• 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!

Meygn Kelly Hosts Black Lives Matter Discussion Panel

No, it's not. The BLM is the topic. The lie that blacks are being murdered by police is the topic. It is this lie that drives the BLM movement and it is this lie that fuels the cop killings.

Sorry but you don't get to decide what the thread is about. The fact that the police use force in a racially disparate manner is relevant to this discussion. However, I do understand why the right wing bigots don't want to talk about how the police beat down on black people
 
Sorry but you don't get to decide what the thread is about. The fact that the police use force in a racially disparate manner is relevant to this discussion. However, I do understand why the right wing bigots don't want to talk about how the police beat down on black people

You are the only one here trying to make the topic about use of force and ignoring what BLM is actually protesting about.
 
No, there are at least three other posters talking about the police's use of force.

LOL! You try to derail the thread and then justify it because three people responded to your derail? Nice try, sangha! :roll:
 
LOL! You try to derail the thread and then justify it because three people responded to your derail? Nice try, sangha! :roll:

Bringing up relevant facts is not derailing. Derailing does not mean "talking about facts right wingers want to ignore"
 
Bringing up relevant facts is not derailing. Derailing does not mean "talking about facts right wingers want to ignore"

The ones that claim to be pro-second amendment yet are fine with police brutality against citizens who open-carry are among the most perplexedly stupid individuals on this planet.
 
There have been numerous proposals about how to address the issue (ex body cams, training, oversight, etc). If you're only asking this question of BLM supporters then, IMO, you're doing it wrong.

And I want to point out that, as I predicted, you have little to say about the racially disparate use of force by police. As I predicted, you just blather on about "evil liberals"

You are wrong again I am not blathering on about bad policies or evil liberals... I am completely for body cams, in fact I think it's one of the more important solutions to the police brutality claims. Once the whole story is out there then it usually makes things clearer, especially in the eyes of a non-biased jury.

But using the slogans training and oversight is not a specific solution. What would you like to see done? How can we have a conversation if you keep saying, other people say we should do things without even describing what those things should be...
 
You are wrong again I am not blathering on about bad policies or evil liberals... I am completely for body cams, in fact I think it's one of the more important solutions to the police brutality claims. Once the whole story is out there then it usually makes things clearer, especially in the eyes of a non-biased jury.

But using the slogans training and oversight is not a specific solution. What would you like to see done? How can we have a conversation if you keep saying, other people say we should do things without even describing what those things should be...

So you want some details? Sure

re: Training

Simulations with people of different races, where the civilian engages in hostile (or even simulated life-threatening) behavior towards the officer has been shown to reduce a police officer's tendency to view people of specific races or ethnic groups as being particularly threatening. They learn the people of any race can be threatening.

I would also like to see the police receive training on how to de-escalate tensions. In many cases, I see the police's actions as having the effect of escalating tensions. In other nations, the police seem more capable of de-escalating tensions.

Oversight: There are a number of things that can be done in this area. One thing would be more detailed reporting. The police should be required to write up detailed reports for every violent incident. Another possibility would be to have the feds put someone in police depts where there is a history of hostility towards the police. Sort of like the fed monitor that has been appointed to numerous police depts (ex Ferguson PD) across the country
 
So you want some details? Sure

re: Training

1. Simulations with people of different races, where the civilian engages in hostile (or even simulated life-threatening) behavior towards the officer has been shown to reduce a police officer's tendency to view people of specific races or ethnic groups as being particularly threatening. They learn the people of any race can be threatening.

2. I would also like to see the police receive training on how to de-escalate tensions. In many cases, I see the police's actions as having the effect of escalating tensions. In other nations, the police seem more capable of de-escalating tensions.

3. One thing would be more detailed reporting. The police should be required to write up detailed reports for every violent incident. Another possibility would be to have the feds put someone in police depts where there is a history of hostility towards the police. Sort of like the fed monitor that has been appointed to numerous police depts (ex Ferguson PD) across the country

1. I think this can be done, but some cops (of all races) only patrol really bad neighborhoods. If they do that their entire lives and only interact with the worst of minorities, could you blame them for thinking otherwise?? I'm not saying it's right but it happens.

2. It's hard to de-escalate tensions when the very mention of police officers turns people into whiny babies.

3. I'm not sure how more paperwork will help except that the cops will be on the streets less... And that's NOT a good thing BTW. However, I do agree with your fed monitor idea. It's a good solution that seems to have helped troubled departments in the past, but as noted that has happened so it's not exactly a new solution!
 
1. I think this can be done, but some cops (of all races) only patrol really bad neighborhoods. If they do that their entire lives and only interact with the worst of minorities, could you blame them for thinking otherwise?? I'm not saying it's right but it happens.

2. It's hard to de-escalate tensions when the very mention of police officers turns people into whiny babies.

3. I'm not sure how more paperwork will help except that the cops will be on the streets less... And that's NOT a good thing BTW. However, I do agree with your fed monitor idea. It's a good solution that seems to have helped troubled departments in the past, but as noted that has happened so it's not exactly a new solution!

