2015 Waco Texas "biker riot" Police fire assault rifles indiscriminately into the crowd and then say: "We don't know if we hit anyone". "We don't know if we hit anyone"? Seriously? hahahahaha Excellent training there guys.
This is not data. Also, you did not make an argument. As for BLM, they have been shown empirically to be incorrect. As for an 'acceptable' number of people (black, white, etc...) killed. Yes, everything from the legal speed limits to the due date on food has an acceptable risk rate whereby some person may die. Including police response. So, unless you want to live in La La Land were magical unicorns barf rainbows in response to violent crime areas of America, then there WILL (by necessity) be an acceptable number of innocent people killed by police - most of whom, if you had bothered to look into any of the data presented, are actually White people killed. Not Black people. White people. But hey, why let data, reason and evidence get in the way of a good emotional bowel movement. Example: You do understand that some drugs have side effects that include an acceptable risk rate of death? Well? Do you? There is an acceptable number of people who may have severe reactions, including death, because the outcomes (lives saved) far outweigh the risk of death. Do you understand that a response to this risk that goes like this: Your crazy narrative is that an acceptable amount of are killed. sounds like verbal diarrhea to any reasonable person? Anyone here interested in providing some statistical data other than me? Here, let me sort of walk us all through how it works: 1. Individual events allow for conclusions to be made about those individual events. You can deduce a sound valid conclusion from this event about this single event. Everyone following along? 2. Generalizations that involve a time component almost always require "General Induction". In order to make a 'general' statement, you will need a bunch of individual events. These are then analyzed - often statistically. I've looked to see if anyone would post anything other than anecdotes and appeals to emotion, as opposed to reasoned evidence - - - and big freaken surprise, other than me (see linked book - which has been reviewed and published) there is none. Thus, as no valid counter argument has been proposed, I'd say the question has been answered as best as can be determined with the data presented at this time. It should be noted: Aristotle invented a interesting method of dealing with arguments by removing the content (thus removing the emotional appeal) and replacing the argument's subjects and predicates with letters. Then the arguments themselves can be analyzed and validity determined. While this method cannot be applied well here easily (due to the problem of induction) the subsequent attempts at presenting a meaningful refutation does demonstrate why such a fantastic system was developed in the first place. This system? It's called: Logic. Why do we use logic? So that we don't have instances like this: It is rather convenient that Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a server (which would have landed other people in prison) is now long forgotten. To give you an idea of how short the modern attention span is: Nice, France, was 9 days ago. Government Schools, getting one thing right.
I couldn't quite hear/understand what the gathered masses were chanting.......... wild guess They want dead cops? Now? ..................... Never use logic nor reason to dissuade someone from a position that they arrived at using neither? ................... Call and response reminds me of church services. But they were a tad less violent, and meant to be spiritually uplifting.
In those cases im sure action will be taken, as normally is the case(although not always) when officers do wrong. However, the vast majority of cases, im sure the cam will serve to protect the officer as opposed to the citizen as the vast majority of complaints are unjust. We just happen to hear about every time an officer is inappropriately punished when he does wrong, or inadequately punished nay be the better way to put it. But those are still a very small portion. Funding is more of a reason why mamy departments have yet to move up in this technology, than because they want to cover thier wrongdoings. These things cost money, and most departments struggle with staffing levels, let alone upgrading equipment.
After reading through most of this thread I dont know why I even bother with this site. So much purposful misrepresentation of each others opinions that we dont agree with. This is the norm when debating now. Right or wrong, correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurrate, doesnt seem to matter anymore. Only the agenda.
Every once in a while I find occasion to recall a story out of Seattle: Police receive calls of suspicious person driving a cruiser; SPD freaks out because they don't know if there's a shotgun in this car. They flood the streets with crusiers, looking for one of their own cruisers. At an intersection an officer spies the suspect, and in order to prevent escape accelerates and t-bones the other vehicle. The suspect starts shooting. The officer makes it out of his car, finds cover and engages in a shootout as other police arrive and join. In the end they were all shooting at each other; the suspect vehicle was part of the patrol looking for the suspect vehicle. Over a hundred rounds discharged between the lot of them and not only did they miss each other, they somehow managed to miss everyone else. Meanwhile, as that was happening, the suspect―a depressed teenager working as an intern through family connections sometime after his father's death in the line of duty―was returning his joyridden cruiser to the motor poll and dropping off the keys. SPD is infamous, and infamously clumsy. Every once in a while, though, they pull through in astounding ways, like the eleven hour standoff with the swordsman. You know how much they actually pissed people off by doing the right thing? Well, okay, there is overlap between the people who were pissed off that they took eleven hours trying to find ways to bring down a delusional Asian swordsman are also among those who would defend many of the worst moments in American law enforcement. There is also some manner of liability awareness; surely it should be drilled into the departments at least to the extent of, you know, don't do anything to get the department busted or sued. In times of heightened awareness of questions about use of force and brutality, the everyday politics of the grind start to sound especially absurd.
