I’m D. Brian Burghart, a journalist who was offended by the government’s lack of statistics on police-involved deaths, so I started the Fatal Encounters website. AMA!

How can we help? You're doing your part. Do you have any suggestions on how we might do ours?

Four ways to help: Data, cash, public records and lists.

Data: Go here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aul9Ys3cd80fdDdQR0JPMkhNR3hWdGE5Uy1vLWNGMGc#gid=3 find a line that interests you, check the name against the database, http://www.fatalencounters.org/people-search/, do the internet research with what's provided, and add all the information that you can get accurately correct on this form: http://www.fatalencounters.org/google-form/ You can also add new incidents that are neither on the Google Spreadsheet or in the database by name search to the form: http://www.fatalencounters.org/google-form

Cash: You can donate here via Paypal: http://www.fatalencounters.org/donate/ I've done this project on a shoestring with my own money. I use donations to pay for "public" documents. Charging exorbitant fees for collecting documents is one way agencies block journalists from getting information, since generally it's the agency's choice whether to charge or not, and very few journalism outfits can afford the fees. I'm $800 in just for Nevada and Ada County, Idaho, docs. I'm paying some of the fact checkers for specific duties, for example, one's a single mother in Frederick, MD (near where Ethan Saylor was killed, she knew him), who also helps take care of her special needs brother. I've also sent donations to others who help the cause, for example, the Facebook Killed by Police group, which is the most comprehensive list of contemporaneous deaths, is a retired person who had never received a cent's help for his efforts. https://www.facebook.com/KilledByPolice Obviously, there are day-to-day costs like stamps, server space, etc. I've also had to take several classes to learn technical stuff, like a bit of coding and app design, but I was doing the master's anyway.

Public records: I don't believe this database of all state and local law enforcement agencies existed in public before I created it for this project. Go here http://www.fatalencounters.org/for-public-record-requests/ and pick a state or a state and county that interests you. Create the mailing list and write the public records requests. Contact me before you mail it, and let me know who you're FOIA-ing in case someboy else is working on that one. (For example, just this week, a lawyer in Texas, Scott A. Hooper, got the information and FOIA'd ever single agency in Texas, but one day later, a Twitter follower, Kyle, FOIA'd Garland, TX.)

Lists or sites: Send me links to lists, like this one: http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2014/03/27/latest-spokane-officer-involved-shooting-marks-fourth-of-2014 that we can further research. Maybe your state has a central repository, like Maine, http://www.maine.gov/ag/news/shooting_reports.shtml that will enable researchers to get to a lot of information quickly.

*This is the edit: Special assistance: I could use different kinds of specialized assistance like maybe a lawyer who could help with starting a 501(c)3. Coding advice is helpful. I'm going to do a redesign in January. People from around the world have been downloading the spreadsheet from which the database is populated and sending me visualizations and other cool useful art: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aul9Ys3cd80fdHNuRG5VeWpfbnU4eVdIWTU3Q0xwSEE#gid=0 *

I appreciate any and all help, and for any questions on any topic, email me at [email protected]

I'm the Kyle that filed a request in Garland. For clarity: I did so not exclusively for FE, but because I want to know about my local community and because, as a resident, I'll have additional options in case the police department is less than forthcoming (e.g. working thru my city council).

I agree that coordination is useful - but at the same time individuals may have a particular interest in an area they want to pursue on their own.

Thank you, Kyle! Actually, a little random redundancy is good for keeping the data pure (to see if they give different data to different "types" of queriers). I am totally appreciate of your effort, and I hope you'll stay in touch with your interactions getting these documents, as I'm sure others will find the process enlightening. We've now got people who've said they'd FOIA Kansas and Texas, just as I did Nevada.

Are there ant trends you have noticed? Like more incidents around holidays, for example?

