FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by jeff061

So are you saying the whites should be reported as much as the blacks? Or both should be ignored?

It starts to get into some questionable bedfellows when you mention that. but I do think that if the media reported on cases like Dylan Noble the focus would be more on necessary de-escalation tactics and the over militarization of police rather than this turning largely into a (perceived? or has perception turned into reality by now?) racial issue. The media didn't cause these issues, but I do think that their selective reporting is exacerbating the racial divide.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If there are other such cases by all means link them, they should be scrutinized just as much.

Black people are shot a disproportionate amount, but it's indisputable that more white people are still shot and killed by police officers. And hispanics/latinos are also shot, and I've even heard rumors of some Asians!

Originally Posted by https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/18/police-shootings-and-race/?utm_term=.c00ac79b0a1c

as of July 9, whites were 54 percent of the 440 police shooting victims this year whose race was known, blacks were 28 percent and Hispanics were 18 percent, according to The Washington Post’s ongoing database of fatal police shootings. Those ratios are similar to last year’s tally, in which whites made up 50 percent of the 987 fatal police shootings, and blacks, 26 percent. (The vast majority of those police homicide victims were armed or otherwise threatening the officer.)

[Drake]

Shooting taxpayers is bad government.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Black people are shot a disproportionate amount, but it's indisputable that more white people are still shot and killed by police officers.

Disproportionate to population ratios or to arrest ratios?

I haven't seen the data here, no agenda just curious.

[Cap Heresy]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Disproportionate to population ratios or to arrest ratios?

I haven't seen the data here, no agenda just curious.

Excellent question to ask. I don't know the answer either, but it's not as simple as "well, blacks are 13% of the population, so only 13% of shootings should be black".

[NobodyHere]

That's Heresy!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Disproportionate to population ratios or to arrest ratios?

I haven't seen the data here, no agenda just curious.

Wouldn't arrest ratios also be impacted by implicit bias? I mean we do have some numbers that indicate that whites and blacks use illegal drugs at the same rate, but blacks are by far more arrested for the possession and use of illegal drugs.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wouldn't arrest ratios also be impacted by implicit bias? I mean we do have some numbers that indicate that whites and blacks use illegal drugs at the same rate, but blacks are by far more arrested for the possession and use of illegal drugs.

Chicken or egg at some level.

Do poor area have more arrests because cops spend more time there, or do cops spend more time there because there are more crimes being committed there.

And drug usage rates vs arrest incidences is far from a perfect correlation.

If you and I both use the same drug, in the same amount, with the same frequency (I'm just going to start with these assumptions to illustrate my point. If these factors are biased it could further sway the numbers).
However you stand in the street and do it without hiding it, and I hide in the closet in my house. You will get caught much more frequently than I. This doesn't indicate a bias, it indicates compounding behavior.

A further illustration, was given to me once by a veteran LEO. He said it this way. If I catch a rich kid with an ounce of pot, I have to get a little lucky. He has to be speeding or something for me to stop him. A poor kid, in contrast, will be riding around with 1 tail light and expired tags. I'll likely stop him for that just intending to make him aware and give him a warning and then when I approach the car I'll smell it.

Again Im not saying its right or wrong. Just that simply correlation does not equal causation.

[cuervo72]

I'll likely stop him for that just intending to make him aware and give him a warning

Riiiiiight. That's why they're doing it, as a public service to benefit the driver...

then when I approach the car I'll smell it

...and not as a foot in the door.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Riiiiiight. That's why they're doing it, as a public service to benefit the driver...



...and not as a foot in the door.

You do know white people get pulled over for that too, right?

The original comparison is somewhat valid however, Police will be more active in high crime areas, which will naturally inflate the arrest rates.

You want to focus on an issue, let's focus on ways to even the playing field more for kids in these areas. Equal rights does still not equate to equal opportunity when white America has a 200+ year head start in economic, educational and institutional advancement. So by this alone, black youth are more likely to turn to or be drawn into crime, naturally resulting in a much higher arrest percentage per capita.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Chicken or egg at some level.



