Blacks murder at a staggering 5 times the Rate of whites

[calamity]

Of course there is.

Not for those who insist to not see.

 

[Simpletruther]

Okay, but the issue of police malsfeasence has nothing to do with crime, white on white, white on black, black on black, or black on white.

Nothing, so what reason do you have to even bring it up?

I can't think of a legitimate one. Unless, of course, you are trying to make it seem okay for cops to shoot unarmed blacks 'because blacks murder five times as many blacks as cops murder blacks'.

Is that your totally ****ing asinine argument?

The topic is whether cops kill blacks disproportionately . And crime rate most assuredly has a lot to do with that.

 

[Cope]

Okay, but the issue of police malsfeasence has nothing to do with crime, white on white, white on black, black on black, or black on white.

Nothing, so what reason do you have to even bring it up?

I can't think of a legitimate one. Unless, of course, you are trying to make it seem okay for cops to shoot unarmed blacks 'because blacks murder five times as many blacks as cops murder blacks'.

Is that your totally ****ing asinine argument?

If police malfeasance was the issue, it would be the issue with every police shooting. Is it?

The current argument is racist cops shoot black men. Headlines everywhere. People screaming institutional racism and pointing to the criminal justice system with some misleading statistics. The facts that have been given in this thread show data that destroys that narrative.
Police shoot more black men (per capita) than any other race simply for the reason that more black men (per capita) are involved with more crime than any other race.
The claim was then made that poverty bears out similar stats (more crime)

Now the thread has moved on past that to but why is the black community more heavily represented in poverty

 

[Geoist]

How do blacks ascend to be CEOs, Senators, House Reps, attorneys, brain surgeons etc, even the Presidency, but yet so many others are experiencing being "held back" by "institutional racism"?
How do you explain that? It only holds some back, and yet others thrive and prosper.

That doesnt seem....odd to you?
How has the White man screwed this aspect of it up do you think? Why does Whitey allow some blacks to succeed but not others?

Interested in your take on this, thanks.

Do you believe there was ever institutional racism? Institutional racism doesnt mean there is zero chance for a minority to 'make it.' Some do. But more than likely they have to work extra hard to get there whether it be due to circumstances they're born into or the discrimination they faced along the way. The reason I asked the question is because we had black senators just after slavery was abolished. Reconstruction temporarily changed the system. The system was still incredibly racist but the reforms gave some a better shot. Andrew Johnson changed it back. Suddenly, there were no more black senators for many years. The system determines just how much harder minorities have to work to be successful.

 

[Geoist]

There's not such thing.

Was there ever such a thing?

 

[ultmd]

When come back, bring discussion. I am not your errand boy for data. If you have something to discuss, discuss it, otherwise begone.

You're relatively new here. I get it. But this was still just a dumb response, Cope.

This is a debate forum.

YOU (not I) declared (without ANY of what you call "data") your personal knowledge of the " 3 reasons" for poverty in "the black community".

I stated the obvious: i.e. that yours were "The words of someone who has little-to-zero understanding of "the black community". It's always amusing to me why people like you think (and speak) about "the black community"....but never generalize about "the white community".

At this point, it's clear to me that you are very likely just another self-entitled, clueless white person (with little-to-zero personal connection to, or experience with what you termed "the black community"), and your ignorance and sense of entitlement have deluded you into believing that your unsubstantiated personal opinions are "facts" and, thus, merit serious consideration.

But that's not how things work in the reality-based world, Cope. If you offer up declarative statements in debate, it is YOUR obligation to back them up...or admit they are little more than expressions of personal bias or opinion (i.e. you made them up).

So, I'm sorry if you feel threatened by this, but it is YOUR responsibility to be your own "errand boy", here.

You can start by explaining EXACTLY what a clueless white person like you means when they generalize about "the black community".....and the document for us EXACTLY how "the black community" doesn't value education, as you stated previously.

Let's go, "errand boy".

Or, you can hush up and promise not to write rhetorical checks that your @ss can't cash, next time.

Your choice.

 

[ultmd]

How many poor whites are there in the USA
how many poor blacks are there in the USA

You might want to research your own questions first, and get back to me, rather than drawing assumptions based upon your own personal biases.