I'll tell you a ball-buster. 9 percent of the homicides in Nevada are committed by police. Go to the FBI site: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm Select Nevada then select Number of Violent Crimes then select years 2000-2012. Add the column Murder and nonnegligent manslaughters. The answer is 2,226.

Then go here, http://www.fatalencounters.org/people-search/ Select Nevada, select Counties "all" then subtract the result from the 212 total killings for years 2013 and 2012; that results in 197 officer-involved killings 2000-2012 (again, while it's as comprehensive as I could make it, I know police left stuff out of the public records request response.)

That's 197/2226x100 is about 9 percent. I suppose it's possible some of the police killings were included as nonnegligent homicides, but that would actually bring the bottom line percentage up, wouldn't it. Feel free to check my math, and again, that police number is conservative.

I wish somebody would check my math and prove me wrong because that shit freaks me out.

The biggest trend I notice is that killings go up immediately following a big event, like Mike Brown's. There have been 68 killings by police since his death. My feeling is both the police and those they protect and serve have heightened sensitivity to threats and therefore react faster and more instinctually.

I want to address a couple of things that nobody has asked about, and I guess this is an appropriate place. I figure if pressure keeps up through media, etc., by the end of the year, the data will be worth having, and I'll be able to make the real comparisons that nobody's even talking about yet.

As you know, Kyle Wagner of Deadspin is doing its own database, too: http://regressing.deadspin.com/deadspin-police-shooting-database-update-were-still-go-1627414202 They’re philosophically different—from my point of view his is more useful for investigating specific instances, whereas I’m focused on regional and social trends. We're sharing our clean data and collaborating to a small extent. The combination of the lists, with names and dates and whatever else agrees will make about as close to a comprehensive list as is possible to make.

The whole point in the mapping is so journalists can compare zip code information to where people are killed and other data the U.S. Census collects attached to zip codes. I think this will prove that the biggest thing that people who get killed by cops have in common--more than race, more than mental illness--is that they are poor. OK, this is unsophisticated, but it will give you an idea of what I'm talking about. http://zipskinny.com/index.php?zip=89501

The other thing I want to do with megadata is to compare the names and ages of decedents to Veteran Administration roles. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that we’ll not only find a huge percentage of the people killed by police are vets, but the majority of people with mental illness who are killed by police are veterans.

Have you received any push back from any agencies? If you have, how have you handled that negative attention?

Hmm. Not really on the database, per se. The reporting that's gone on in the newspaper has gotten a lot of pushback with agencies and individuals lying to my face, breaking the law by withholding public documents, trying to punish me by giving information to other media outlets first. Reno News & Review, March 20, 2014: http://www.newsreview.com/reno/who-shot-darcie-latham/content?oid=12996582 and then look at what came out yesterday: http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Sparks-Police-To-Release-Details-On-273072911.html We didn't even get a press release because they were mad at me for telling the story back in March.

Is that the worst of it? Typical Lawyer and PR snubs? I had imagined you having some other difficulties. Threats, investigations, IRS audit seems to be all the rage these days.

I'm glad to hear you aren't having as hard a time as I thought, oversight into police related killings/self defense incidences are absolutely necessary.

Yeah, it's just the usual stuff they do to prevent information from getting out. I do live in an older neighborhood in Old Southwest Reno. I never used to see police cars cruising my street, but I see them several times a week now. I don't think I'm just paying better attention, but anything is possible.

Actually, I've gotten a fair amount of fairly sympathetic commentary on the site from ex-police. They see something wrong with what's happening today.

That is something worth noting. It is easy to imagine an emotionless drone behind the swat gear and gas masks.

I don't know if it's because they're generally retired, but I get these long, thoughtful letters on the philosophy of policing, and what training new officers are not receiving. I guess they spend a lot more time doing target practice these days.

training new officers are not receiving

this could be something, please elaborate.

Here's an example, two quotes from the same guy. Sorry, I'm not quite sure about formatting, so I'll ital the first and bold the second.