Again Im not saying its right or wrong. Just that simply correlation does not equal causation.

Which, btw, is why arrest ratios may be flawed measurement to use. We don't know what may cause the correlation, with just speculation (the other person is maybe using it outside on the street) being tied to it. What we do know is that certain populations are subject to higher arrest rates, so I don't think it makes sense to use that as a denominator. Or at the very least, you are going to get absolutely nowhere with people who are convinced (as I am) that implicit bias in policing leads to disproportionate arrest rates of African-Americans.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Chicken or egg at some level.

Do poor area have more arrests because cops spend more time there, or do cops spend more time there because there are more crimes being committed there.

And drug usage rates vs arrest incidences is far from a perfect correlation.

If you and I both use the same drug, in the same amount, with the same frequency (I'm just going to start with these assumptions to illustrate my point. If these factors are biased it could further sway the numbers).
However you stand in the street and do it without hiding it, and I hide in the closet in my house. You will get caught much more frequently than I. This doesn't indicate a bias, it indicates compounding behavior.

A further illustration, was given to me once by a veteran LEO. He said it this way. If I catch a rich kid with an ounce of pot, I have to get a little lucky. He has to be speeding or something for me to stop him. A poor kid, in contrast, will be riding around with 1 tail light and expired tags. I'll likely stop him for that just intending to make him aware and give him a warning and then when I approach the car I'll smell it.

Again Im not saying its right or wrong. Just that simply correlation does not equal causation.

I think you can also make an argument that there is a difference in policing drugs in an urban setting vs a rural or suburban setting. It's much easier to setup buys on a commonly used drug corner in a city. You don't have those kind of transactions taking place in the suburbs or rural communities.

I'd be curious to see if there is a gap when factoring in similar communities.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Which, btw, is why arrest ratios may be flawed measurement to use. We don't know what may cause the correlation, with just speculation (the other person is maybe using it outside on the street) being tied to it. What we do know is that certain populations are subject to higher arrest rates, so I don't think it makes sense to use that as a denominator. Or at the very least, you are going to get absolutely nowhere with people who are convinced (as I am) that implicit bias in policing leads to disproportionate arrest rates of African-Americans.

So you discount without question the possibility that inner city poverty stricken populations commit crimes at a statistically substantially higher rate than others?

Because that is the other option. Maybe more get arrested because more crime is being committed/.

I'd love to know the neighborhoods you have lived in. Because we all bring our own biases to these discussions.

I grew up in government housing. In foster homes. At one point I was the only "white" (whatever that means) kid in a 40 unit apartment building with black parents.

Then Ive lived in low income areas, in mixed suburbs, and in rural areas.

Today I have been blessed by Divine intervention, a portion of luck and my own hard work to live darn near anywhere I choose. I avoid areas where other people of all colors, creeds, religions and backgrounds live.

I value space and earth and cows. I've learned that most people are pretty shitty at their core. Their financial position determines the extent and the magnitude of their shittiness. No more no less. If my kid was hungry, Id kill your to see mine eat. After a while of living that way it gets hard to determine what the ultimate goal is; the food or the blood. A generation later and we are killing, robbing and stealing with no kids and a full pantry. It what we know.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Disproportionate to population ratios or to arrest ratios?

I haven't seen the data here, no agenda just curious.

I've tried to do some digging on this topic, and I think the answer still is that there is AN elevated risk of a black person being shot due to bias, though obviously it's nowhere near the amounts quoted by BLM activists or what media coverage and narrative would suggest. And that there still is evidence of an elevated risk of non-whites getting pulled over or frisked, though that seemed to vary department to department based on directives and general culture.

That article has "black" people as ~27% of police-involved killings (I've seen it above 40% in other links, which seems like a wide enough gulf I'm wondering if that includes "latinos"), the census has them about 13% of the overall population, and the DoJ has them as committing 53% of murders, which presumably is the one crime where race has no impact on the chance of getting arrested.

