Keep chasing your tail. The real world is, what the real world is. Empirical evidence is, for now, our best chance at modeling it accurately. AND as I posted in the book linked - the number of innocent Black Americans killed by the police is statistically negligible. You might not like that this is the real world, but too bad. I'd also note, the problem is the Police State, not the Police. Why? Because in order to 'redistribute' from one group of morally innocent humans, to another group, requires that violence and/or coercion be initiated against those morally innocent people. Because people generally don't like the cognitive dissonance that occurs, we need Patriotism. And for the intellectually stunted, memes like: YOU use the roads! Or meaningless slogans like: BLM, Land of the Free, etc... My guess is, we'll be getting more Police State before this is said and done. It's inevitable. Like a Cancer, the Government must continue to metastasize until it finally kills its Host. Next stop? More of the same. Then: The Redistributor.
Via Facebook: "My Own People Hate Me!" - Jay Stalien, July 9th (2016) Complaint: More black people get arrested than white boys. Fact: Black People commit a grossly disproportionate amount of crime. Data from the FBI shows that Nationwide, Blacks committed 5,173 homicides in 2014, whites committed 4,367. Chicago’s death toll is almost equal to that of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined. Chicago’s death toll from 2001–November, 26 2015 stands at 7,401. The combined total deaths during Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2015: 4,815) and Operation Enduring Freedom/Afghanistan (2001-2015: 3,506), total 8,321. --o-- This police officer will attempt to answer your questions regarding his role in 'abusing' the public. And remember, it's the Police STATE that writes the laws. Even laws that violate our US Constitutionally protected NATURAL Civil Rights. The Police are the Militant Arm of the State. They just enforce the Law. They're not the problem - as evidenced Empirically and analyzed Statistically. This is a cogent strong argument, you'll need more data to refute it. And that data simply does not exist in the objective real world.
Interesting how statistics without a thorough review can lead to incorrect conclusions. How do the police determine who to stop and who to charge with a crime? Racial profiling is based on the premise that most drug offenses are committed by minorities. The premise is factually untrue, but it has nonetheless become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because police look for drugs primarily among African Americans and Latinos, they find a disproportionate number of them with contraband. Therefore, more minorities are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed, thus reinforcing the perception that drug trafficking is primarily a minority activity. This perception creates the profile that results in more stops of minority drivers. At the same time, white drivers receive far less police attention, many of the drug dealers and possessors among them go unapprehended, and the perception that whites commit fewer drug offenses than minorities is perpetuated. And so the cycle continues. https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways And this cycle skews any statistics on who is actually committing crimes. When It Comes To Illegal Drug Use, White America Does The Crime, Black America Gets The Time
No, it's not. You just don't know how to employ statistics, you are easily confused, and so you get suckered by the wingnut media feed. Some crimes. Other crimes, like illegal drug possession or traffic law violation or selling single cigarettes, white people commit in about the same proportions - but they don't get arrested, or shot, or choked to death, very often. And yet more other crimes - like banking fraud - white people commit in grossly disproportionate numbers. But they still don't get arrested. And they never get shot, or choked to death, or bounced around in a van until their necks break. Meanwhile, there are non-crimes for which black people get detained and white people don't - such as standing around outside the front door of one's apartment building talking to a friend, or walking home from the store with some candy. And so white people don't get shot, beaten, choked, etc, for them either. And so forth.
This'll be easy, provide the empirical data and analysis that Black Americans are shot by police 'very often'. You're the one who used the word 'or', not me. So, back up your assertion with data. And, if you think the frequentist statisticians have made an error, then provide counter-data or differential analysis that says otherwise. Oh, but that would require doing some reading. Maybe even writing to an author and asking for the data sets. Heaven forbid you conducted your own research. As for my understanding of statistical inference, I'm pretty sure you're still wondering what cogently strong means. Try not letting modus tollens get in the way of a good story Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I see no error, or improbability, in those statistics. Nothing obviously needs checking. And I see no error in their employment by those media operations. They know their targets. ? Reading comprehension problems again, we see. Anyway: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/28/3735190/killed-by-police-2015/ Arrested would yield much larger numbers of course.