*As a retired DEA firearms and tactics instructor, I wholeheartedly support your project! I think your project focuses on the end result of several things. The first is the top; LE management who know they will never be held accountable or even identified as the cause of the ever increasing level of "stupid shootings" or killings. The killings are the result of a non existent force continuum. The force continuum is a direct result of training. The more training you have, the broader your force continuum. The more options you will have, or the more tools in your tool box, the less likely you are to resort to deadly force or the proverbial 10 lb. sledge. The less training you receive, the narrower your continuum. This results in what we see today, a continuum consisting solely of scream and shoot. Law enforcement management today, is comprised mainly of yes men and political gumby's. They have no experience and no moral compass. In DEA, management refused to make decisions on training. To improve the training, it costs money and time. Time that could be better spent sitting behind desks under managements thumb, and money that could be better spent on directed political feel good projects. So the end result of your fatal encounters project subjects, are direct results of law enforcement managements intentional de-training of enforcement personnel.

As an example, the more highly trained with a gun a cop or agent is, the less likely they are to use one, and the more likely they are to find some other way of handling an enforcement situation. Over the course of my career, I saw DEA reduce the firearms training by 75%. This resulted in numerous shot up waste paper baskets, personal weapons stolen from cars (unreported), and when shots were taken, a hit percentage that dropped from 75% down to 11%.

So while your project is necessary, I would like to see you tie it into the cause. Poor management and lack of training. And the worst thing is managements excuses for their failure! The don't want to accept or even acknowledge the responsibility of management.*

** ... your response brought up another point. This is not a political statement, just a tactical observation. All of this conflict we are observing is by design. A historical democrat tactic is to chain a dog, call the dog, then chastise or kick the dog for not coming. This was first observed when Teddy Kennedy started briefing the Russians on every operational plan the U.S. was conducting in Vietnam. That misguided "brief the enemy" (UN) continues to this day, even in Afghanistan.

With the cops- "they" intentionally limit the training, capabilities, and options, available to law enforcement on the street, effectively chaining the LE in place. Then "they" spout off, criticizing the LE and demanding more and more, with less and less realistically available. Then, when LE does what they are ordered to do, antagonized by higher management, and start cutting corners, shooting people that a higher trained person might find another way to deal with, exasperating the problem, "they" jump all over the LE criticizing them for not being up to par! In the case of most departments, the first fix is to create tactical teams of inadequately trained personnel without adequate support from management with politically correct recruiting and entrance exams, taking the teams three steps back for every step forward. Doomed to failure. Then, "they" start cutting back on tactical training for all non tactical team members, saying they don't need it because the departments have a dedicated tac team. Further chaining the dog. And the problem gets worse and worse, and the result is what we are seeing now. A perfect example of an OODA loop being run on an unsuspecting group of normal people. The "point" people are the ones that need continuous training in the broadest possible spectrum so that they can stay alive, have the knowledge necessary to make correct initial decisions and assign the problem to the correct unit to handle it. Current management is handling it exactly backwards across the whole LE spectrum. **

tyvm

dmi

If anything the police have gotten better and less violent. Ex-police probably had less repercussions for any force they used.

How do you support that? Since the government does not collect all the data and misrepresents what it does collect, there's no basis for it. If you'll look at this graphic for the state of Nevada, http://i1.wp.com/www.fatalencounters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Infographic.jpg however, you'll see that the data for the only state in the nation for which the data is collected supports your view.

Considering it was widely known that practically all major city police forces were corrupt up to about the 1980's, I'd say it's gotten better.

It's funny, they actually tracked the info back then, so you could prove or disprove your assertion if you had a mind to. People forgot what it was like in the '60s, so slowly, we eliminated the transparency we say we need.

Do you know of any legislation at the state or federal level that would require more transparency by law enforcement? If not, are you interested in pursuing something like that?