Obviously a large portion of murder rates are tied into inner-city gang lifestyle, but there's also plenty of evidence that there are higher arrest rates and a higher percentage of police-involved shootings in higher crime urban areas. What the specific numbers are is anybody's guess.

(Sorry for this very equivocating post!)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

You do know white people get pulled over for that too, right?

I realize we do, but I still don't think it's necessarily for the benefit of the driver/safety.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Scary stuff here. Really bad situation where we have cops hesitating.

The Tulsa Effect: Chicago Officer Beaten Unconscious By Man On PCP – Law Officer

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

So you discount without question the possibility that inner city poverty stricken populations commit crimes at a statistically substantially higher rate than others?

Because that is the other option. Maybe more get arrested because more crime is being committed/.

So what makes inner city poverty stricken populations commit crimes at a statistically substantially higher rate than Appalachia poverty stricken populations? Because I can tell you there is a ton of drug crime going on in Appalachia these days (especially in the production and sale of heroin and meth). And then you have people like Governor LePage from Maine trying to say that drug use is because of black folks from New York coming into Maine (who also impregnate a white woman before they leave), while ignoring the massive heroin production going on in the state itself.

Inner city poverty stricken crime rates may be elevated compared to the suburbs or gentrified neighborhoods (though not while they are gentryfing, FWIW), but what's the reason they are higher than poverty stricken drug communities in Appalachia?

And I think the stories of Senator Tim Scott show that you don't have to be in the poverty inner city to be targeted (heck, it shows that being black in a more well off community may lead to more suspicion)

I'd love to know the neighborhoods you have lived in. Because we all bring our own biases to these discussions.

Mostly suburban, though now urban (albeit not 'inner city' - though Atlanta's inner city is getting really fantastic). I was one of the very few minorities in a 95% white school system (which apparently is now flooded with drugs). I haven't seen a lot of violent crime, but I have seen some crazy stuff like cops giving a 'warning' for folks who were driving home completely drunk.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Scary stuff here. Really bad situation where we have cops hesitating.

The Tulsa Effect: Chicago Officer Beaten Unconscious By Man On PCP – Law Officer

An incident that was strikingly similar to the Tulsa Incident where Tulsa Officer Betty Shelby stopped at a reported stranded car and ultimately had an encounter with a man allegedly on PCP. Shelby shot and killed Terence Crutcher and was arrested for manslaughter the next week.

Strikingly similar except for the fact that Shelby had three other officers and a helicopter backing her up.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So what makes inner city poverty stricken populations commit crimes at a statistically substantially higher rate than Appalachia poverty stricken populations? Because I can tell you there is a ton of drug crime going on in Appalachia these days (especially in the production and sale of heroin and meth). And then you have people like Governor LePage from Maine trying to say that drug use is because of black folks from New York coming into Maine (who also impregnate a white woman before they leave), while ignoring the massive heroin production going on in the state itself.

Inner city poverty stricken crime rates may be elevated compared to the suburbs or gentrified neighborhoods (though not while they are gentryfing, FWIW), but what's the reason they are higher than poverty stricken drug communities in Appalachia?

And I think the stories of Senator Tim Scott show that you don't have to be in the poverty inner city to be targeted (heck, it shows that being black in a more well off community may lead to more suspicion)

I think that is a good question and obviously one without an easy or singular answer.

I think a contributing factor is population density. The small town I live in has a pretty large (% wise) meth problem as well. In our most recent crime watch meeting we reported that 100% of the B&Es or larceny charges had been resolved and all could be tied back to drugs. For a town of 240 that meant 17 cases. For a city of 100,000...the data extrapolates. With more B&Es you run the risk of more accidental invasions, or caught in the acts. Which will result in higher violent crime(self defense or retaliation)

But even bigger than that, and I think is one of the core points I'm driving at is cultural differences. I realize this is highly anecdotal, but Im not a skilled enough writer to express it otherwise.