I couldn't do the job...honestly. Being a cop must be one of the worst occupations. They deal with the worst society can offer.
This and That Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to be Jerome Every once in a while I find occasion to recall a story out of Seattle: Police receive calls of suspicious person driving a cruiser; SPD freaks out because they don't know if there's a shotgun in this car. They flood the streets with crusiers, looking for one of their own cruisers. At an intersection an officer spies the suspect, and in order to prevent escape accelerates and t-bones the other vehicle. The suspect starts shooting. The officer makes it out of his car, finds cover and engages in a shootout as other police arrive and join. In the end they were all shooting at each other; the suspect vehicle was part of the patrol looking for the suspect vehicle. Over a hundred rounds discharged between the lot of them and not only did they miss each other, they somehow managed to miss everyone else. Meanwhile, as that was happening, the suspect―a depressed teenager working as an intern through family connections sometime after his father's death in the line of duty―was returning his joyridden cruiser to the motor pool and dropping off the keys. SPD is infamous, and infamously clumsy. Every once in a while, though, they pull through in astounding ways, like the eleven hour standoff with the swordsman. You know how much they actually pissed people off by doing the right thing? Well, okay, there is overlap; the people who were pissed off that they took eleven hours trying to find ways to bring down a delusional Asian swordsman are also among those who would defend many of the worst moments in American law enforcement. There is also some manner of liability awareness; surely it should be drilled into the departments at least to the extent of, you know, don't do anything to get the department busted or sued. In times of heightened awareness of questions about use of force and brutality, the everyday politics of the grind start to sound especially absurd. • • • This is one of those boggling sentences because it strikes amiss but is so vague that it is unclear which problem applies. Action will be taken? Yes, but what does that mean? Does that mean exonerating officers caught on tape planting evidence? Does that mean using the mayor's office to lean on the review of that finding, publicly and apparently erroneously declare its conclusons before it is even finished, and then have the city attorney bury the actual report when it is filed? Does that mean finding no reason to file charges when we catch an officer committing perjury about a shooting? What does "action" mean in a context whereby we will not charge perjury and subversion of justice―speak nothing of murder or manslaughter―because we cannot overcome the presupposition of good faith? What does "action" mean in Ferguson? In the context of Amendment XIV.1, the Equal Protection Clause, it seems worth reiterating an unanswered question: Who else gets what Darren Wilson got? Who else, when under grand jury investigation, gets the prosecutor acting as the facilitating attorney working on behalf of the object of the probe? It's absurd. How many other objects of grand jury investigation get the prosecutor misinforming the jury about the law? The state is obliged to equal protection under the law. Who the hell else gets what that police officer got? Furthermore, there is a problem by which the vast majority of unprofessional behavior by police officers is not subject to any real action. By this definition, "action" means something approximately like, It got written down in an official file somewhere. Whether this mythical file would have any relevance to anything is, naturally, an entirely separate question. There's a point, with the proverbial little things, at which people alreay know law enforcement doesn't give a damn. Republican Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) gave a damn. When he was King County Sheriff his deputies were caught on camera, identifiably according to their faces, committing felonies under color of law. He fired them. They complained under the union rules, and won. That's what "action" means. So he retired and ran for Congress. The scary thing about that episode is why the deputies won. Under riot conditions, in gear, the police officer acts as part of the unit, and no individual can be held responsible for the actions of the collective unit. So, that's the thing: "Action" is normal in this case like "kangaroo court" is justice. Every paranoid dystopian fantasy about government gone awry includes nightmares about show trials and foregone conclusions, yet when that actually happens in society? It seems significant, at least in the context of the event itself, that the Snack Club Uprising chose to occupy a soft target in the middle of nowhere in order to make their stand for justice. What they most certainly did not do is occupy one of the symbols of tyranny. And in the context of skin color, if that's the reason police can do to a person what happened in Tulia, for instance, the occasional token lamb, the, "Okay, you fucked up too badly for us to protect you", sacrifice―and not even when we catch them lying, at that―doesn't do much to assuage people's concerns. If action is process is a show, what is that action worth? Your formulation disagrees with many people's experiences, but for sake of vagary in exceptionally diverse manners.
I did imply that you were a monster because of your acceptable-black-death level. I mean, you clearly are a monster.