1) Yes, I can blame them for their own choices. Their beliefs are not imposed on them.

2) Not true. People in all sorts of non-LE professions are trained to de-escalate hostility from potential/current customers. If the low-wage customer service workers who answer hot lines can do it, so can the police

3) We can compensate by eliminating some of the unnecessary paperwork the police are required to do. Also, better scheduling of their court appearances would help
 
I do not have a television yet I would like to see this.

No one seems to just speak up and say the obvious as they are fearful of being called a racist yet I am not a racist and I will say it!

This man in this op ed is right on target!

If You Don’t Want Cops To Shoot You, Don’t Resist Arrest

People get shot by cops, because of they're behavior, not because of their color. Here's white guy gettin it:

 
1. Not true. People in all sorts of non-LE professions are trained to de-escalate hostility from potential/current customers. If the low-wage customer service workers who answer hot lines can do it, so can the police

2. We can compensate by eliminating some of the unnecessary paperwork the police are required to do. Also, better scheduling of their court appearances would help

1. Ever think it's easier for them because they aren't the police??? It would be interesting to see the same report through the eyes of undercover officers.

2. We can agree on that.
 


Thank you for the interesting article. I appreciate you linking directly to it instead of just providing conclusions based on it.

I don't think these results are as meaningful as you imply. When I look at those data sets, the racial implications are not obvious to me. The only difference in application of force was the least severe ("use of hands"). It is somewhat dishonest to run analysis on and publicize the overall "use of force" when the only demonstrable difference is in the least severe category. It leads to the conclusion that there is a difference in how all uses of force are applied, when the results do not support such a conclusion.

In regards to the other data sets, the researcher uses odds ratios which can lead to a misperception of the importance of the difference in likelihood of an event. For example, group a may be 3x more likely to be assaulted than group b. Sounds big and is probably, statistically speaking, significant. However, that difference may be tiny in reality and have little practical significance. This appears to be the case here as the base average for whites (the comparison group) in the second data set is .008. So, even with a statistically significant odds ratio of 2+ you're looking at a pretty small actual difference. It's the difference between statistical significance and practical significance.

I don't have time to do a more thorough review of the paper, but I would like to note that the paper you linked is not currently published and has not been put through a peer-review process yet. Not to say it isn't a good paper, but there will be alterations to it before it is published. Be wary of accepting conclusions put forward by the author who will exaggerate the importance of the paper trying to get published. I would guess it will get published, but not without alteration as it goes through peer review.
 
1. Ever think it's easier for them because they aren't the police??? It would be interesting to see the same report through the eyes of undercover officers.

2. We can agree on that.

1) In other countries, the police are much better at it. Are you suggesting there's something about american LEO's that make it impossible for them to de-escalate tense situations?



Can you imagine a civilian acting like that towards an american cop and not getting their head bashed in? I can't

2) :thumbs:
 
1) In other countries, the police are much better at it. Are you suggesting there's something about american LEO's that make it impossible for them to de-escalate tense situations?

No but the US needs a larger force than most of those other countries.
 
Thank you for the interesting article. I appreciate you linking directly to it instead of just providing conclusions based on it.

I don't think these results are as meaningful as you imply. When I look at those data sets, the racial implications are not obvious to me. The only difference in application of force was the least severe ("use of hands"). It is somewhat dishonest to run analysis on and publicize the overall "use of force" when the only demonstrable difference is in the least severe category. It leads to the conclusion that there is a difference in how all uses of force are applied, when the results do not support such a conclusion.

I'm not sure why you say the disparity only exists in the least severe forms of force. My reading says otherwise
As the use of force increases, the racial difference remains roughly constant. Adding controls for
civilian demographics, civilian behavior, contact and officer characteristics, or year does little to
alter the results. The coefficients are virtually unchanged and are all highly significant with the
exception of the highest uses of force for which data is sparse.

It seems that the only place where there isn't a racial disparity is with the most severe (ie lethal) uses of force.

In regards to the other data sets, the researcher uses odds ratios which can lead to a misperception of the importance of the difference in likelihood of an event. For example, group a may be 3x more likely to be assaulted than group b. Sounds big and is probably, statistically speaking, significant. However, that difference may be tiny in reality and have little practical significance. This appears to be the case here as the base average for whites (the comparison group) in the second data set is .008. So, even with a statistically significant odds ratio of 2+ you're looking at a pretty small actual difference. It's the difference between statistical significance and practical significance.

Whether it is statistically significant (and it is) is a matter of math. Whether it is of meaningful significance is up to interpretation.

I don't have time to do a more thorough review of the paper, but I would like to note that the paper you linked is not currently published and has not been put through a peer-review process yet. Not to say it isn't a good paper, but there will be alterations to it before it is published. Be wary of accepting conclusions put forward by the author who will exaggerate the importance of the paper trying to get published. I would guess it will get published, but not without alteration as it goes through peer review.
Noted. Thanks
 
The ones that claim to be pro-second amendment yet are fine with police brutality against citizens who open-carry are among the most perplexedly stupid individuals on this planet.