I moved out of the section 8 apartments and into a relative grandparent the summer between 8th and 9th grade. All my friends were still there and I still went there to hang out. Right, wrong or indifferent I can just tell you I had 2 white friends (brothers) there who were both huge stoners. They'd get high, watch cheech and chong movies, and play early NES games all night. I'd occasionally join them. The rest of my friends, and honestly the ones I was closer with, were all black. We smoke the same bud together, (frequently bought from the same dealer as the 2 aforementioned) then we'd go get in someone's car and ride around listening music way too loud and generally looking for "fun".

Is it any surprise that the 2 brothers graduated high school without ever any more serious run in with the law than one getting a simple possession ticket and the other getting caught selling 2 joints? Conversely 2 of my other friends never made it out of high school (1 died and the other locked away for life for murder - the two cases unrelated). And in that group of 9 kids (7 if we discount those 2) all were arrested multiple times, myself included, for charges ranging from simple possession, minor in possession, assault, theft, etc.

My point is that there are cultural differences between racial divides in behavior and attitudes and yes, appearance, that contribute to statistical discrepancies other than outright racial bias.
Does racial bias exist in some places?
Yes absolutely.
Should it?
No.
Do we need to continue to work to improve and eliminate it?
Yes.

But it isnt as simple as population X does crime A at the same frequency as Population Y - yet Pop X is arrested/accosted/shot more than Pop Y - therefor police are biased against Pop X. There are compounding factors. We have to acknowledge that so we can train and hopefully fix both sides.

I have a 15 year old son, a 13 year old daughter and a 12 year old "son" I am legal guardian over. (The first 2 are my blood children, the 3rd is not. And BTW is black) I teach both of my sons this lesson. "When you choose to break the law. And as a teenager you will at some point choose to break the law despite my urging to the contrary, but when you choose to break the law; dont also break the law."

Meaning if you choose to drink underage, and most teens do at some point, you are committing the crime of minor in possession. If you get caught its pretty minor. Dont then drive a car, even if its just 1 drink, dont have drugs on you as well. Limit yourself to one broken law at a time. Sounds crazy, I know, but I wish someone had taught me that.

I also teach and role play traffic stop behavior. I tell them all the time, do not argue with a cop ever. Survive to come home to me, and let me beat that cop at his game - in the courtroom. Dont try to play his game in the street, he is equipped to win, and the law supports him even if he is wrong. Survive and we will fight another day. Now that doesnt mean admit guilt. They are taught to say as little as possible and ask for their parent and legal counsel as soon as given the opportunity. But do it professionally, respectfully and maturely.

It may not be right, but its the best way I know how.

Sorry I went on a tangent there at the end. But it is relevant I think.

[illinifan999]

http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/local/210375458-story

[AlexB]

Ignore - missed the sentence where CU Tiger said 'my point is...'

[cuervo72]

Black DC Cop Says He Was Unfairly Detained, Tackled and Struck During Stop

Well, he wasn't shot, I guess.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Sick of hearing these stories about cops who are hesitant with idiots like this because of what's happened over the last couple of years. When we have citizens having to come to the aid of an officer, we have a MUCH bigger problem.

Passerby shoots, kills motorist assaulting deputy after traffic stop | Fox News

[cartman]

By all means, let's allow civilian police have even MORE of an itchy trigger finger. Forget about training and following department backup procedures. Just start firing!

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by cartman

Forget about training

So do you want officers to follow their training or forget about it?

[cartman]

If their training doesn't cover how to not get pulled out of your car by an angry motorist, then the training probably needs an update.

[molson]

This kind of thing comes up a lot here.

If you're roughly the same size as an officer or larger, you can pull him or her pretty much the same as other human beings.

Unless you're really small, it's pretty easy to resist one person trying to detain you, at least for a while. It's much harder to incapacitate someone without injuring them than it is to just beat them 1-on-1 in a fight where you both have the same goal, for example. But we WANT officers to at least attempt the former, don't we? It's hard to tell sometimes.