You mean like this guy? Well, like the majority of cases, he was unarmed and posed no risk or danger to police. New video out of North Miami shows an unarmed black man moments before and after he was shot by police while lying in the street with his hands up. Behavioral therapist Charles Kinsey, 47, is recovering in an area hospital after being shot in the leg three times during the incident, which took place on Monday. According to local Fox station WSVN, police were called to the scene by someone who said there was a man in the street with a gun threatening suicide. However, when officers arrived, Kinsey was trying to help a 23-year-old autistic patient who had run out of a group home and into the street with a toy truck in his hands. On the video, Kinsey could be heard explaining to police that the autistic man was holding a toy truck and that neither of them was armed. “All he has is a toy truck in his hand, a toy truck,” Kinsey explained from a supine position in the road. “I’m a behavior therapist at a group home.” The autistic patient, who was not named, yelled at Kinsey to shut up as he sat in the road playing with the truck. The footage did not show the moment Kinsey was shot and it was not clear what happened during that time. “When he shot me, it was so surprising. It was like a mosquito bite,” Kinsey told WSVN from his hospital bed. “And when he hit me, I’m like, I still got my hands in the air. I said, ‘You know, I just got shot.’ And I’m saying to them, ‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ And his words to me, he said, ‘I don’t know.’” After the shooting, Kinsey was handcuffed and left in the road until an ambulance arrived, his attorney, Hilton Napoleon, told NBC Miami. Police said in a statement given to the Miami Herald that they “attempted to negotiate with the two men on the scene” and that “at some point during the on-scene negotiation, one of the responding officers discharged his weapon.” Authorities have not released the name of the officer or offered any additional details, other than to state that he had been placed on leave while the incident was investigated. The man who was holding the dangerous weapon *cough* Hot Wheels *cough* is not black. And he wasn't shot. The unarmed man, who was lying on his back with both arms in the air, hands open wide and unarmed, who was talking to the police and advising them that he is a therapist and that the young man is his patient and autistic and was holding a truck, is black. Of course, he was shot. Three times in the leg. Ironically, Kinsey said he didn’t have any fear that he would be shot. “I was really more worried about [the patient] than myself, because as long as I’ve got my hands up, they’re not going to shoot me,” Kinsey told WSVN. “This is what I’m thinking, ‘They’re not going to shoot me.’ Wow, was I wrong.” Indeed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, you know ... it's not the cop's fault the guy was born black. No, seriously, I swear there's actually a real point in there, but, yeah, it's gonna take some work. Oh, right. Bitterness. Never mind. Wait a minute. Oh. Got it. Okay, this is how it goes: Unfortunately, I still can't figure out how a white guy with a gun threatening to kill you is less of a threat to life and limb than an unarmed black guy walking away from you↗. And, yeah. Dude was born black. Cop wanted to be a cop. Black dude is who the cop is supposed to shoot. Black dude doesn't have a gun, not the cop's fault. Black dude hadn't gone been born black cop wouldn't have to shoot him. And I'm sorry. I know it sounds like a brutal, horrible, racist joke. But it's America.
Most of this racism occurs in Democrat party controlled cities in the USA. Look at Chicago, Baltimore, New York, New Orleans, etc. If we made a list of the all the big name media events, used to highlight this problem make a note which political party is in charge of that city. Why do Republican cops get blamed for this lopsided data? The reason is the Democrats use a distraction to hide these facts. The blacks want compensation for slavery and past racism, which they feel has left a scar. The Democrats says this should be to be paid for by the racist whites. But if you do a history check, although whites were the primary slave owners, it was Democrat party whites, and not the white Republicans of the party of Lincoln who did all the evil. When Lincoln and the Republicans ended slavery, the democrat whites continued with segregation. It makes no sense for blacks to want the white Republican party of Lincoln, to pay for something they did not do over decades. Again there is a distraction by the Democrats to avoid the blame for the very history they say justifies the compensation in the present. If we attach the past to the present, we need to look at the past more closely to see which whites, as a group, did all the hurt. This is how profiling works. It narrows down the search with logic to get to the heart of the matter. The reason the Democrats don't like profiling, it to protect themselves from the truth, so they can then blame others. I don't think the blacks are ready to leave the plantation, since they can't see the obvious or don't want to see the obvious.
