Complete Debunking of the Black Grievance Claims, the actual Numbers of Unarmed killed.

[bluesmoke]

SEE POST #355

Another poster attempting to deceive the reader and distract attention to a different subject rife with lies, lies and more lies to avoid dealing with the truth and pretend systemic racism doesn’t exist.

Fryer is an economist. He knows relatively nothing of the subject of his “study”. In helping come to his conclusion, Fryer uses “econometrics” (Re: endogeneity) to arrive at his findings.

Most of the data Fryer uses comes from reports written by the officer involved in the shooting. Many of these shootings have been contradicted by video. It is only human nature give a better report of oneself where your own action could be in question. I mean, if we were concerned with mistakes being made by doctors, it wouldn’t make sense to rely on information from statements made by the accused doctors themselves, would it?

For example, in one case excerpted from the article in the link further below:

“…the Kathryn Johnston case, in which the police invented an informant and lied on a search warrant affidavit before breaking down the 92-year-old woman’s door. She was innocent. When she met them with the broken old revolver she used to scare off intruders, they shot and killed her. In the police report, she was an armed suspect who threatened them with a gun.”

A ‘Harvard Study’ Doesn’t Disprove Racial Bias in Officer-Involved Shootings
A 'Harvard Study' Doesn't Disprove Racial Bias in Officer-Involved Shootings

Interestingly enough, Fryer points out both the above as faults in his own report:

“There are two important fault lines in Fryer (forthcoming): (1) the endogeneity of police-civilian contact and (2) reliability of police department reports” (p.4, par. 4 of Fryer report)

Fryer does not take into account the fact that black people are stopped more often than white people. Therefore, there are additional chance for encounter that results in a shooting. That’s simple math. That data was deliberately avoided.

Furthermore, it is made a point of that the “study” was based on 10 major cities across the nation and 3 states. However, the great majority of data came from one city, Houston. That hardly passes as statistically credible.

“used from real police reports used by the houston police department and also data that has been used from the new york police department.”

(see attachment, 2nd paragraph)
Racial prejudice in police use of force | Bruegel

A flawed, unfounded report that only works for the RWs that want to slap-down truth and fact that threaten the perpetuation of racism.

For an excellent, one-page destruction of the Fryer "study":
Racial prejudice in police use of force | Bruegel

 

[bluesmoke]

No. It doesnt show the actual numbers or the situations.

The actual total numbers of unarmed people killed by police last year is less than 100, out of a population of 320M people. This is true for most years.

As for situation, the shooting of Rudy Eugene was in the statistics as a shooting of an unarmed man in 2012. He had no weapons on him, he was naked. He was however eating a homeless man. There was little to no outrage over this case. The details are important here (as in every case). This case could have been handled differently, certainly, but many people recognized the fear the officer most likely faced and accepted his actions as justified. My instructors would call it "shocking the public conscious".

Unfortunately more videos, especially when released with little information or context from an incomplete standpoint can shock more of the public conscious in this age of social media/instant info, but also cause unjustified actions in retaliation. It isnt even about the videos getting out either, everyone filming. In many cases, it is about people jumping to decisions based off of incomplete information and/or personal views/biases they hold to come to conclusions that don't match the info we have, and even the info we get from a thorough investigation much of the time. Something can be unjustified against people who are black without it having anything to do with racism.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

The only outstanding characteristic of why unarmed black people are historically killed by LEO in greater proportion than white people is the color of their skin. It is the same with being stopped, searched, arrested, tried, convicted, and being sentenced longer than white people. "Some bad apples" is a poor excuse for the rest of the good apples in the barrel letting themselves go to spoil. That's what is happening now. The good apples are going to get cidered because they never did anything about the bad apples in their midst. Too F'n bad.

 

[Simpletruther]

The only outstanding characteristic of why unarmed black people are historically killed by LEO in greater proportion than white people is the color of their skin. It is the same with being stopped, searched, arrested, tried, convicted, and being sentenced longer than white people. "Some bad apples" is a poor excuse for the rest of the good apples in the barrel letting themselves go to spoil. That's what is happening now. The good apples are going to get cidered because they never did anything about the bad apples in their midst. Too F'n bad.

hisotry is irrelevant to whether it is happening now, and the stats say it is not, rather the opposite. Blacks are killed at a much lower rate than the the rates of violence between the two groups.