51% of murders-or more (since black on black murders are the least likely to be solved) are committed by blacks

This doesn't correspond with your claim

"Poverty correlates most closely with violent crime, not race"

That's my "claim". And there is a well-studied body of research to prove it.

You are confused if you think your remarks disproved, in any way, my previous remarks.

 

[OscarLevant]

The topic is whether cops kill blacks disproportionately . And crime rate most assuredly has a lot to do with that.

No because police malfeasence, and the subject of crime, though related, are different subjects.

If you want to discuss 'proportionality' does the proportion of unarmed blacks killed by cops compared to the portion of unarmed whites killed by cops, proportional to the population?

IF you make that comparison, then, and only then, to you have an to apples to apples comparison.

most assuredly.

If you are saying unarmed blacks are killed more because blacks are more dangerous than whites, that, in my opinion, is a racist statement and it is racist because the blacks are unarmed in the shootings, and therefore, what is really happening here is systemic racism by the police.

 

[OscarLevant]

If police malfeasance was the issue, it would be the issue with every police shooting. Is it?

The current argument is racist cops shoot black men. Headlines everywhere. People screaming institutional racism and pointing to the criminal justice system with some misleading statistics. The facts that have been given in this thread show data that destroys that narrative.
Police shoot more black men (per capita) than any other race simply for the reason that more black men (per capita) are involved with more crime than any other race.
The claim was then made that poverty bears out similar stats (more crime)

Now the thread has moved on past that to but why is the black community more heavily represented in poverty

What happens to the stat when you separate blacks involved with crimes from 'unarmed blacks' not involved with crimes of violence or no crimes?

I think it would be fare to make that distinction, because black rage is happening because of cops murdering those blacks who are unarmed, and certainly not worthy of a death sentence.

But, IF you are saying well, since blacks are statistically more likely to be involved with crimes, therefore, the shootings of guys like Floyd are okay, that, in my view, is an asinine argument.

 

[Simpletruther]

No because police malfeasence, and the subject of crime, though related, are different subjects.

If you want to discuss 'proportionality' does the proportion of unarmed blacks killed by cops compared to the portion of unarmed whites killed by cops, proportional to the population?

IF you make that comparison, then, and only then, to you have an to apples to apples comparison.

most assuredly.

If you are saying unarmed blacks are killed more because blacks are more dangerous than whites, that, in my opinion, is a racist statement and it is racist because the blacks are unarmed in the shootings, and therefore, what is really happening here is systemic racism by the police.

This would only make sense if unarmed violent criminals do not sometimes pose a deadly threat to cops. Which simply isn't true. Unarmed violent criminals are sometimes killed justifiably by cops.

 

[Cope]

You're relatively new here. I get it. But this was still just a dumb response, Cope.

This is a debate forum.

YOU (not I) declared (without ANY of what you call "data") your personal knowledge of the " 3 reasons" for poverty in "the black community".

I stated the obvious: i.e. that yours were "The words of someone who has little-to-zero understanding of "the black community". It's always amusing to me why people like you think (and speak) about "the black community"....but never generalize about "the white community".

At this point, it's clear to me that you are very likely just another self-entitled, clueless white person (with little-to-zero personal connection to, or experience with what you termed "the black community"), and your ignorance and sense of entitlement have deluded you into believing that your unsubstantiated personal opinions are "facts" and, thus, merit serious consideration.

But that's not how things work in the reality-based world, Cope. If you offer up declarative statements in debate, it is YOUR obligation to back them up...or admit they are little more than expressions of personal bias or opinion (i.e. you made them up).

So, I'm sorry if you feel threatened by this, but it is YOUR responsibility to be your own "errand boy", here.

You can start by explaining EXACTLY what a clueless white person like you means when they generalize about "the black community".....and the document for us EXACTLY how "the black community" doesn't value education, as you stated previously.

Let's go, "errand boy".

Or, you can hush up and promise not to write rhetorical checks that your @ss can't cash, next time.

Your choice.

Not a single point for discussion. Between the ad hom and the opinions, there is not a single factual thing in that post.

God Speed friend.

If/when you bring something to the discussion, I will happily engage.

Until then, Peace!

