Actual Crime Stats Disproves BLM Narrative...

[OlNate]

Will do it, but offhand, to me it's just 100% common sense to comply, given what you know at the time, you KNOW that if you resist, SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN. That's 100%, you know that outcome. If you comply, even if you 100% disagree, there's more of a chance of coming through unscathed, and then fighting it in the courts etc, than if you resist, so why would you resist at all?

Again, look up tunneled senses. Failure to comply doesn't always equate to resisting arrest, and given the biological nature of the response, this is probably something cops should be trained on. Maybe wait until after you read about it before commenting.

 

[Elmo]

Will do it, but offhand, to me it's just 100% common sense to comply, given what you know at the time, you KNOW that if you resist, SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN. That's 100%, you know that outcome. If you comply, even if you 100% disagree, there's more of a chance of coming through unscathed, and then fighting it in the courts etc, than if you resist, so why would you resist at all?

I don't disagree with your risk assessment, but do you think that "failure to comply with police" SHOULD come with a significant risk of personal bodily harm in a free and just society? I do not. Citizens should NOT have to ignore law enforcement overreach for fear of being gunned down in the street. If an officer is violating our rights, we should not have to just grovel and take it, and file a complaint later.

 

[sjmay]

I don't disagree with your risk assessment, but do you think that "failure to comply with police" SHOULD come with a significant risk of personal bodily harm in a free and just society? I do not. Citizens should NOT have to ignore law enforcement overreach for fear of being gunned down in the street. If an officer is violating our rights, we should not have to just grovel and take it, and file a complaint later.

Actually, thinking shortly on it, yea, I think that you fail to comply, it should come with a risk. Now piggybacking on Ol Nate's comment about tunneled senses, I reserve the right to change my mind after I read that, but you are ONLY looking at from one way, if you try looking at it on the other foot, your opinon might change,

Keep in mind, the officer doesn't know you from Adam, he doesn't know if you have a weapon, or ill intent, IF he assumes that you don't...and you do, he could be seriously harmed, if not killed, assuming the cop is a good one, his only intent in getting you to comply, is to protect himself, then handle the situation whatever it may be. If he feels that you need to be handcuffed to protect his safety, I might not like it, I might disagree with it, but I understand WHY he is doing it.....that's a HUGE difference......generation today is taught that whatever they dont like, should never ever happen no matter what.

 

[Elmo]

Actually, thinking shortly on it, yea, I think that you fail to comply, it should come with a risk. Now piggybacking on Ol Nate's comment about tunneled senses, I reserve the right to change my mind after I read that, but you are ONLY looking at from one way, if you try looking at it on the other foot, your opinon might change,

Keep in mind, the officer doesn't know you from Adam, he doesn't know if you have a weapon, or ill intent, IF he assumes that you don't...and you do, he could be seriously harmed, if not killed, assuming the cop is a good one, his only intent in getting you to comply, is to protect himself, then handle the situation whatever it may be. If he feels that you need to be handcuffed to protect his safety, I might not like it, I might disagree with it, but I understand WHY he is doing it.....that's a HUGE difference......generation today is taught that whatever they dont like, should never ever happen no matter what.

I bolded the bit that I think is at the core of the issue. I entirely understand that if a cop assumes good intentions incorrectly, they are taking on a large amount of personal risk. But the inverse is also true. If a cop assumes violent intentions (as they tend to do basically all the time) they are putting everyone they interact with at risk. We've all seen the videos of nervous cops pulling guns at the slightest provocation. Well, sometimes those nervous cops shoot innocent people. The vast majority of "noncompliance" incidents are also nonviolent. Yet cops put all of those people at risk based on the tiny possibility that they might be dealing with someone deranged enough to kill cops while also hiding said intentions.

Cops have a right to protect themselves from the dregs of society, but I believe they can do it without putting everyone else at risk in exchange.

 

[What if...?]

No offense, but isn't that exactly what your story is, a narrative to give the impression that you want them to have?

I mean no one is arguing there aren't stupid cops and aren't bad cops out there......I think the argument is, that it is not as prevalent as the media wants people to believe?

I think your article draws too fine a line. Limiting it to "brutality", where complaints were filed, completely ignores the rest of the abusive bullyboy culture that grew up in response to the war on drugs and large numbers of combat vets from asymmetrical theaters becoming cops over the past couple of decades.

The drug war required ever more leeway, combat soldiers have dangerous muscle memory have fought where anybody could kill you at any moment. IMO this disqualifies most of them from police work with fellow citizens.

My story is anecdotal, yes. But you need to understand that what I describe is not rare. And everybody who knows someone who goes through it develops a logical wariness towards police officers.