 

[roguenuke]

The only outstanding characteristic of why unarmed black people are historically killed by LEO in greater proportion than white people is the color of their skin. It is the same with being stopped, searched, arrested, tried, convicted, and being sentenced longer than white people. "Some bad apples" is a poor excuse for the rest of the good apples in the barrel letting themselves go to spoil. That's what is happening now. The good apples are going to get cidered because they never did anything about the bad apples in their midst. Too F'n bad.

That is not true. There are plenty of factors involved. You are assuming their skin color was a factor. While it may have been in some cases, the same could be just as true when white people or Asian people or any other people are killed. Evidence from individual cases is the only way to truly determine whether skin color is a factor.

And the mindset that others have to be aware of every instance of what others around them do or feel and measure that to the same degree that anyone outside may hold them to is a ridiculous standard. It doesnt work.

What is happening now is just as much about overreaction as it is to actual reform that is needed. That reform however will require more money, not less to enact well.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

SEE POST #355

Another poster attempting to deceive the reader and distract attention to a different subject rife with lies, lies and more lies to avoid dealing with the truth and pretend systemic racism doesn’t exist.

Fryer is an economist. He knows relatively nothing of the subject of his “study”. In helping come to his conclusion, Fryer uses “econometrics” (Re: endogeneity) to arrive at his findings.

Most of the data Fryer uses comes from reports written by the officer involved in the shooting. Many of these shootings have been contradicted by video. It is only human nature give a better report of oneself where your own action could be in question. I mean, if we were concerned with mistakes being made by doctors, it wouldn’t make sense to rely on information from statements made by the accused doctors themselves, would it?

For example, in one case excerpted from the article in the link further below:

“…the Kathryn Johnston case, in which the police invented an informant and lied on a search warrant affidavit before breaking down the 92-year-old woman’s door. She was innocent. When she met them with the broken old revolver she used to scare off intruders, they shot and killed her. In the police report, she was an armed suspect who threatened them with a gun.”

A ‘Harvard Study’ Doesn’t Disprove Racial Bias in Officer-Involved Shootings
A 'Harvard Study' Doesn't Disprove Racial Bias in Officer-Involved Shootings

Interestingly enough, Fryer points out both the above as faults in his own report:

“There are two important fault lines in Fryer (forthcoming): (1) the endogeneity of police-civilian contact and (2) reliability of police department reports” (p.4, par. 4 of Fryer report)

Fryer does not take into account the fact that black people are stopped more often than white people. Therefore, there are additional chance for encounter that results in a shooting. That’s simple math. That data was deliberately avoided.

Furthermore, it is made a point of that the “study” was based on 10 major cities across the nation and 3 states. However, the great majority of data came from one city, Houston. That hardly passes as statistically credible.

“used from real police reports used by the houston police department and also data that has been used from the new york police department.”

(see attachment, 2nd paragraph)
Racial prejudice in police use of force | Bruegel

A flawed, unfounded report that only works for the RWs that want to slap-down truth and fact that threaten the perpetuation of racism.

For an excellent, one-page destruction of the Fryer "study":
Racial prejudice in police use of force | Bruegel

You can make data say a lot of things. But a lot of times, other factors are involved. Refusing to recognize this will not fix the true problems. And basing reform off race rather than actual police misconduct, incidents of injustice without regards to race at all really does cause more issues.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

When they have that in writing (via a union contract) they basically are. Many defending the "good shoot" are not basing it on GA homicide law, but on "police policy/training" which is, indeed, scary.

Well perhaps you are right. It is entirely possible that some or even nearly all of these union contracts may indeed contain clauses which suggest, to a greater or lesser extent, that the police department is the entity which creates and interprets laws and policies for the people of their city.
And that would likely be inaccurate, undemocratic and even, to a certain degree, unconstitutional.

Weighing in on Brooks would be a mistake for me because I do not feel I have enough information on the incident yet.
But I am mindful that in the heat of this moment, there may be that age old tendency to just reflexively sweep it up and tag it as being the same.
But it's not, even if there may be some common elements acting as factors.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Look, man, I have a hard enough time conversing with you since you continually make such broad sweeping judgements about a great many different groups of people.