 

[Cope]

What happens to the stat when you separate blacks involved with crimes from 'unarmed blacks' not involved with crimes of violence or no crimes?

I think it would be fare to make that distinction, because black rage is happening because of cops murdering those blacks who are unarmed, and certainly not worthy of a death sentence.

But, IF you are saying well, since blacks are statistically more likely to be involved with crimes, therefore, the shootings of guys like Floyd are okay, that, in my view, is an asinine argument.

If you can find stats of unarmed Blacks being shot, please post them. That number is going to be incredibly small.
The fact that Blacks are more likely to be involved in crime has no justification on the good or bad shoot. Those things are and will always be individually judged.
In the current climate though, ANY shooting of a black man by a white cop is first called racism and THEN investigated.

Nothing is just a general "ok" regarding ANY shooting. They all need to be investigated and justified. I am on board with police reform. In my opinion, our police forces need a lot more and specialized training to handle the different things they see on a day to day basis. They also should be paid accordingly. The two most underpaid professions in the US (to me) currently are teachers and the police force.

My entire argument was strictly about the numbers of times that shootings actually happen and those numbers bear fruit when using the fact that Blacks commit violent crime at the rate they do.

 

[ultmd]

I don't think anyone is denying that.

Actually, several "ones" are denying it...right here in this thread.

Just look above your post to TurtleDude's remarks.

The caslty higher rate of black violence is still there. Ant it will by necessity show up in higher rates of black deaths by cop.

Huh?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

It's to be expected, just like we are to expect higher rates of poor people (both black and white) killed by cops.

What's "to be expected"?

It not an indication of cops targeting blacks or poor people. It's just the necessary math of it.

The "necessary math of it", huh?

Well, the "necessary math of it" SHOULD also show that white people (who use AND sell drugs at the same (or slightly higher) rates as black people) get targeted....arrested.....charged.....and convicted at the same (or slightly higher) rate as black people. And yet, the REAL math shows the opposite to be true.

Again, no offense intended, but unless you've experienced what it's like to be targeted by the police, this is just a very entitled perspective. It's the point of view of those who have no idea what it's like to have brown skin in America. The way the police frequently interact with black/brown people on a daily basis....REGARDLESS of socioeconomic status....is the issue.

 

[calamity]

How many poor whites are there in the USA
how many poor blacks are there in the USA
51% of murders-or more (since black on black murders are the least likely to be solved) are committed by blacks

This doesn't correspond with your claim

That's racist.

 

[Cope]

That's racist.

If its racist, it ought to be bannable.
Get to it.

 

[OscarLevant]

If you can find stats of unarmed Blacks being shot, please post them. That number is going to be incredibly small.

Doesn't matter what the number is, though it is happening disproportionate to the population distribution. But, no matter....

IF you are saying that because of crime statistics, shooting unarmed blacks is acceptable, it still remains an asinine argument.

 

[ultmd]

Why? People can and should imagine themselves in different circumstances. It helps build compassion and empathy.

What I said bears little resemblance to the attempted summarization, above.

Do you think that "imagining themselves in different circumstances" is the same as drawing conclusions about "the black community" based upon generalizations and and personal biases?

 

[Cope]

Doesn't matter what the number is, though it is happening disproportionate to the population distribution. But, no matter....

IF you are saying that because of crime statistics, shooting unarmed blacks is acceptable, it still remains an asinine argument.

That's the second time you have attributed that position to me. The first time I let it slide. Nothing I posted had anything said about shooting unarmed blacks or any other race to be acceptable. Which I say quite clearly in post #537
"
Nothing is just a general "ok" regarding ANY shooting. They all need to be investigated and justified. I am on board with police reform. In my opinion, our police forces need a lot more and specialized training to handle the different things they see on a day to day basis. They also should be paid accordingly. The two most underpaid professions in the US (to me) currently are teachers and the police force."

Do it again and we won't be friends.

Also if you don't know the stats you sure don't know this: "though it is happening disproportionate to the population distribution"

 

[OscarLevant]

This would only make sense if unarmed violent criminals do not sometimes pose a deadly threat to cops. Which simply isn't true. Unarmed violent criminals are sometimes killed justifiably by cops.