When it's all said and done, keeping people safe should never make them afraid. And it does now. Imagine how that little girl forced to lay facedown on the hot concrtete because the cops didn't notice it was a motorcycle and not a car that had been stolen is going to feel about cops for the rest of her life.

The woman in my story is permanently terrified of cops. And those asshole in particular decided to walk into our house with no warrant looking for the guy who lived in the garage. Made their way back to where we hung out. Three of us were there with her. She was shaking in fear. The cop who broke her arm asked her "Are you scared?" She nodded yes. He said "Good".

And all three of us stood up. His seargent read the situation and got him out of there. It was one of the proudest moments of my life that I was brave enough to stand up when faced with armed lying assholes.

Y'all can't continue to try to gaslight this all away. We have a problem with policing in this country. It needs to be addresses.

Not lied about. Not framed to defend the bad to protect the good.

 

[sjmay]

I bolded the bit that I think is at the core of the issue. I entirely understand that if a cop assumes good intentions incorrectly, they are taking on a large amount of personal risk. But the inverse is also true. If a cop assumes violent intentions (as they tend to do basically all the time) they are putting everyone they interact with at risk. We've all seen the videos of nervous cops pulling guns at the slightest provocation. Well, sometimes those nervous cops shoot innocent people. The vast majority of "noncompliance" incidents are also nonviolent. Yet cops put all of those people at risk based on the tiny possibility that they might be dealing with someone deranged enough to kill cops while also hiding said intentions.

Cops have a right to protect themselves from the dregs of society, but I believe they can do it without putting everyone else at risk in exchange.

But what role does "society" have in that exchange? Does society have the right to not comply? I mean, theoretically, we give police a massive role in society, they are there to protect, serve, from the dredges of society, and the dredges of society don't come with signs in hand, so not complying absolutely comes with the risk of being labeled the dredges of society etc.

Case in point, Blake, in Kenosha. He had the power to stop what happened from happening, he chose to ignore that, and do what he wanted regardless of the outcome, did he not?

 

[sjmay]

I think your article draws too fine a line. Limiting it to "brutality", where complaints were filed, completely ignores the rest of the abusive bullyboy culture that grew up in response to the war on drugs and large numbers of combat vets from asymmetrical theaters becoming cops over the past couple of decades.

The drug war required ever more leeway, combat soldiers have dangerous muscle memory have fought where anybody could kill you at any moment. IMO this disqualifies most of them from police work with fellow citizens.

My story is anecdotal, yes. But you need to understand that what I describe is not rare. And everybody who knows someone who goes through it develops a logical wariness towards police officers.

When it's all said and done, keeping people safe should never make them afraid. And it does now. Imagine how that little girl forced to lay facedown on the hot concrtete because the cops didn't notice it was a motorcycle and not a car that had been stolen is going to feel about cops for the rest of her life.

The woman in my story is permanently terrified of cops. And those asshole in particular decided to walk into our house with no warrant looking for the guy who lived in the garage. Made their way back to where we hung out. Three of us were there with her. She was shaking in fear. The cop who broke her arm asked her "Are you scared?" She nodded yes. He said "Good".

And all three of us stood up. His seargent read the situation and got him out of there. It was one of the proudest moments of my life that I was brave enough to stand up when faced with armed lying assholes.

Y'all can't continue to try to gaslight this all away. We have a problem with policing in this country. It needs to be addresses.

Not lied about. Not framed to defend the bad to protect the good.

Good point in that it only takes complaints etc.....I think a change that should be made is warnings/writeups etc need to be cataloged and databased not just official complaints,

Gonna take this to a really interesting place right now....because well, I'm an asshole I guess, but it's an honest attempt at dialogue, because we are actually conversing. Your situation with your friend and cops being afraid of them for life now.....I get it, but isn't that akin to someone being jumped by a black male and being afraid of black males for the rest of their life, they get labeled as racist, or xenophobe or whatever the word is this day.....meanwhile, it's the EXACT same situation as your friend...just different uniforms etc....

The cop that did it, and said good, should absolutely be off the force, but using one example to point out something you think is systemic, doesn't really work....does it?

 

[Elmo]

But what role does "society" have in that exchange? Does society have the right to not comply?

Yes, absolutely we have a right to not comply. Cops are only human, they do make mistakes and they do abuse their power (whether intentionally or not). If we as citizens think that's happening, we should be able to choose noncompliance. If we're wrong, we should face additional punishment in court, not a bullet in the back.

To be crystal clear, there is a vast difference between noncompliance and violence against cops. The latter is obviously crossing a line and is worthy of a forceful response from cops, but it is also much rarer compared to the former.

I mean, theoretically, we give police a massive role in society, they are there to protect, serve, from the dredges of society, and the dredges of society don't come with signs in hand, so not complying absolutely comes with the risk of being labeled the dredges of society etc.