The BLM narrative is that too many black people are killed by police. Your crazy narrative is that an acceptable amount of black people are killed. I see the problem here, you don't. Yawn... your libertarian conspiracy crap is boring. Sadly, Michael is regurgitating the same kind of crap again and again.
IMHO The problem ain't race(though, maybe that's a symptom). We could start with the police. Some ain't psychologically fit to be police. Some are poorly trained. and, then, We have legislators who compose ever more curious laws designed almost exclusively as revenue enhancement. In the 60s there were "ticket quotas" whereby the cops who failed to meet or exceed their revenue quotas were let go. (Damned crazy fools let exactly the wrong people go) These trends are pulling many of the wrong people into the police forces. And continue to eject those who would see their first duty as keeping us and our property safe. And then, We have crooked prosecutors who want a win a lot more than they want "justice" If we want a system that is designed to keep us safe and seek justice. Then that is what we should understand and address and eschew mouthing the smokescreen sensationalism of race or sex or religion or whatever perverse logic would allow. ....................... There's some of my 2 cents. Go where your heart and mind dictate.
The problem is race, because all the systematic failures of the justice system come down disproportionately on minorities and white people tend not to see or do things about the problems. Instead they offer arguments like "Michael". And then there is stuff like this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...le_lying_on_the_ground_with_his_hands_up.html Black Man Shot by Police While Lying on the Ground With His Hands Up
If you aren't white, it's a fairly serious problem. In a lot of diseases, it's the symptoms that kill you. Yep. Such as by being racially bigoted. As in fitted to a racially bigoted departmental culture and local dominant society. The question is: Who is "us"? In the eyes of the police, in particular.
Why would we want to ignore the real issue? All that you mentioned is the smokescreen. The problem is most certainly some form of implicit bias. http://www.fairimpartialpolicing.com/bias/
I see a lot of excuses here about why it is not the case that blacks are being hassled more than whites and it comes off as racist or just ignorant. Just saying.
Emblematic of the Problem Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This right-wing trope relies on a number of bogus presuppositions. Consider our larger political environment in these United States. Think back through President Obama's term. There were always some weird complaints blaming the president for things that preceded him, but maybe the strangest was the time when Republicans escalated beyond, "It's his war, now", and tried to blame Barack Obama for invading Iraq in 2003. That one went by rather quite quickly for the obvious reason. But that's the thing; you're trying to blame the latter day for problems that precede it. The practical reality: People blame Republicans because for generations, now, when people have looked for solutions in places like you named, they can complain all they want about ineffective solutions from Democrats but Republicans are the people trying to prevent any solution save subjugation. Remember, it's conservatives who pursued the Southern Strategy. To the one, forty acres and a mule is a broken promise. To the other, it was essentially a reservation system, so it probably wouldn't have worked out too well. But we don't know; the first allocation was underway when President Johnson took office and quashed the program and took the land back. Generalization from history #1: Violating promises is part of the white contribution to the history of racial inequality in these United States. By your generalization, we might also say, "the whites want to lie to everyone". So let's try a few Wellwisher-style generalizations. • Christians want to hurt peple: Kim Davis, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz; I could recite a list of individuals all day, and no matter how many names we put on it, and no matter how many Christians back such stupid ideas for such stupid reasons, the argument that "Christians are stupid" will always be too general. Compared to the number of black people I've encountered in my life openly demanding fulfillment of the broken promise, if you can say, "Blacks want compensation for slavery and past racism", I can say, "Christians want to hurt people". • White people want all dark skin subjugated: This is barely extreme because of the Southern Strategy; as we know, however, many white people have woken up to what is going on. While condemning pale skin so broadly is exactly inappropriate by customary standards, it is also exactly true on this occasion according to the Wellwisher standard. • Men want to rape women: Sometimes it's amazing how many men puruse outcomes supporting that statement. It's not exactly an appropriate argument, though, is it? It is, however, more accurate under the Wellwisher standard