I can't help it you won't make the effort to read about the police union in Minneapolis. That is your problem.
I didn't realize I had to repeat this.

There is absolutely no payoff for me if you do, or if you don't.
I will not get an extra piece of pie for dessert, or an extra hour sleeping in or better gas mileage in my car.

There are enough threads about it here on DP that you can barely turn around without tripping over one of them and it's not even important if you discover my posts and reactions on those threads or not because many smarter people than myself, both liberal and conservative, have been contributing.
And the stories about these police unions, which are defined as public sector unions, are also all over the news media in the outside world.
Again, you could almost trip over one of them because those stories are everywhere right now.

You seem to think this is about me. I suppose I should maybe feel flattered but that's absurd because if there are any sweeping generalizations to be made, it's not about "groups of people", it's about the way a union does or doesn't handle issues like protecting known bad officers, failing to address issues like white supremacy, or police who belong to groups dedicated to such things.

And when one digs deeper, it turns out that these aren't even broad sweeping generalizations at all...turns out these things are evidence.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well perhaps you are right. It is entirely possible that some or even nearly all of these union contracts may indeed contain clauses which suggest, to a greater or lesser extent, that the police department is the entity which creates and interprets laws and policies for the people of their city.
And that would likely be inaccurate, undemocratic and even, to a certain degree, unconstitutional.

Weighing in on Brooks would be a mistake for me because I do not feel I have enough information on the incident yet.
But I am mindful that in the heat of this moment, there may be that age old tendency to just reflexively sweep it up and tag it as being the same.
But it's not, even if there may be some common elements acting as factors.

I'm not saying that it is not possible to shoot someone, who you are chasing, multiple times in the back in self defense, but I am saying that a typical jury would be very hard to convince it was so.

 

[bluesmoke]

hisotry is irrelevant to whether it is happening now, and the stats say it is not, rather the opposite. Blacks are killed at a much lower rate than the the rates of violence between the two groups.

Yeah. The abuser beats you up every day for years and then skips a day and that makes the abuser a good guy. Yeah. You roll with that one.

 

[Simpletruther]

I guess the wiccans should, protest the Salem witch hunts.

Yeah. The abuser beats you up every day for years and then skips a day and that makes the abuser a good guy. Yeah. You roll with that one.

 

[bluesmoke]

That is not true. There are plenty of factors involved. You are assuming their skin color was a factor. While it may have been in some cases, the same could be just as true when white people or Asian people or any other people are killed. Evidence from individual cases is the only way to truly determine whether skin color is a factor.

And the mindset that others have to be aware of every instance of what others around them do or feel and measure that to the same degree that anyone outside may hold them to is a ridiculous standard. It doesnt work.

What is happening now is just as much about overreaction as it is to actual reform that is needed. That reform however will require more money, not less to enact well.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I'm not talking about individual cases. I'm talking about the historical numbers in toto. It's the statistics of disparate impact that show systemic racism, not necessarily by individual case proved by the expressed intent of the one doing harm. It is all cases put together and looked at as the experience of the entire class, as is done with law to do with protected classes under Title 7 discrimination.

 

[bluesmoke]

You can make data say a lot of things. But a lot of times, other factors are involved. Refusing to recognize this will not fix the true problems. And basing reform off race rather than actual police misconduct, incidents of injustice without regards to race at all really does cause more issues.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

What change/police reform being recommended are based on race? None that I know of nor need to be. Can you think of any?

 

[danielpalos]

The Poor are always going to interact more with law enforcement with any poverty. We already know how majestic the law is when dealing the Poor.

 

[bluesmoke]

I guess the wiccans should, protest the Salem witch hunts.

The conservatives didn't.

 

[Simpletruther]

So should the wiccans?

The conservatives didn't.

 

[bluesmoke]

So should the wiccans?

Protest or not, Wiccans were of insignificant number compared to conservatives. The Wiccans had little, if any, influence of their own say. The conservatives of the day held sway as to the outcome of witch hunts, which they promoted. Just like conservatives promoted slavery and separate-but-equal. Jim Crow.

 

[Simpletruther]

Protest or not, Wiccans were of insignificant number compared to conservatives. The Wiccans had little, if any, influence of their own say. The conservatives of the day held sway as to the outcome of witch hunts, which they promoted. Just like conservatives promoted slavery and separate-but-equal. Jim Crow.

so should wiccans now protest the past witch hunts?

