US law enforcement killed at least 1,176 people in 2022, making it the deadliest year on record for police violence.
While the numbers have crept up, the circumstances that precede the killings have remained consistent.
In 2022, 132 killings (11%) were cases in which no offense was alleged; 104 cases (9%) were mental health or welfare checks; 98 (8%) involved traffic violations; and 207 (18%) involved other allegations of nonviolent offenses. There were also 93 cases (8%) involving claims of a domestic disturbance and 128 (11%) where the person was allegedly seen with a weapon. Only 370 (31%) involved a potentially more serious situation, with an alleged violent crime.
"These are routine police encounters that escalate to a killing," said Samuel Sinyangwe, a data scientist and policy analyst who founded Mapping Police Violence and provided 2022 data to the Guardian. "The reduction in the conversation around police violence does not mean that this issue is going away. What's clear is that it's continuing to get worse, and that it's deeply systemic."
What's more, in 32% of cases last year, the person was fleeing before they were killed, generally running or driving off -- cases in which experts say lethal force is unwarranted and also endangers the public.
Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.
But but shoplifting!
For comparison, in the UK police killed three people last year.
In contrast, and in case you think the US is the worst of all possible hellholes, it's worth noting that no police officer ever has been convicted of murdering an Indigenous person in Australia. You're not so special, America!
Now, now - there's plenty of police brutality to go around in this world.
> ...said Samuel Sinyangwe, a data scientist and policy analyst...
Ooh, goody, let's quote analysts who are also self declared activists but not tell anyone that they are activists.
Sure, because people who do science are not also allowed to have opinions based on their findings. They live in a realm of pure icosohedral logic, untouched by the trivia of human lives.
Having opinions is allowed and encouraged. But because there is a possible conflict of interest between analyst and activist, it's important to mention it for full disclosure.
Show where the facts are in error (if at all), THEN you can bitch their opinions.
Are you somehow surprised by the fact that Sinyangwe is not of the opinion that the number of folk shot in the back by police is somehow too LOW?
I'm not sure how to square that with this.
Reading that guy's table and web page are enough to give anyone a stroke.
"Long story short: I knew OIC (officer-involved shootings) were down over decades. Because this is what I do. I talk to people."
I mean, ffs.