Sometimes, but often they don't, not by any reasonable standards, but because of police bias, their perceptions are unwarranted, and lead to needless shootings.

The devil is in the details, of which, the stories are told here:

Fatal Police Shootings Of Unarmed Black People Reveal Troubling Patterns

Since 2015, police officers have fatally shot at least 135 unarmed Black people nationwide. The majority of officers were white, and for at least 15 of them, the shootings weren't their first or last.

www.npr.org

 

[ultmd]

Not a single point for discussion. Between the ad hom and the opinions, there is not a single factual thing in that post.

Still running from the discussion, I see.

Of course, you can try to pretend that you aren't DEFLECTING from my repeated requests for you to back up your original, ignorant "3 reasons", Cope. But you and I (and those reading our exchange) understand what you're doing.

We can all see that, if you had the ability to defend your "3 reasons" with some objective FACTS, you'd have done so by now. But you got caught offering "facts" that were little more than personal opinions based upon your own existing biases. And, like seemingly all modern rightwingers, when challenged, you DODGE, DEFLECT and/or DISSEMBLE.

Trust me, I get it.

God Speed friend.

And to you, my friend.

I think we've made ourselves clear in this exchange. And, certainly one of us has my his point about the other.

If/when you bring something to the discussion, I will happily engage.

Until then, Peace!

....the tried and true "Conservative's Method" for exiting a discussion after realizing that said conservative realizes is over his/her head.

You were free to go a long time ago, Cope This is a debate forum. No need feign indignation simply because you're helpless to defend the ignorant remarks you made. Just exit, and move on.

 

[OscarLevant]

Facts are not racism. The claim is fact. Blacks do commit violent crime at a rate of 2.4 times the number (per capita) than white people do.
When facts are racist, everything is racist!

The answer to that comment can only be done if we know the precise reason for your stating that point.

What is the point, why are you stating this? what is the argument?

I can claim stats all day long, but unless I'm making an argument, it's of no consequence, anyone can peruse the internet for statistics.

 

[calamity]

If its racist, it ought to be bannable.
Get to it.

There is no rule against being racist. Read up on it.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's racist.

you scream racist at any fact you don't like. I laugh at it

 

[Simpletruther]

Sometimes, but often they don't, not by any reasonable standards, but because of police bias, their perceptions are unwarranted, and lead to needless shootings.

The devil is in the details, of which, the stories are told here:

Fatal Police Shootings Of Unarmed Black People Reveal Troubling Patterns

Since 2015, police officers have fatally shot at least 135 unarmed Black people nationwide. The majority of officers were white, and for at least 15 of them, the shootings weren't their first or last.

www.npr.org

Often is a loaded word. Very view unarmed blacks are killed every year. It's a tiny number, around 20 to 30 a year. And most of those were violent resisters.

We are talking no more than 4 or 5 unjust killings of unarmed blacks a year at most. Yet it's painted to be an epidemic. And this playing politics is costing lots of black lives due to less policing.

i am not arguing police don't have a culture problem and need to improve, sure they do. and I suspect it's largely traceable to unions.

 

[Simpletruther]

Actually, several "ones" are denying it...right here in this thread.

Just look above your post to TurtleDude's remarks.



Huh?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


What's "to be expected"?


The "necessary math of it", huh?

Well, the "necessary math of it" SHOULD also show that white people (who use AND sell drugs at the same (or slightly higher) rates as black people) get targeted....arrested.....charged.....and convicted at the same (or slightly higher) rate as black people. And yet, the REAL math shows the opposite to be true.

Again, no offense intended, but unless you've experienced what it's like to be targeted by the police, this is just a very entitled perspective. It's the point of view of those who have no idea what it's like to have brown skin in America. The way the police frequently interact with black/brown people on a daily basis....REGARDLESS of socioeconomic status....is the issue.

Or maybe turtledove was objecting to this claim of yours:

Poverty correlates with violent crime, not race

You likely didn't mean it exactly like thst but I think he was responding to that.

I doubt he would argue poverty isn't more correlated not sure.

But the point is moot. It doesn't matter if it's more correlated for my point to hold.

Blacks are still heavily correlated to more violent crime.