That makes sense. Children are often told monster stories to help them to behave correctly. You know, don't walk into the woods alone a Monster is there. Etc.... Simple stories for children. Something they can get their still-developing, child-like, mind wrapped around. Given many adults still think like a child, we've come up with bedtime stories for adults too: Religion and Government, as well as fiat currency incidentally. For those severely stunted in their mental development: Monsters and Ghosts and other things things that make you pee yourself at night will have to do. Like Terrorists. Or, Police. Oh, and while we're here. My position is that police are called into dangerous American cities and that there will be an acceptable number of innocent people killed while they do their job. It's going to happen. In the real world this is accounted for. In the real world, not La La Land, a Police Officer is taken to a Court of Law, their conduct is reviewed, and if they are found guilty of a crime, then they are punished. If not, then it was an acceptable, though tragic, mistake. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your childish beliefs about Monsters and the like. AND, I said people. I noticed you suggested I singled out black people. Which I did not, I specifically wrote: As for an 'acceptable' number of people (black, white, etc...) killed. Thank you for showing yourself to be a liar and have a nice day. Try not to wet the bed.
National Review: On average, 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2012, according to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports. Using FBI and CDC statistics, Professor Johnson calculates that 112 black men, on average, suffered both justified and unjustified police-involved deaths annually during this period. This equals 2.5 percent of these 4,472 yearly deaths. For every black man — criminal or innocent — who was killed by a cop, 40 black men were murdered by other black men. The (at most) 2.5 percent of the problem generates relentless rage. And yet it is rude-to-racist to mention the other 97.5 percent of the problem. New York Post: As America’s largest police force, one would expect the NYPD to be a major player in this alleged mass murder of innocent blacks. The supposedly trigger-happy, bigoted NYPD killed a whopping eight people last year, according to its meticulous, 73-page “2014 Annual Firearms Discharge Report.” Of these, four were black. All of them were armed with cutting instruments (scissors, a hatchet, a boxcutter and a knife) and wielded them when they fatally were shot. --o-- Regardless of the anecdotes, analysis of the empirical evidence, show that police do not target and kill black Americans. What the evidence shows is that Government mandated minimum wage put black Americans out of work and Government's solution, Government-run Welfare Ghettos, where single mothers are paid a bonus if their children's father is in prison, are now some of the most violent hell-holes in modern American history. Due to the horrific crime rate, police are called into their neighborhoods more often (by Black Americans living in the projects) and thus come in contact with Black Americans. Even so, the number of unjustified Black Americans killed is statistically negligible. You're more likely to die eating a peanut, or a bee sting. You're certainly many magnitudes more likely to die by Medical Error in one of our Government hyper-Regulated healthcare facilities. Where 480,000+ Americans die each year. But hey, why let data get in the way of a good MONSTER STORY Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LOL
No, it's just a different problem. And it can be racist if you are using it to distract from this: Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater , according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings. The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police. https://www.propublica.org/article/...utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter
Did you read further? Did you note that ProPublica, in your link, suggests in their update that the data may not be useable? Also, the Professor they cited asked them to remove his name from their study? Here's an update: How Many Police Kill Black Men? Without Database, We Can't Know Much of the national media – The New York Times, USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, Daily Kos, Daily Beast and Vox among others – have quoted an October ProPublica study of FBI data showing that between 2010 and 2012, black males 15 to 19 years old were 21 times more likely than white males that age to be killed by police. What hasn’t gotten attention is that leading criminologists criticize the ProPublica findings as exaggerated. It’s true that black youths are killed more often than white youths, the critics agree, but the disparity over the past 15 years is much lower than the three-year period featured by ProPublica. The longer period is more statistically accurate, they say. Klinger doesn’t mince words: “The ProPublica thing needs to be shut down. They cherry picked the three years that had the worst disparity instead of being honest about the whole picture "The ProPublica analysis is absolute garbage because it is based on the FBI’s supplemental homicide reports. I told them, don't do it because the stats are horseshit.” (NOTE: Klinger is who ProPublica quoted in their study you linked) When ProPublica went ahead with the report and then quoted Klinger, the criminologist demanded that the news organization remove his name from the story, but it refused. Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer and now criminology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice called the ProPublica study “substantially wrong.” In his “Cop in the Hood” blog, Moskos wrote that the 21:1 ratio is the result of the way ProPublica parsed the data – analyzing three years instead of 15, eliminating Hispanic youths from the category of whites and focusing on young victims rather than all victims. If police are more likely to kill blacks than whites: does it matter if the ratio is 21:1, 9:1 or 4:1? Here’s what Moskos wrote. “You may wonder why I'm quibbling. What's my point? Well, it's important to base opinions and public policy on fact. And for starters, 4 to 1 versus 21 to 1 is a huge difference.” Moskos also argued that blacks are more likely to be shot by police because they are in places where police engage violent criminals. “In the population examined by ProPublica – the same subset in which blacks are 9 times (not 21 times) as likely as whites to be killed by police – the black-to-white homicide ratio is 15:1,” he wrote. “We know police-involved homicides correlate with homicide and violence in the community they police. So, what rate of disparity would one expect in police-involved homicides? Certainly not 1 to 1.” (It should also be noted): Black police officers also kill black suspects at a higher rate than white suspects. About 78 percent of the civilian victims of black officers are black. --o-- Let me guess, Black Police Officers are also bigoted against Blacks?