Officers get training on this stuff, but depending on how wealthy the area is, not necessarily a ton. We really need to increase funding if we're going to create 765,000 Chuck Norrisses to run around, to be masters of hand-to-hand combat, able to defuse any situation with precision martial arts. Realistically, if you're strong, you can cause a single police officer a lot of problems if you want to, and probably even a handful, at least for a while. It can be very stressful to be in that situation, and it really can be the first moment where the quality of officer can truly be ascertained.

[cartman]

But from the article it sounds like the officer was pulled out of the car, not standing outside of it. If the officer had just pursued the suspect on a high speed chase, and backup had not arrived yet, and the suspect got out of their car, the training I've been a part of says to stay locked in the car until backup arrives.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

don't stun guns negate a lot of that reasoning?

We don't want officers to just use stun guns every time somebody physically resists. The best officers will be able to go through that necessary force progression in fragments of a second, without panicking.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by cartman

If their training doesn't cover how to not get pulled out of your car by an angry motorist, then the training probably needs an update.

Training says to meet deadly force with deadly force. Training says if someone is trying to take your gun, that is deadly force. Training says that someone holding a deadly weapon and not following commands is a deadly force situation. However whenever one of those situations comes up, it seems this thread gets a new post and riots occur.

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

don't stun guns negate a lot of that reasoning?

If they were 100% effective. Which they're not. And that's assuming the officer is even issued a TASER.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by cartman

the suspect got out of their car, the training I've been a part of says to stay locked in the car until backup arrives.

I've been a cop for almost 6 years now. My department is regularly poached by the federal government because of the training that is provided. Our training facilities are used by other police departments, federal agencies, DEVGRU and other military units. I won't brag about my department much, but we receive among the best training in the country.

That has never even been close to the training we have received.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Training says to meet deadly force with deadly force. Training says if someone is trying to take your gun, that is deadly force. Training says that someone holding a deadly weapon and not following commands is a deadly force situation. However whenever one of those situations comes up, it seems this thread gets a new post and riots occur.

Training also says to try as much as possible to keep a situation from escalating to the point where deadly force is needed. If the suspect had no weapon, and the officer locked themselves into the car until backup arrived, then that would have kept the situation from escalating.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Sick of hearing these stories about cops who are hesitant with idiots like this because of what's happened over the last couple of years.

Here's my problem with this one... your commentary, not anything else being discussed. The story you linked says nothing about this cop being hesitant. The story says that after a 100 mph car chase this guy charged the officer's car, pulled him out of his car and started beating him. Unless you linked the wrong story, the idea of the officer being hesitant because of what's happened the last couple of years is entirely yours, with zero statements from anyone involved to back it up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Radii

Here's my problem with this one... your commentary, not anything else being discussed. The story you linked says nothing about this cop being hesitant. The story says that after a 100 mph car chase this guy charged the officer's car, pulled him out of his car and started beating him. Unless you linked the wrong story, the idea of the officer being hesitant because of what's happened the last couple of years is entirely yours, with zero statements from anyone involved to back it up.

We hardly heard of these kinds of situations before the last couple of years. Some might say that's because people were getting shot (sometimes wrongly) and I'm happy to entertain that argument. But it seems that we've reverted far too quickly to the other side of the situation.

As for statements, we've seen plenty of statements through media from law enforcement about how much more hesitant they are to use force, often putting themselves in a vulnerable situation.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

But from the article it sounds like the officer was pulled out of the car, not standing outside of it. If the officer had just pursued the suspect on a high speed chase, and backup had not arrived yet, and the suspect got out of their car, the training I've been a part of says to stay locked in the car until backup arrives.

Oh OK, I thought you were just talking about the physical aspect. I'm not sure what officers would generally try to do in this situation. I don't know if there's one rule of thumb or not, but I'd be surprised if officers locked themselves in their car every time someone didn't stop right away during a traffic stop. Maybe they should.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We hardly heard of these kinds of situations before the last couple of years.