The law was written in 1994 requiring the Department of Justice to collect this data. That agency has ignored the law for 20 years: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140822/07034228290/federal-law-ordering-us-attorney-general-to-gather-data-police-excessive-force-has-been-ignored-20-years.shtml

Do you have any suggestions on how to pressure the AG to comply with the law?

This is a good question to end on. I've thought about this some, but I've been so busy doing it, I haven't really focused too much on how to force someone else to do it. I guess the methods are the same as for other methods of asking the government to do the right thing. Write your representatives. Write a change.org petition. Keep the public awareness going that the government is lying about how many people it kills, putting it's law enforcement officers and the public at risk.

And I am absolutely interested in seeing something like that happen. I should not be the guy doing this thing. It should be a big media outfit or a nonprofit. I'm not even all to sure I'd trust the Justice Department to do it, since they already use faulty statistics to cook the numbers.

Is not the DOJ, but what about the CDC's mortality statistics? I believe they have a category entitled "legal intervention".

I've seen a couple references to this, but the stuff I've seen doesn't seem to rise to the sort of detail we're talking about. Have you seen names, dates or locales that we can incorporate into our deal?

What conclusions have you drawn from the data you collected? Are there particular practices that seem to be more negligent/dangerous then others?

I'm not actually drawing conclusions yet except in the most obvious of ways, like percentage of men vs. women killed. The problem is the way the early "events" were collected (except for Nevada). I was generally looking for lists to make the data entry easy, but that skews the results because if media is focusing on one area, it might be problematic, for example, Las Vegas, Oakland, Portland, Ore., all had federal investigations, so I was collecting from problem sites. Nevada, on the other hand, I did public records requests of every single agency, so my Nevada numbers are good. I think I'd like to get about 2,500 incidents into the database before I start drawing conclusions outside of Nevada. I'll tell you one thing, though, mental illness is much higher than anyone says or would probably believe. It may be 30 percent of people killed by police. Also, the density of the population relates to the density of the melanin in the skin of the person killed.

What's wrong with the Bureau of Justice Statistics "arrest related deaths" report? http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=82. (I think the underlying data is available at the inter-university center for social and political research.)

Here are two mainstream media stories about what's wrong with that database. The big problem is the sampling, less than 700 agencies out of 17,985 agencies participated. The results aren't even a third of the corrrect number:

Here's a Scripps story about the lack of a database: http://www.10news.com/news/teens-shooting-highlights-need-for-tracking-people-killed-by-police This one is interesting to me because it shows how the FBI lies. Go here: http://www.fatalencounters.org/people-search/ Check Nevada and then each year you're interested in. The story's interactive map showed: Nevada: 2010: 10; 2011: 15; 2012: 8 In Nevada, in 2010, 19 people were killed by police. In 2011, 18 people were killed by police. In 2012, 15 people were killed by police. That's 52 compared to the government's stated 33. Every incident is documented with a public document from the police or news story.

Here's what USA Today said about the lack of a database (only don't read the totally inaccurate and misleading headline): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/

Was there a high percentage of suicide by cop tallies or did you not include them?

And neither should the words, "Go ahead and shoot." You often see this BS rationalization used in determinations of justification from DAs. For example, I saw one justification in which the DA basically said, "This is the story of a guy with a problem with authority," which is not generally reason for a death sentence in a court of law.

I include them. The problem is with definitions. Some things police call suicide by cop are actions that are interpreted as suicidal, not necessarily suicidal actions. Just having a gun around a cop should not be considered suicide by cop.

It seems almost impossible to track since "moved hand towards waistband" or saying a person was "charging" them are easy justifications for police killings. Would be very interesting to see data and compare why say over 10 years 100+ people in a city have "charged" at police while in a similar city it happened just a couple times if at all.

That data exists in police reports and reports of justification by district attorneys, attorneys general and police oversight boards, and if we have a great deal of success collecting the primary documents, we'll be able to get at that information. Probably somebody else will have to do handle that, though.