than the bit about compensation. Most black people I have encountered, when the question arises, treat forty acres and a mule as a symbol; the broken promise is but one of millions of slights against dark skin. Comparatively, it is striking how much more common rape advocacy is among the American men I encounter. This is a rather quite broad generalization. Start, for instance, with supporting that assertion, and then examine how those arguments have gone over in history. If "Democrats say", then this issue should be a lot closer to the Overton boundary; it should be much closer to realization. Yep. Let's try another generalization: American conservatives aren't smart enough to remember 1968. You know, compared to the whole forty acres and a mule thing, conservative stupidity is vastly more supportable in the record. There is a reason you need people to look backwards in order to find identifications instead of attending the moment at hand. Here's a generalization: Conservatives want to lie to everyone. Both fundamental dishonesty and stupidity requisite in American conservative politics are observable in the discourse and its outcomes. Once upon a time we were supposed to believe this manner of crackpottery was a bad-seed situation, just a few here and there; it wasn't supposed to be a third of the country. This reminds of the utter hypocrisy of your advocacy. Here you go making broad generalizations about other people, but then explicitly try to reserve whites from such scrutiny. This manner of cowardice is writ through the historical record; it is essential to the tale of these United States of America. This is a generalization that holds true in application: An assessment by a delusional bigot is inherently unreliable. You try to cast yourself as one who tries to "look at things from every angle"↱, but the way you go about that suggests a dearth of critical thinking skills. And as we've seen from your various bigoted arguments, you basically make stuff up under the pretense of looking at things from every angle. Devil's advocacy has its purpose in rhetoric, but in inadvisable as a justification of self. And toward that end, I would simply advise that artificial constructions should be invested in potentials, not refusing and evading the record. That is― • If we do this, then {A, B, C, D} potentials ―has its place in rhetoric, while― If this, then that, but only if we alter this range of input in order to predispose the result we desire ―is thoroughly dysfunctional, and one of the challenges you seem to be encountering is thus described: There's a reason people think you're a sick joke. Armchair heroes who can't be bothered to have a clue are even cheaper than a dime a dozen. The internet is sick with them, and in the United States they actually have a presidential candidate this time around, and the only reason we're all supposed to be astounded at this outcome is because for years American society has been reiterating variations on that if/then/but. We have pretended, all my life, against all logic and observed reality, that bigotry in our society is considerably weaker and less common than it actually is. We all commit fallacies in our lives; this is part of being human. But once again, we come back to the question of human frailty, and the difference between acknowledging and exploiting mortal weakness. Historically, it's a vexing issue; should I judge "Christians" according to the logical atrocity of Nicaea, in which the Bishops fashioned a specific illogical creed in hope of arbitrarily evading heresy for the sake of mortal vanity? It only worked because they were also the ones writing the rules about heresy. Well, that, and one of the innovations about the Christian assertion of God was a celebration of Its illogic. And if I'm you, I might as well judge the local congregation of Friends according to Kim Davis, Eric Rudolph, or James Poole. I might as well judge men according to Daryush Valizadeh. Even still, forty acres and a mule was a promise, and deliberately broken. And presuming to teach women↗ according to your self-interested delusions serves nobody any particular good, but, hey, maybe you get a little ego thrill or something out of it, so, yeah, you know, we get it, which in turn doesn't mean it's not stupid and dangerous. That any of us can empathize with your human frailty does not by any means purport to justify its expression. And the plantation? You better damn well be black, because then we get to leave that discussion between black people, and, really, nobody else on the planet ought to be stupid enough to try to horn in. You show a desperate need to write other people's stories for them. Such disrespect as your casual invalidation of pretty much anyone who isn't you is the sort of thing people notice in a manner that undermines everything you say you're trying to do. This actually happens a lot among conservative potsherds. It's a chronic challenge facing crackpottery, very erosive.
It's inadvisable for me to put him on ignore. If I put him on ignore, then I also need to put on my green hat and do something about what compels me to ignore him.