Officers get injured by people all the time without the suspect getting killed, and that's definitely not new. There will always be a range of how willing/eager human beings are to escalate force in response to force or the threat of force, it's such a fluid thing and it's hard to completely standardize with any amount of training.

I think people underestimate the amount of police activity and interactions in this country generally. You might read a story every few days or so. Various news outlets have their own reasons for picking which incidents become news, but it's such a small, not-necessarily-representative sample of the thousands and thousands of police interactions that go on every day.

Edit: Sometimes I'd read a police report or something from 6+ months prevoius, and can't believe that something wasn't picked up by the media, whether it be something an officer did poorly, really well, or just involved a lot of force towards the officer and/or a suspect.

[Radii]

This article mentions Suicide By Cop for this guy... isn't that pretty much always a different/extreme situation compared to anything else that has been reasonably brought up and discussed in this thread regarding appropriate use of force and reactions by officers?

Maybe when I see that phrase I am thinking too much about what I see in TV Shows... molson/illinifan care to comment?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Training says to meet deadly force with deadly force.

Department policies, of course, vary from one jurisdiction to the next but the use of force class I was given as part of a media session years back (summarized) was that officers were always authorized to use one level of force beyond that which was encountered.

Is that no longer the case?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Training also says to try as much as possible to keep a situation from escalating to the point where deadly force is needed. If the suspect had no weapon, and the officer locked themselves into the car until backup arrived, then that would have kept the situation from escalating.

Only when it puts the officer at additional risk would that ever be acceptable policy to me. If the guy charged, ideally there are two rounds in his center mass before he ever got close enough to touch the cop.

Or, hell,the cop car for that matter. The perp ain't worth the cost of repairing the body damage to the vehicle afaic.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Department policies, of course, vary from one jurisdiction to the next but the use of force class I was given as part of a media session years back (summarized) was that officers were always authorized to use one level of force beyond that which was encountered.

Is that no longer the case?

Use of force policies and requirements has changed greatly since even when I first was hired.

The simple answer to your question is, it depends. For example, we used to be able to use a TASER on a subject resisting. Now, we can only use a TASER on an assaultive subject (In the 4th circuit). However, I can still use my OC spray on a person who is just resisting.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

What can you use on a person just cuz you've had a bad day?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Department policies, of course, vary from one jurisdiction to the next but the use of force class I was given as part of a media session years back (summarized) was that officers were always authorized to use one level of force beyond that which was encountered.

Is that no longer the case?

Maybe that's why he was hesitant in this instance, trying to work out what was beyond deadly force

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another needless killing.

Hero Down: Detective Benjamin Marconi Assassinated - Blue Lives Matter

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Three more police officers wounded yesterday in ambushes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN13G0KH

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Another needless killing.

Hero Down: Detective Benjamin Marconi Assassinated - Blue Lives Matter

Looking at that website, its a miracle Obama was not assassinated over the last 8 years.

Although, I mean I guess I could understand the need, since instead of working with congress, he spent his days personally roaming the country murdering police officers. {sarcasm in case the secret service reads this}

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hopefully, Texas brings back the electric chair one more time for this POS.

[cuervo72]

No cops involved, but this line sounded familiar:

Police said Pulliam showed no remorse after his arrest. He admitted shooting Means and said, “The way I look at it, that’s another piece of trash off the street,” according to a criminal complaint filed in Kanawha County Magistrate Court.

Charleston Gazette-Mail | Police: East End shooter said ‘another piece of trash off the street’

[EagleFan]

No outrage for Mr. Serna?

[RainMaker]

I didn't think Bakersfield Police did anything but write bullshit speeding tickets all day.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Video shows moments before North Miami Police shot unarmed man – WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale

Florida Cop Charged in Shooting of Unarmed Therapist

Bout time.

[NobodyHere]

I think I'll be avoiding Minnesota for a while

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/phi...ict/index.html