• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BLM DC complains that shot police officers treated as 'heroes' in 'tear jerker press conferences'

FWIW, lifting a curtain a bit on what it's like to work at one media outlet and attempt to be critical (or anything less than fully supportive) of BLM.

www.spiked-online.com

Black Lives Matter and the death of journalism

Data scientist Zac Kriegman was fired by Thomson Reuters after questioning the false claims of the BLM movement.
www.spiked-online.com www.spiked-online.com
 
Crunchtime said:
You don't think BLM is racist? And you call yourself objective? LOL
Click to expand...
Hey look another unhinged triggered meltdown response LMAO this is awesome!

of course not, the majority of people in BLM are white . . . ooooops
theres no facts that make them racist 😂😂
disagree, factually prove they are . . . . . . we'll wait!
 
NatMorton said:
Oh wow, someone trying to change the subject rather than acknowledge what BLM has become.

That's no wonder.
Click to expand...
Has "BLM" "become" what this thread would claim? You're going to decide an entire movement wants dead cops because this guy on Twitter said so?
 
Deuce said:
Has "BLM" "become" what this thread would claim? You're going to decide an entire movement wants dead cops because this guy on Twitter said so?
Click to expand...
You're confused. If you look at that tweet you'll see it has a blue checkmark. That is not one person. That is the DC chapter of BLM making a public statement.
 
NatMorton said:
Well, I can believe what you write here or I can believe what these news accounts say -- including the cites I posted earlier in this thread, many of which are backed up with body camera footage. I choose the news accounts, and they tell me a lack of training isn't the problem. The problem is just what I said: violently resisting arrest is what leads to the overwhelming majority of police shootings. IMO, anyone who thinks otherwise is either uninformed or, like BLM, working an agenda and willing to lie about what's going on.
Click to expand...
Or you only those that are backed up with body camera footage and not seeing the ones where there was no body camera footage. Either turned off.. or they weren;t wearing a body camera. OR they will not release the body camera footage.

Tell me.. do you think that a police department is more willing to release body camera footage if it EXONERATES their officer.. or more willing to release the body camera footage if it perhaps portrays the department and its police procedures in a bad light?

What I think is funny.. is that so called conservatives.. on one hand.. will rail against the government. And then believe that the government agents.. can do no wrong.
 
NatMorton said:
These cops are heroes compared to just about anyone. In fact, every working day a cop on the beat risks his or her life to protect others.
Click to expand...
Sure, there are a lot of bad cops.

But the majority just want to do their job protecting people and then go home to their families.

It must be a real bummer constantly meeting day in and day out some of the most defiant and violent entities on earth. It takes a lot of restraint not to knock the smirk off those predators' faces.

A close second to hero status are those teachers who do their best in big city public schools.
 
jaeger19 said:
Or you only those that are backed up with body camera footage and not seeing the ones where there was no body camera footage. Either turned off.. or they weren;t wearing a body camera. OR they will not release the body camera footage.

Tell me.. do you think that a police department is more willing to release body camera footage if it EXONERATES their officer.. or more willing to release the body camera footage if it perhaps portrays the department and its police procedures in a bad light?

What I think is funny.. is that so called conservatives.. on one hand.. will rail against the government. And then believe that the government agents.. can do no wrong.
Click to expand...
You're going to believe what you want to believe. The objective data at hand says that blacks are no more at risk from police than are whites once the volume interactions with police are factored in. It's also true that the overwhelming number of these shootings begin with a suspect violently resisting arrest. You will simply dismiss as not credible any data that supports these two assertions.

If BLM and its supporters were genuinely interested in saving black lives, they would be preaching cooperation with police rather than mocking the public's concern when a policeman is shot.
 
A bit of a tangent, but with the recent renaming of Cleveland's professional baseball franchise it seems that city and MLB have really missed a golden opportunity. They could have paid homage to both Cleveland's sports history and the new woke aethstetic by instead renaming the team the Cleveland Michael Browns.

He's a hero, right?
 
NatMorton said:
You're going to believe what you want to believe. The objective data at hand says that blacks are no more at risk from police than are whites once the volume interactions with police are factored in. It's also true that the overwhelming number of these shootings begin with a suspect violently resisting arrest. You will simply dismiss as not credible any data that supports these two assertions.