Nobody is arguing that carrying a legal weapon isn't a huge responsibility. When you carry a weapon there is a specific protocol to follow when presenting the weapon to the officer that you must follow because the police officer has to assume at all times that you intend to kill him or her with it. In all jurisdictions that I know of the first rule is that YOU never reach for the weapon. Usually you have to step out of the car with your hands above your head, the officer then removes your weapon, puts it in an evidence bag and then you can talk normally. After the conversation he will return the gun to you in the bag, and you don't take it out of the bag until the officer has departed.

You are too ignorant about the responsibilities of gun ownership to properly assess the position of pro-second amendment people. You only display your ignorance trying to paint them as stupid.
 
The fact that the police are more likely to use force against a black person who is 100% compliant with the police and has not committed a crime is completely on topic

No, it isn't. The BLM movement, in case you haven't noticed, turns out in the streets when black people are shot dead by police, not when they touched a black person ...and yeah, that study qualified physical contact as something as little as touching... you turn that into police brutality. :roll:

Also, based on the statistics in the study, the only difference in the study in physical contact between whites and blacks is that a black person was more likely to be touched by a police officer, the rate of handcuffing, pushed against a wall, gun drawn and pushing to the ground are the same for both races:

W: White
B: Black
H: Hispanic

stats.JPG

So a few more frisks of blacks stopped by police. No evidence of increased physical brutality.

You're just selling another lie. Good job.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is arguing that carrying a legal weapon isn't a huge responsibility. When you carry a weapon there is a specific protocol to follow when presenting the weapon to the officer that you must follow because the police officer has to assume at all times that you intend to kill him or her with it. In all jurisdictions that I know of the first rule is that YOU never reach for the weapon. Usually you have to step out of the car with your hands above your head, the officer then removes your weapon, puts it in an evidence bag and then you can talk normally. After the conversation he will return the gun to you in the bag, and you don't take it out of the bag until the officer has departed.

You are too ignorant about the responsibilities of gun ownership to properly assess the position of pro-second amendment people. You only display your ignorance trying to paint them as stupid.

And yet, half of your post is pure conjecture masquerading about as 'facts'...

/=
 
No, it isn't. The BLM movement, in case you haven't noticed, turns out in the streets when black people are shot dead by police, not when they touched a black person ...and yeah, that study qualified physical contact as something as little as touching... you turn that into police brutality. :roll:

Wrong. The BLM movement is not limited to protesting police shootings.

Also, based on the statistics in the study, the only difference in the study in physical contact between whites and blacks is that a black person was more likely to be touched by a police officer, the rate of handcuffing, pushed against a wall, gun drawn and pushing to the ground are the same for both races:

W: White
B: Black
H: Hispanic

View attachment 67204219

So a few more frisks of blacks stopped by police. No evidence of increased physical brutality.

You're just selling another lie. Good job.

Wow, your dishonesty is not only incredible, but incredibly stupid

Do you really foolishly believe no one would notice that you cherry picked data from NYC Stop and Frisk program and ignored every other source of data?
 
And yet, half of your post is pure conjecture masquerading about as 'facts'...

/=

It's the fact, ask any open or concealed carry person you know and they will tell you the same thing. Ask a local police officer what the procedure if for encountering an open carry or concealed carry civilian.

If you feel like remaining ignorant it's none of my business. It is when you try and spread your ignorance that I will step in.
 
While an interesting study Sangha, and more like this should be done. I think the problem with it inherently lies with the thesis of the paper.



No one seems to want to talk about the fact that these are the groups that just so happen to be the people involved in criminal activity or hang around such things. Sure, NOT everyone who is black or Hispanic does partake. Essentially because I see less of this in the Hispanic community than the black community, but it is a systemic problem that NO ONE in BLM is even acknowledging. In their minds it's all the state's fault and they are just pleasing their own bigotry.

Funny that most of these people will continue voting for those same policies they claim to hate.

You're basically trying to use crime statistics to justify the statistically significant racial prejudice measured in our police force.

They are focused on their own perspective, the same as anyone else. From their perspective, the disparate treatment is its own problem. If you want to complain about how black people are criminals (or whatever), you're free to make it your agenda, but it's unfair to criticize them for failing to do so on your behalf (?).
 
It's the fact, ask any open or concealed carry person you know and they will tell you the same thing. Ask a local police officer what the procedure if for encountering an open carry or concealed carry civilian.

If you feel like remaining ignorant it's none of my business. It is when you try and spread your ignorance that I will step in.

You still refuse to acknowledge the fact that half of your post was just baseless claims and conjecture. :lol: Whatever.
 
Wrong. The BLM movement is not limited to protesting police shootings.

Wow, your dishonesty is not only incredible, but incredibly stupid

Do you really foolishly believe no one would notice that you cherry picked data from NYC Stop and Frisk program and ignored every other source of data?

It is one of the three data sets used in the study, the first being police records and the second being a civilian account of police encounters. The Houston data doesn't seem to carry any stats on interaction.

So, the second data set shows that whites were 25% more likely to be injured as a result of contact with the police. So you still fail in your police brutality against blacks gambit.
 
Back
Top Bottom