spidergoat, The graph suggests that violent crime and police killings are not correlated in some cities. AND? What does that have to do with Black's supposedly being abused by police? For example, take the first data point, now suppose that 20 of the 21 people killed were White. What conclusion would you draw from your graph? As an aside, the website (http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/) is not a peer-reviewed research paper and it looks a bit like propaganda. Particularly given the person who created the website Samuel Sinyangwe, makes a living writing about race-relations for HuffPo. I think we can both agree a peer reviewed paper would be more appropriate than cherry picking the FBI data base (as we showed had happened in your earlier link). To give you an idea of what I mean by cherry picking, how exactly does he define 'violent' crime? Here's some empirical data that may make a strong argument that the reason black Americans are not being targeted by racist (including Black) police: Remember, black Americans make up 13% of the population. 1) According to the DOJ black Americans committed around half of homicides (52%) in the United States from 1980 - 2008. 2) According to the FBI, black Americans committed 38% of total homicides in 2013. Another point to mention, it's not all black Americans that are committing violent crimes, we're generally talking about males aged 15-34. Not 70 year old grandma. Male black Americans only make up about 3% of the population. Yet, they are responsible for the vast majority of these crimes, and, not surprisingly, are the people being shot by police. Which seems more reasonable to you? Black Police Officers are targeting young black males. OR, just maybe, given that young black males aged 15 - 34 are committing the lion's share of the violent crimes, they're statistically more likely to come in contact with the police, and statistically more likely to be shot (although the number that are unjustified shootings is minuscule - regardless of what the media will have you believe, as was posted by me earlier). Well? Oh, one other piece of evidence you may find of interest. While black Americans commit an equal amount of, or possibly more, violent crimes than White Americans, White Americans are almost twice as likely to be killed by police officers (from 1999 - 2011), according to data from the Centers for Disease Control (as reported by PolitiFact). Another interesting point. Go back to the most recent outrages, drummed up by the media. How many of the Police Officers were convicted? Well? Did you look? It seems, that when the court reviews the cases, they find the Police Officers either acted justifiably, or accidentally. Given the Police State we're required to live in now, thanks to decades (a century really) of Progressive Socialism, well, mistakes are going to be made. Sorry, but that's the real world. The question is are these mistakes at a reasonable rate? The answer is yes they are. Statistically speaking, they're insignificant. Compare that with the half million Americans who die of preventable Medical Error each year. Or the 3 - 5 million left with life-long disability due to preventable Medial Error. --o-- In reality, while the data is not water-tight, and there may be a conspiracy whereby even Black Police Officers are targeting black Americans, the data suggests no such thing is being done. It also highlights the fact that Police shootings are minuscule relative to black-on-black crime. Why is it important? Well, we invented scientific methodology so that we can better model reality and then make informed choices. That's not what's happening here. This is simply a case a Identity Politics being used to craft a Narrative at a time when the POTUS is being elected. It's manipulation through and through. You can either fall for it, or not. Up to you. It seems you're desperate to believe something that isn't true. Or, at best, we don't have enough data to show one way or another. And, we're talking minuscule numbers here. Are you sure you're not being manipulated? Perhaps you feel the need to get down there are vote for someone to do something about this injustice? Like, oh I don't know: Hillary? Sanders? Trump? Just something to think about.... because you most certainly are being manipulated. It reminds me of another type of belief, where facts and evidence makes no sway: Religion. And, in a way, that's exactly what Patriotism is. Belief in the State. Elect the new Pope... errr, Potus.
What difference does that make? If the cops are primed through experience to shoot black people, that's a problem and it needs to be trained out of them. But the people getting shot and killed weren't necessarily being violent. One was selling cigarettes. How do you explain that? I do believe this is a problem for black officers too. It's not overt racism, it's something else. It's a police culture that is becoming too militarized, too willing to resort to lethal force.