Obviously you've never been in that situation, on either side.

If you are waving a gun around cops, you should know damn well that will more than likely get you killed.

If you do anything else in the world that has a 95% probability of getting yourself killed its called either suicide or stupidity. Either way, you deserve it.

From a person who likes to continue living, I agree. From a person who lives in a country where the Second Amendment make it almost always totally legal to carry a gun, I couldn't disagree more. Remember the Bundy ranch standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada? All those people had guns, so did the cops, nobody had to die. Can you imagine what would have happened in Ferguson if those protestors had exercised their legal rights to carry weapons? I'll tell you, the police would have shot in their mere presence. I don't believe the extra-judicial killing of someone who's exercising their constitutional right to carry a gun is legitimate absent criminal behavior.

You can carry all day.

Not waving it at police that are telling you to drop it?

No, that's asking for it.

I agree 100 percent.

That was my point with the suicide by cop statistics.

Cop's don't just shoot willy-nilly at anyone with a gun. There are too many legal gun owners, not to mention the amount of police or federal personnel that are armed.

Your point is valid. It's very difficult to determine, especially on Monday morning, all those factors. However, after having looked at several thousand of these cases, I can tell you that quite often police will call something suicide by cop that looks more like mental illness or drugs or plain stupidity to me.

Brian, how do you verify the police-involved killings submitted online?

Basically what we're really doing is verifying that the information provided matches that which is in the published media account (or sometimes a government document posted online). It's not real fact-checking, but it's the best we've got at this time.

No expert, but a quick google search reveals that there a few links from agencies such as the FBI, like here, that list the number of shootings by police officers. What do you do differently?

Well, for one, I don't lie about my numbers. Fewer than 700 of 17,985 state and local law enforcement agencies participated in that "study." Here's a Scripps story about the lack of a database: http://www.10news.com/news/teens-shooting-highlights-need-for-tracking-people-killed-by-police This one is interesting to me because it shows the FBI is still lying Go here: http://www.fatalencounters.org/people-search/ Check Nevada and then each year you're interested in. The story's interactive map showed: Nevada: 2010: 10; 2011: 15; 2012: 8 In Nevada, in 2010, 19 people were killed by police. In 2011, 18 people were killed by police. In 2012, 15 people were killed by police. That's 52 compared to the government's stated 33. Every incident is documented with a public document from the police or news story.

Here's what USA Today said about the lack of a database (only don't read the totally inaccurate and misleading headline): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/

As a journalist, what grilled cheese do you enjoy when you take a lunch break from compiling depressing data?

I really like Dubliner Irish cheddar, but usually, I'll eat a pork chop on my lunch break. I'm also a dual-master's student, and for one of my master's, I had to do an 150-hour internship. I did it with Fatal Encounters basically over the month of June. I was researching new events at the rate of about three an hour. It was the most soul-suckingly depressing thing I ever did. I just wanted to pull my eyeballs out. I did get about 500 entered, including the ones submitted by the crowd.

I know FBI UCR keeps track of agg assault/homicide circumstances involving LEO's. Will they just not share that data with you? Or is that sort of generic stat not comprehensive enough?

That's the problem, they don't really keep this data, but they say they do. The following part is sort of a repost that explains the background on that report people keep quoting:

Here's a Scripps story: http://www.10news.com/news/teens-shooting-highlights-need-for-tracking-people-killed-by-police This one is interesting to me because it shows the FBI is still lying with their new numbers. Go here: http://www.fatalencounters.org/people-search/ Check Nevada and then each year you're interested in. The story's interactive map showed: Nevada: 2010: 10; 2011: 15; 2012: 8 In Nevada, in 2010, 19 people were killed by police. In 2011, 18 people were killed by police. In 2012, 15 people were killed by police. That's 52 compared to the government's stated 33. Every incident is documented with a public document from the police or news story.