You are mistaken. The police have the job of protecting EVERYONE. This includes criminals. This includes the dredges of society. IF the criminals become violent towards the officer or other citizens, the criminals lose the right to that protection. ONLY IF THEY BECOME VIOLENT, because police use of force is not about punishing criminals. It should only be about protecting someone from violence.

Case in point, Blake, in Kenosha. He had the power to stop what happened from happening, he chose to ignore that, and do what he wanted regardless of the outcome, did he not?

Yes he did, and for the reasons stated above, I think he had a right to noncompliance. I have not seen convincing evidence that he crossed the line into violence, but I'm not going to wait and see what the courts decide on that. If he didn't commit violence, he had just as much right to police protection as everyone else.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

No idea what to actually title this, so feel free to suggest a change to moderators,

Here is the article.

The Real Numbers Of “Police Brutality” in America That You Need To See

Yep, law enforcement today, so completely biased...right? But are the numbers wrong that are being presented? Anyone can slant numbers one way or another, but if these numbers are not wrong, is there another way to slant that article?

If the numbers ARE wrong....then the whole article fails....correct?

Thanks.

Thanks White Man. As a Black man, I had no idea it was just all in my imagination.

 

[sjmay]

Yes, absolutely we have a right to not comply. Cops are only human, they do make mistakes and they do abuse their power (whether intentionally or not). If we as citizens think that's happening, we should be able to choose noncompliance. If we're wrong, we should face additional punishment in court, not a bullet in the back.

To be crystal clear, there is a vast difference between noncompliance and violence against cops. The latter is obviously crossing a line and is worthy of a forceful response from cops, but it is also much rarer compared to the former.


You are mistaken. The police have the job of protecting EVERYONE. This includes criminals. This includes the dredges of society. IF the criminals become violent towards the officer or other citizens, the criminals lose the right to that protection. ONLY IF THEY BECOME VIOLENT, because police use of force is not about punishing criminals. It should only be about protecting someone from violence.


Yes he did, and for the reasons stated above, I think he had a right to noncompliance. I have not seen convincing evidence that he crossed the line into violence, but I'm not going to wait and see what the courts decide on that. If he didn't commit violence, he had just as much right to police protection as everyone else.

I agree with you for the most part, let me ask you this though, wouldn't....crossing the line into violence......be too late? I mean, theoretically, is pointing a gun at someone violent? Just the mere act? Because pointing a gun at someone does not kill them, it takes ANOTHER act....to make the first act deadly....so where is that line?

 

[sjmay]

Thanks.

Thanks White Man. As a Black man, I had no idea it was just all in my imagination.

Try actually having a discussion about it, instead of going right into self pity or whatever the **** that post was.

 

[Elmo]

I agree with you for the most part, let me ask you this though, wouldn't....crossing the line into violence......be too late? I mean, theoretically, is pointing a gun at someone violent? Just the mere act? Because pointing a gun at someone does not kill them, it takes ANOTHER act....to make the first act deadly....so where is that line?

Well everyone has different opinions on what constitutes violence. Personally I consider merely pointing a gun to be violence on the level of assault. This is why it pisses me off when I see cops aiming guns at the slightest provocation. Seriously, take some time to think of videos where cops pull guns but no one ends up getting shot. Now imagine that instead of pulling guns, the cops preemptively beat the suspects to a pulp. I'd bet that many people who have no issues with current tactics would be shocked by the injustice of that. The current tactics are not better.

Many people, cops included, consider a reach for some unidentified object to be worth of a violent response. I think that standard is far too lax.

 

[sjmay]

Well everyone has different opinions on what constitutes violence. Personally I consider merely pointing a gun to be violence on the level of assault. This is why it pisses me off when I see cops aiming guns at the slightest provocation. Seriously, take some time to think of videos where cops pull guns but no one ends up getting shot. Now imagine that instead of pulling guns, the cops preemptively beat the suspects to a pulp. I'd bet that many people who have no issues with current tactics would be shocked by the injustice of that. The current tactics are not better.

Many people, cops included, consider a reach for some unidentified object to be worth of a violent response. I think that standard is far too lax.

I disagree, have you ever watched, or gone through a simulation you see them pop up time and again when this happens, a reporter or activist goes through them, and then goes, omg I didn't realize that there was so little time....those do a world of good.....almost make it mandatory for high school age youth etc, even college students, to go through that, realize that what you think is a non-deal reach, to a cop, is not.

 

[Novichok]

Cops know the stats and act accordingly.

Black murder stats per 100k are 17 times worse than white. They also know that a routine traffic violation can be deadly only because the pos is a felon, has a gun, and will do anything - including killing the cop - not to get caught.