If BLM and its supporters were genuinely interested in saving black lives, they would be preaching cooperation with police rather than mocking the public's concern when a policeman is shot.
Click to expand...
Naw.. I am going to believe the objective data. Study after study shows that police are more likely to act aggressively with minorities than with white people even when the situation, priors and peoples actions are controlled. (in other words a white guy and a black guy act the same.. the black fellow is more likely to encounter a use of force).

https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/p...-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force
Click to expand...
 
jaeger19 said:
Naw.. I am going to believe the objective data. Study after study shows that police are more likely to act aggressively with minorities than with white people even when the situation, priors and peoples actions are controlled. (in other words a white guy and a black guy act the same.. the black fellow is more likely to encounter a use of force).
Click to expand...
Um, did you even bother to read the abstract?

On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.
Click to expand...
 
NatMorton said:
Um, did you even bother to read the abstract?
Click to expand...
Yep.
did you bother to read the use of force? Extreme levels were not significant because the number of police shootings is well... pretty darn small when considering the number of police interactions. So statistically significance would be very hard to find.
However use of force..(which was statistically significant ) say a black person being stopped and frisked and perhaps handled roughly.. like shoved up against a car. certainly would help explain the negative attitude that minorities may have toward police action.

It may also be an indicator of why some shootings occur that may not have needed to except for police escalating an event.
For example.. using force when not necessary and then that causing an escalation of a situation to the point where the officer is THEN justified in using deadly force.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep.
did you bother to read the use of force? Extreme levels were not significant because the number of police shootings is well... pretty darn small when considering the number of police interactions. So statistically significance would be very hard to find.
However use of force..(which was statistically significant ) say a black person being stopped and frisked and perhaps handled roughly.. like shoved up against a car. certainly would help explain the negative attitude that minorities may have toward police action.

It may also be an indicator of why some shootings occur that may not have needed to except for police escalating an event.
For example.. using force when not necessary and then that causing an escalation of a situation to the point where the officer is THEN justified in using deadly force.
Click to expand...
Odd, the study didn't mention a lack of data, did it?. The authors said they found no difference in the data. In fact, they found that discovery to be so noteworthy they placed it in the abstract without any qualification. Why would they do that if there wasn't a statistically significant volume of relevant information on which to base that statement?
 
NatMorton said:
See post 11. They made the headlines.
Click to expand...
That's just your ignorant preconceived notions meant to back you desired political propaganda.
 
Schism said:
The Interpreter has arrived. Tell us, what does it say?
Click to expand...
The article or the BLM DC twitter account?

So far as I can tell from reading what's available in the article, the BLM DC is saying that coverage of police is biased in favor of police, and should put equal concern on cases of black people dying, notably when they are killed by police.
They are trying to use the events to promote their position that police need to be held to a higher standard of conduct.

They then reply to their own statement in a manner that indicates they're concerned their statement will be misconstrued as favoring the violence against police, but reiterate that it serves as an example of their concerns about biased coverage.

------------------

The headline, if not article itself, is implying that BLM DC is doing just that, so I'm guessing their concern about being misconstrued was warranted.
 
Ikari said:
That's just your ignorant preconceived notions meant to back you desired political propaganda.
Click to expand...

That's quite a gem, coming from you.
 
NatMorton said:
You're confused. If you look at that tweet you'll see it has a blue checkmark. That is not one person. That is the DC chapter of BLM making a public statement.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there was a checkmarked "Antifa [City]" account that accidentally geolocated a post in Russia. I'm unimpressed.
 
Mycroft said:
You should probably read the article before you say stupid stuff.
Click to expand...

That’s hard to do with a huge pop-up demanding an eMail address. This seems to be a recent demand by Fox News that won’t work on me.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That’s hard to do with a huge pop-up demanding an eMail address. This seems to be a recent demand by Fox News that won’t work on me.
Click to expand...
I didn't see that. The article opens up for me just fine.
 
Deuce said:
Yeah, there was a checkmarked "Antifa [City]" account that accidentally geolocated a post in Russia. I'm unimpressed.
Click to expand...

Deuce is not impressed. That seals it for me.
 
GummyVitamins said:
BLM has a long history of supporting people who kill police officers calling them heroes.
Click to expand...
And BlueLM has a long history of supporting police officers who kill people - calling THEM heroes.

Isn't it nice to live in a nation where stupidity is bi-partisan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom