involved, but again asking for solutions at the state of federal level only alienates members of different races in the community. I was happy to see community activities where blacks and whites met face to face, rather than seeking an impersonal solution.

In my view the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security is part of the problem, as it is very remote and treats local police departments like branches of an occupation force with the type of commands and equipment it provides.

The Constitution forbade a federal army on domestic soil for good reason. It only gave the federal government the right to call up the service of state militias for domestic unrest. Those militias were closer to the people and less likely to abuse or oppress them.

Pieter PASTOOR said...

Well thought out - thank you. BTW the Davis city council voted to get rid of the new super tank - the police dept kept the city in the dark about its acquisition -

Anonymous said...

Interesting, Tom. Try living in Mexico...the police are the LAST people you call. And kids pick up on this early. No police station tours or visits to classroom with sticker badges. Not sure which way I prefer.

Jon said...

Tom,
I nearly always read your blog and often discover interesting ideas, opinions, and facts. And I usually trust your research, since about most of these things I begin by knowing nothing, or next to nothing.
I am certainly not in favor of cops killing citizens (as, I suspect, neither are they). The weight of the plethora of facts in the Michael Brown case, whatever it shows, to me suggests gross indifference or negligence or miscalculation by one officer and perhaps a whole force:

the man is apprehended for walking in the middle of the street and ends up dead, with 6 bullet holes in him
there is dispute over whether he attacked the officer, but the violent response seems unnecessary
he had stolen some cigars earlier and pushed a clerk, but apparently the officer didn't know this
his body was left in the street for more than four hours
I suppose this digression shows I support the general tendency of your column.
But what I was really writing about , before I got distracted, was your recent claim that support for the death penalty had increased, and this showed Americans swinging to the right. That's just not might sense of a variety of political and court decisions and media reporting: that support for the death penalty is at a 20year low:

Pew Poll Shows Sharp Drop in Death Penalty Support (2/2014).
Support for the death penalty has fallen sharply by 23 percentage points since 1996, reaching its lowest level in almost two decades, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center. The 2013 poll also found a 10 point drop in just the last 2 years in respondents who say they "strongly favor" the death penalty, from 28% to 18%. The percentage of Americans who say they oppose the death penalty has risen to 37%. In 2011, Pew asked respondents about the reasons behind their views on the death penalty, finding that the top two reasons for opposition to capital punishment were the imperfect nature of the justice system and a belief that the death penalty is immoral. The drop in public support coincides with an overall decline in use of the death penalty during the same time period, with both death sentences and executions falling dramatically since the 1990s. Six states have repealed the death penalty in the last six years, and three governors have recently imposed moratoriums on executions.

Found something I could respond to you on

Tom Kando said...

I thank Gordon, Peter, anonymous and Jon for their excellent comments.

Gordon makes several important points, as usual, and Pieter speaks from first-hand knowledge.

Anonymous makes the customary error of so many American conservatives, when they congratulate themselves about conditions in this country, be it in law enforcement, public health, the economy, or something else: They compare the US with some Third World country where things are worse.

I, on the other hand, assume that America is a First World country, and that this country should strive for a quality of life and conditions similar to places such as Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Australia, etc.

Finally, Jon:

My short answer to you is: Oops!

My longer answer is this:

Regarding rates of support of and opposition to capital punishment, I was wrong.

You are right that public support for executions has dwindled during the past 18 tears (most sharpy during the past decade).

Note that in my statement, I speak of the situation ”two generations ago.” In 1964, for the last time, a MAJORITY of Americans were opposed to capital punishment, a level which we have yet to reach: 47% opposed executions, and only 42% supported it. And in 1972, the US Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional.

Then, a long-term reaction set in: In 1976 the Supreme Court changed its mind and found capital punishment constitutional again, and by 1996, as you show in your comment, a staggering 78% of Americans favored executions, while a mere 18% were opposed.

I made a mistake. For some reason I ignored what’s been happening to public opinion in this regard over the past 10-18 years. This was sloppy, because I actually knew what’s been happening. It is true that public opinion has swung back in the “liberal” direction, although not as far (yet?) as it was “two generations ago,” (which was my point of reference).
And of course, we remain the only major Western country which still HAS capital punishment.

But again, I am grateful for your correction. It helps me to achieve what matters the most to me with this blog: truthful facts.

PS. I am relatively indifferent to capital punishment. I am against it for the same reasons as many other people: (1) it’s a messy, sloppy, arbitrary and unbelievably expensive form of “justice.” (2) for those monsters who deserve to be executed, life imprisonment without parole is probably more painful than being put out of their misery. (3) for some of them (Adolf Eichmann, etc.) I would have been happy to pull the switch myself.

Post a Comment

Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!