For some weird reason, cops hate dying to show how much they are for racial justice. Bad cops. We need more police training and make them forget that ratio of 17.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Cops know the stats and act accordingly.

Black murder stats per 100k are 17 times worse than white. They also know that a routine traffic violation can be deadly only because the pos is a felon, has a gun, and will do anything - including killing the cop - not to get caught.

For some weird reason, cops hate dying to show how much they are for racial justice. Bad cops. We need more police training and make them forget that ratio of 17.View attachment 67295590

While 41.4 is much larger than 3.7 it is still an extremely small percentage of 100K.

 

[Elmo]

I disagree, have you ever watched, or gone through a simulation you see them pop up time and again when this happens, a reporter or activist goes through them, and then goes, omg I didn't realize that there was so little time....those do a world of good.....almost make it mandatory for high school age youth etc, even college students, to go through that, realize that what you think is a non-deal reach, to a cop, is not.

Well I think you and I have spent plenty of time arguing about reaches in other threads, so don't see a point in reiterating here. I'll just say that I recognize that a reach happens fast, but that is not a good enough reason to treat it as violence all by itself. Police officers can try to mitigate the threat in other ways, but simply assuming the reach is for a deadly weapon places too much risk on the shoulders of the citizens that cops are SUPPOSED to be protecting. Which, again, is why innocent people get shot.

 

[Simpletruther]

No idea what to actually title this, so feel free to suggest a change to moderators,

Here is the article.

The Real Numbers Of “Police Brutality” in America That You Need To See

Yep, law enforcement today, so completely biased...right? But are the numbers wrong that are being presented? Anyone can slant numbers one way or another, but if these numbers are not wrong, is there another way to slant that article?

If the numbers ARE wrong....then the whole article fails....correct?

It’s been cover d over and over, the facts are there. The narrative thst cops are gunning after blacks disproportionately is totally bogus.

 

[Deuce]

No idea what to actually title this, so feel free to suggest a change to moderators,

Here is the article.

The Real Numbers Of “Police Brutality” in America That You Need To See

Yep, law enforcement today, so completely biased...right? But are the numbers wrong that are being presented? Anyone can slant numbers one way or another, but if these numbers are not wrong, is there another way to slant that article?

If the numbers ARE wrong....then the whole article fails....correct?

"Complaints sustained" is a bad metric.

They also started with a figure for police being "in contact" with 17% of the population each year but do not support this figure.

 

[Deuce]

I would also point out that "police murder fewer people than car crashes" isn't exactly a compelling reason to let them.

 

[Deuce]

It’s been cover d over and over, the facts are there. The narrative thst cops are gunning after blacks disproportionately is totally bogus.

The numbers are skewed because cops are disproportionately let off the hook versus the public.

 

[Acadia]

No idea what to actually title this, so feel free to suggest a change to moderators,

Here is the article.

The Real Numbers Of “Police Brutality” in America That You Need To See

Yep, law enforcement today, so completely biased...right? But are the numbers wrong that are being presented? Anyone can slant numbers one way or another, but if these numbers are not wrong, is there another way to slant that article?

If the numbers ARE wrong....then the whole article fails....correct?

BLM is not about black lives. It's a hostile, marxist group with a political agenda.

 

[sjmay]

Well I think you and I have spent plenty of time arguing about reaches in other threads, so don't see a point in reiterating here. I'll just say that I recognize that a reach happens fast, but that is not a good enough reason to treat it as violence all by itself. Police officers can try to mitigate the threat in other ways, but simply assuming the reach is for a deadly weapon places too much risk on the shoulders of the citizens that cops are SUPPOSED to be protecting. Which, again, is why innocent people get shot.

Hey, we actually had civil discourse, the first time in a long time on this board, so whatever happened, that's a win regardless.

I agree there are things that the cops can do to mitigate circumstances, but I feel that the person who can MOST mitigate those, who has the MOST power to decide the outcome, is the citizen.

 

[sjmay]

"Complaints sustained" is a bad metric.

They also started with a figure for police being "in contact" with 17% of the population each year but do not support this figure.

Agreed complaints sustained is not a good metric,

But they did support it, they said on average police "in contact" is 17%, of a population of 329 million whatever they quoted, that's where they got that figure from.

 

[Deuce]

Agreed complaints sustained is not a good metric,

But they did support it, they said on average police "in contact" is 17%, of a population of 329 million whatever they quoted, that's where they got that figure from.

They didn't support the 17% figure. It's not in their links.

 

[sjmay]

They didn't support the 17% figure. It's not in their links.

I see what you mean.....do you think it's higher, lower, matters? I mean, we KNOW there are interactions, I thought 17% was low to be honest...thought it would be higher....good question though where did they get 17%