Here's what USA Today said about the report (only don't read the totally inaccurate and misleading headline): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/

What does the D. in your name stand for?

David. I usually say, "Dumbass."

I was talking with a friend about your project and she pointed out that this database (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/ard0309stpr.cfm) does collect this information. What problems do you see with this database that support your statement that we aren't collecting this data?

This is a repost from an earlier thread that answers your question:

Here are two mainstream media stories about what's wrong with that database. The big problem is the sampling, less than 700 agencies out of 17,985 agencies participated. The results aren't even a third of the corrrect number: Here's a Scripps story about the lack of a database: http://www.10news.com/news/teens-shooting-highlights-need-for-tracking-people-killed-by-police This one is interesting to me because it shows how the FBI lies. Go here: http://www.fatalencounters.org/people-search/ Check Nevada and then each year you're interested in. The story's interactive map showed: Nevada: 2010: 10; 2011: 15; 2012: 8 In Nevada, in 2010, 19 people were killed by police. In 2011, 18 people were killed by police. In 2012, 15 people were killed by police. That's 52 compared to the government's stated 33. Every incident is documented with a public document from the police or news story. Here's what USA Today said about the lack of a database (only don't read the totally inaccurate and misleading headline): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/

Thanks - one more:

Apparently the CDC also collects this information, as part of their collection of injury data - specifically, they have a separate database of violent death reports . (fatal injury by cop is its own category in their data.) Yes, only 16 states participate at this time. Don't know why, but they do have a nifty online query tool: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/facts.html

Does the cdc's data do better than the bjs data?

Take a look at some of the reports. They don't collect information down to the specificity necessary to draw social or policy conclusions. On the one hand, this is about trends, but on another, this is about people. A database needs to be able to do both to be useful to the broadest spectrum of people. I do believe either of those organizations could modify their info collections to be adequate, but given the DoJ's willingness to misrepresent what they're already collecting, I think this would be more trustworthy in the private or nonprofit sector.

cant find this web site?

Fatal Encounters? http://www.fatalencounters.org/

yes thank you.

My pleasure.

[deleted]

I created this database because I believe in a democracy citizens should be able to figure out how many people are killed by law enforcement, why they were killed, and whether training and policies can be modified to decrease the number of police and others killed. So, yes, that does indicate a particular bias, but not in the way you mean. The more information is available, the more precise it becomes, the more accurate forecasts based on past patterns can be. So the bias is toward accuracy instead of expediency. I'd rather be Woodward, I guess. I've never gotten that far by being smart and glib, but I'm able to make intricate, long-term plans that I don't deviate from. Actually, I guess I'd rather be me.

[deleted]

The intended use is really as simple as you wrote it: I want anyone to be able to look at this data and use it for their own purposes. I feel that part of the reason for all the racial associations is that there are no facts with regard to racial percentages compared to local populations. In that vacuum, anyone can say anything and no one can point at a spreadsheet and say, "Yes, you're right," or "You're full of shit." It creates uncertainty and distrust in a way that can't be solved because nobody is right. With regard to the last question, if that low representation has effect on the number trends, then, yes, but if it doesn't create some kind of racial spike, then no.

(Suspicious that this is started during a democrats term in office)

This guy is to the left of Stalin and you accuse him of being some conservative out to make Obama look bad.

I know, this makes me crazy. Making fiscally intelligent decisions based on facts used to be a conservative tenet. The left is all over this thing: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22538. Far right Libertarians are too: http://zerogov.com/?p=3514 Where the hell are the Republican-styled conservatives?

Does it feel good to contribute to the anti police attitude using propaganda?

It feels good to do my part as an American to provide police and citizens with unbiased information by which training, policies and protocols can be modified to get the outcomes for both parties. Read my newspaper coverage, http://www.newsreview.com/reno/police-psychology/content?oid=14648596 before you make your kneejerk claims of anti-police bias on my part.