 

[roguenuke]

I'm not talking about individual cases. I'm talking about the historical numbers in toto. It's the statistics of disparate impact that show systemic racism, not necessarily by individual case proved by the expressed intent of the one doing harm. It is all cases put together and looked at as the experience of the entire class, as is done with law to do with protected classes under Title 7 discrimination.

Exactly. You are trying to use statistics to prove your point without being able to show it through individual cases. The actual facts of the situations, the cases matter. Especially with such a significant claim of racism, systemic racism. Like I said, you can make numbers say whatever you want to. Those against LGBT rights have been doing it for generations, using statistics about HIV rates and numbers of sexual partners, etc.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

What change/police reform being recommended are based on race? None that I know of nor need to be. Can you think of any?

The push for the reform is based off of perceived racial injustice rather than simply injustice.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[bluesmoke]

so should wiccans now protest the past witch hunts?

So, should conservatives admit to past witch hunts? Conservatives have historically supported more than liberals, witch hunts, slavery, Jim Crow, separate-but-equal, anti-civil rights in much greater numbers and significant impact than whatever “Wiccans” have had in protest or whatever. I really don’t understand your point. Please clarify.

 

[Simpletruther]

So, should conservatives admit to past witch hunts? Conservatives have historically supported more than liberals, witch hunts, slavery, Jim Crow, separate-but-equal, anti-civil rights in much greater numbers and significant impact than whatever “Wiccans” have had in protest or whatever. I really don’t understand your point. Please clarify.

Look back at the start. You brought up the long gone past as reason to protest.

And show me a conservative that denies the witch hunts. And trying to tar us today with that is like when some conservatives try to tar current dems wih racist dems of the past.

 

[bluesmoke]

Exactly. You are trying to use statistics to prove your point without being able to show it through individual cases. The actual facts of the situations, the cases matter. Especially with such a significant claim of racism, systemic racism. Like I said, you can make numbers say whatever you want to. Those against LGBT rights have been doing it for generations, using statistics about HIV rates and numbers of sexual partners, etc.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

In 1921 there was a massacre of black people by white people in Tulsa, OK. It can't be proved that a single one of the killers was racist. It can't be proved that you are a racist. Was that massacre racist? Are you a racist?

 

[bluesmoke]

The push for the reform is based off of perceived racial injustice rather than simply injustice.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Listen to yourself. Reform based on “perceived” racial injustice. You’re saying the reform IS based on race. But even then you can only bring yourself to say “perceived” racial injustice. As if there isn’t any real racial injustice. And, as if unless it’s injustice across the board, not just racial injustice, it isn’t real injustice. Listen to yourself.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[roguenuke]

In 1921 there was a massacre of black people by white people in Tulsa, OK. It can't be proved that a single one of the killers was racist. It can't be proved that you are a racist. Was that massacre racist? Are you a racist?

Really? You don't think there was evidence in such a case that the perpetrators were racists? You dont believe evidence for their motive could be found?

What evidence would you have I am racist? I could be racist. I will deny it. But then you havent shown evidence for that racism.

The person making the claim against someone should provide the evidence for that claim. And such claims should not be based off of statistics. If someone is killed in a bad neighborhood, should we forego the investigation into the cause due to statistics or actually look into why that person was killed? The intentions, motivations of the killer? If a couple and two men are in a shootout in an apartment building, do you make assumptions about what happened, who started it given statistics, or actually investigate for the incident?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Listen to yourself. Reform based on “perceived” racial injustice. You’re saying the reform IS based on race. But even then you can only bring yourself to say “perceived” racial injustice. As if there isn’t any real racial injustice. And, as if unless it’s injustice across the board, not just racial injustice, it isn’t real injustice. Listen to yourself.

You didn't answer my question.

There was one demand found that would specifically redirect money from police to "black and brown" neighborhoods. Why not simply poor neighborhoods within that area based on need and/or criminal activity within that area? What percent of the neighborhood must be "black or brown" to get some of that funding?

Perception is not always reality. Just because I think someone did something to me because of reason A doesnt mean its true. Heck it could be something completely different.



Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk