In 2023, according to FBI statistics, 298 felons were killed by law enforcement officers in the line of duty, and 343 criminals were killed by private citizens in self-defense or during the commission of a felony, so it looks like armed private citizens are doing a better job on that front. Armed citizens killed more criminals than police last year. According to Mapping Police Violence, police in the United States killed at least 1,232 people in 2023, making it the deadliest year for homicides committed by law enforcement in more than a decade. According to the UIC Center for Police Equity and Innovation, 250,000 civilian injuries are caused by law enforcement officers annually, and 15% of civilians who experience police threat of or use of force during interventions are injured. Compared to police in other wealthy democracies, U.S. police kill civilians at high rates. U.S. police kill civilians at a rate of 33.5 per 10 million people, while the next highest rate among comparable countries is 3.6 in Canada, followed by 0.8 in Australia, and 0.5 in Germany. From available data, it appears that citizens have a much greater chance of being shot by police than the police have of being shot by citizens, and Americans have a much higher chance of being killed by police than citizens of other countries. Perhaps the call should be to disarm the police (or at least hold them responsible for their actions when they are wrong), and to arm more citizens. When the perpetrator is known, citizens are always prosecuted, while the police are usually granted immunity or not charged when the shooting is in the line of duty even when they are clearly in the wrong.
Yeh, there's a lot behind those stats. The one that intrigues me is that if the police killed 1,232 people in 2023, and 298 of those were felons, what were the other 934? I'd also like to see stats for 2016-2019, before all those Soros DAs took office.
For some reason, it wouldn't let me edit my own post so I deleted my first reply. In the Mapping Police Violence stats, it wasn't clear that they were in the line of duty, so these might include off-duty shootings as well.
If a private citizen shoots someone in self-defense, mistakenly believing that a cell phone is a gun, the best he can hope for is a manslaughter charge, but he's probably going to prison for murder, and he's certainly never going to be allowed to possess a firearm again. When a police officer mistakes a cell phone for a firearm, he's probably going to get a week of desk duty before it is decided to be a justified shoot. If the family of the victim subsequently sues him, he will probably be granted qualified immunity. Any chances of prosecution will depend on the victim's race, not the officer's actions. If the victim is white, the cop will be back on duty before the funeral.
I think it depends on the state and sometimes the jurisdiction within the state. I have no desire to be a cop, but I certainly would never be a cop in a Blue state or city. the risks are just too great. I also pity female cops in places where they are not armed, as any person larger and stronger has them at their mercy. If you ever saw the show Alaska State Troopers, you can notice that female troopers are never sent out alone to confront a possible violent situation, although the men routinely are. They are paid the same and the women often get promoted faster, but they do not do the same job. If I were a male trooper, I would be disturbed by that. I suspect the same happens in places like Britain where the police are not routinely armed. Even in Canada, I think they usually have to call an emergency response unit to address violence and I suspect they quite often do not arrive in time. Cops and other public servants should be paid well and held to a very high standard. Take politicians and bureaucrats for instance....
Agreed. Instead, they're not paid well, and they're not trained very well, and subsequently, many of the wrong sort of people are attracted to law enforcement. My attitude toward the police has changed a lot just in the past few years. Not only do we have the militarization of police departments, but they've completely abandoned the idea of protecting and serving. Most departments have even removed that from their vehicles. Instead, they tend, far too often, to act as if they are Roman centurions serving in an occupied land. We are at their command, and they are rarely held responsible for anything they do. While they may serve the elite, everyone else is treated like a rabble. Certainly, this does not speak for every police officer. There are some good cops, but the good ones are swimming against the tide.
The problem is that the pay gets raised and the incompetent activists are given positions (remember Obama saying that government needed "the best and the brightest"?) We must never buy into the fact that there will be standards.
I have noticed among the police departments here, the poorest paid are the most arrogant. When I used to drive 60,000 to 70,000 miles a year, I had a few encounters with police. I never had a problem with an Alaska State Trooper. They were always courteous and treated me with respect. The poorest-paid cops in this area issue tickets if they think you are a tourist and never treat people with respect. The newest cops are often the worst as well.
That's why better pay, better training, and higher expectations must come together. The same is true of the Texas State Troopers. They are nearly always polite and respectful, although they are not likely to pull you over unless they issue a citation. Still, after getting a speeding ticket, I thanked the trooper and immediately said, "What am I thanking you for? You gave me a ticket."
I think the State Trooper vs local guys difference is universal. I would think that a big factor is the expectations that are set for the level of professionalism. The local [smaller] force manned by the local guys is likely to be more slack in their standards. And don't forget that many times, the chief is a political appointee of the mayor.