Sorry, not going to waste my time with your propaganda.

The anti-police bias on this website is disgusting. Please don't fuel the fire.

Fair enough. You don't trust me. I don't trust me, either. I know I make mistakes. I should not be doing this. However, anyone--the government, a police union, Bill O'Reilly--can download the CSV here, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aul9Ys3cd80fdHNuRG5VeWpfbnU4eVdIWTU3Q0xwSEE#gid=0 , and replicate the research to make it more accurate or remove bias. The work is done. I welcome you or anyone else to do it. The alternative is that nobody does anything and misinformation continues to proliferate and undermine public faith in law enforcement in this country.

Articles like the one you wrote about Jace Herndon are doing their part to undermine public faith in law enforcement in this country.

I totally agree. But I didn't just write the backstory of people killed by police, I also write about cutting edge policies in Reno that tend to strengthen public faith in law enforcement, like this one, http://www.newsreview.com/reno/cops/content?oid=14009845, and this one, http://www.newsreview.com/reno/police-psychology/content?oid=14648596 I'm just one guy who's trying to look at this thing from every angle I can think of. I'm not just talking about cops, I'm talking to cops. I include the police reports whenever possible so people can look and see for themselves what the truth of the matter is.

Why do you assume the police report is truthful?

Actually, after looking at several hundred police reports, I don't necessarily assume they're completely accurate or "true." But at some level, the information has to come from somewhere. I often compare them to the media reports, and it's like looking at two different incidents. So here's the problem, and the most stringent scientist would have the same issue: If I go with the answer that is most consistent, doesn't that mean sometimes I'm repeating the answer that is the most inaccurate? It does. Anyway, short answer to your question, I think people also learn things from how police report events, so I prefer to connect people and incidents to the primary documents.

One time I accidentally input an incident from both a police perspective and media perspective. A fact-checker caught the error, but I left it in as an illustration. Totally reads like two different events, down to different ages and mental states. Go here: http://www.fatalencounters.org/people-search/ and search McAbee, and you'll see what I mean.

I make no promises this information is absolutely accurate. What I do promise is that it gets more accurate every time someone points out an error, and more accurate on a more macro scale every time someone adds to randomness of it by adding a new event that's not attached to one of the early lists I used to start this thing.

There's something honorable in that, but I have a hard time taking you seriously. When your website's title is nothing but emotional buzzwords... no, sorry dude.

I will say this though - you're a decent writer. Every time I pick up a paper here, it's written at a 5th grade level and is so full of typos and poor grammar, it's pathetic.

Yeah, if I was starting from scratch, I'd do things differently. I try not to use cliches like "gunned down," but there's definitely a subconscious bias to use heightened verbs. Nice of you to say, though. I kind of got started down a path I have to complete before I can redo the site. All the media have an integrated look with the black and yellow and using one particular artist throughout. Since I had no images of a Fatal Encounter, I took a picture of my concealed-carry weapon because I had to have something for the page. After the RN&R series is finished in December, I'm going to go to a design--probably ivory and medium blue--that doesn't carry a connotation of negativity and danger.

Does Erik Scott's story scare you when carrying? How does all this information you've gathered change your day to day behavior and your next anticipated encounter with police?

It has not changed my day-to-day behavior at all, but I will be totally cognizant of the issues in an officer's mind when I next get pulled over. My hands will be visible on the window edge. "Officer, I have a concealed weapons permit, and I am/am not carrying a weapon in the vehicle."

Are you going to fairly document these incidents or just make cops look bad in all of them despite facts/reality?

I'm trying to be fair on the stuff I research myself, but remember, this is crowdsourced information, so many of the people who participate have a certain attitude. This does not affect the "facts" like name, date, address, but it does affect questions that call for a judgement call, like mental state. It also affects the words used in the short description. I edit out the charged words as much as possible, but the opinion-based stuff isn't calculated into the straight, fact-based calculations, like locale.