An honest question: what's up with the use of the word "murder"?<p>I'm not asking that to start a fight over whether these shootings were justified. I'm asking because that word has a specific criminal definition, and news organizations typically have very strict policies on implying criminal guilt (witness the pre-conviction use of "alleged X" even in the most obvious of cases).<p>As I understand it, most of the names described here as "murdered by police" have not produced murder convictions or even murder charges against police officers.<p>Without getting into subjective discussions of 'guilt', does TechCrunch have a policy on language in criminal cases? What is it?
<i>Until very recently, and thanks to the likes of The Guardian’s The Counted, Fatal Encounters and Campaign Zero’s Mapping Police Violence, the data to prove the systemic racism that results in the police killings of unarmed black people has not been widely available to the public.</i><p>It doesn't sound like, according to the article, the California initiative is to prove racism but rather track, identify, and reduce police initiated violence. Is this the writer's bias?
> <i>"Until very recently, and thanks to the likes of The Guardian’s The Counted, Fatal Encounters and Campaign Zero’s Mapping Police Violence, the data to prove the systemic racism that results in the police killings of unarmed black people has not been widely available to the public."</i><p>Actually there is already data, and actually that data states that in fact, black people suffer more violence from part of the police, but <i></i>LESS<i></i> killings, is just there is a total bias by the media outlets that basically only show cases of police killings involving black victims and don't report the ones with white people.<p>Source:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evid...</a>
Prior to Ferguson, nobody was collecting data on police shootings across the US. Now the press and some nonprofits collect it. The Washington Post has a database.[1] The Guardian has another one.[2] There's a site, "fatalencounters.org", trying to crowdsource this.[3]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shoo...</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/...</a>
[3] <a href="http://www.fatalencounters.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fatalencounters.org/</a>
Below is a sloppy, incomplete, and unedited archive of authoritarian madness. While some of the websites are dubious, most events can be verified as having occurred (regardless of the perspective or source) and many of the websites are sufficiently credible. The much larger remainder of this list is not yet vetted and is omitted. I expect very few will take the time to look, but for those who do, it may thereafter become evident that something is terribly wrong. Again, there are a few random or unrelated links included, which will be removed when time or interest permits.<p><a href="https://justpaste.it/yzu0" rel="nofollow">https://justpaste.it/yzu0</a>