Police Killings of Blacks: The Data (1 Viewer)

[LowDown]

This author reluctantly comes to the conclusion that the data isn't in line with police bias or racism. It is just this: About 30% of offenders in violent crimes are reported to be black. Therefore about 30% of perps sought by police are black. Therefore about 30% of encounters police have are with blacks. Therefore about 30% of those shot in violent encounters with police are black.

The relative proportions for whites are about the same. A certain percentage of whites reported to have committed a violent crime will end up being killed by police, about the same proportion as with blacks.

The author is quick to point out that this doesn't prove that cops are not racist. But he contends that the data would be no different if there were no racism; racism doesn't appear to be a significant factor.

It just starts with the fact that witnesses, almost all black witnesses, by the way, see blacks committing crimes in numbers out of proportion to the black population.

The author goes on to point out that the racism might not be in the cops but in society. For example, crack offenders are dealt with more harshly than powder cocaine offenders. The author forgets, if he ever knew, that harsh laws against crack cocaine were championed by black legislators who were trying to get crack out of their neighborhoods. And there are more crimes in poor neighborhoods that stem from the realities of poverty. The result is still that blacks tend to end up having to deal with the police more often.

 

[MaggieD]

This author reluctantly comes to the conclusion that the data isn't in line with police bias or racism. It is just this: About 30% of offenders in violent crimes are reported to be black. Therefore about 30% of perps sought by police are black. Therefore about 30% of encounters police have are with blacks. Therefore about 30% of those shot in violent encounters with police are black.

The relative proportions for whites are about the same. A certain percentage of whites reported to have committed a violent crime will end up being killed by police, about the same proportion as with blacks.

The author is quick to point out that this doesn't prove that cops are not racist. But he contends that the data would be no different if there were no racism; racism doesn't appear to be a significant factor.

It just starts with the fact that witnesses, almost all black witnesses, by the way, see blacks committing crimes in numbers out of proportion to the black population.

The author goes on to point out that the racism might not be in the cops but in society. For example, crack offenders are dealt with more harshly than powder cocaine offenders. The author forgets, if he ever knew, that harsh laws against crack cocaine were championed by black legislators who were trying to get crack out of their neighborhoods. And there are more crimes in poor neighborhoods that stem from the realities of poverty. The result is still that blacks tend to end up having to deal with the police more often.

Passing along these statistics to BLM would be like herding cats. They would simply assert that blacks make UP that 30% because of systemic racism targeting blacks.

I hope the cops get better at investigating their own. Ruining some careers for false eye witness reports by cops involved would be an excellent start. Example: Mcquan McDonald, shot 16 times, saw all police eye witness reports untruthful, saying he was lunging at the officer with a knife. He was shot in the back as he was walking away. Sixteen times. Sixteen.

Laquan McDonald video: Shot teen spins, falls to ground - CNN.com

 

[Excon]

This author reluctantly comes to the conclusion that the data isn't in line with police bias or racism. It is just this: About 30% of offenders in violent crimes are reported to be black. Therefore about 30% of perps sought by police are black. Therefore about 30% of encounters police have are with blacks. Therefore about 30% of those shot in violent encounters with police are black.

The relative proportions for whites are about the same. A certain percentage of whites reported to have committed a violent crime will end up being killed by police, about the same proportion as with blacks.

The author is quick to point out that this doesn't prove that cops are not racist. But he contends that the data would be no different if there were no racism; racism doesn't appear to be a significant factor.

It just starts with the fact that witnesses, almost all black witnesses, by the way, see blacks committing crimes in numbers out of proportion to the black population.

The author goes on to point out that the racism might not be in the cops but in society. For example, crack offenders are dealt with more harshly than powder cocaine offenders. The author forgets, if he ever knew, that harsh laws against crack cocaine were championed by black legislators who were trying to get crack out of their neighborhoods. And there are more crimes in poor neighborhoods that stem from the realities of poverty. The result is still that blacks tend to end up having to deal with the police more often.

It its the black community which has to teach them that their beliefs are wrong. That isn't gonna happen.

---

Example: Mcquan McDonald, shot 16 times, saw all police eye witness reports untruthful, saying he was lunging at the officer with a knife. He was shot in the back as he was walking away. Sixteen times. Sixteen.

Laquan McDonald video: Shot teen spins, falls to ground - CNN.com

No. Not untruthful.
It is a matter of perspective and how eye witness accounts can be unreliable because of that perspective.
Laquan's spin can certainly be interpreted as the start of a lunging movement to attack.
Hopefully the trier of fact in this case finds the Officer's actions reasonable given the circumstances.

 

[Mithrae]

This author reluctantly comes to the conclusion that the data isn't in line with police bias or racism. It is just this: About 30% of offenders in violent crimes are reported to be black. Therefore about 30% of perps sought by police are black. Therefore about 30% of encounters police have are with blacks. Therefore about 30% of those shot in violent encounters with police are black.

The relative proportions for whites are about the same. A certain percentage of whites reported to have committed a violent crime will end up being killed by police, about the same proportion as with blacks.

The author is quick to point out that this doesn't prove that cops are not racist. But he contends that the data would be no different if there were no racism; racism doesn't appear to be a significant factor.

It just starts with the fact that witnesses, almost all black witnesses, by the way, see blacks committing crimes in numbers out of proportion to the black population.

The author goes on to point out that the racism might not be in the cops but in society. For example, crack offenders are dealt with more harshly than powder cocaine offenders. The author forgets, if he ever knew, that harsh laws against crack cocaine were championed by black legislators who were trying to get crack out of their neighborhoods. And there are more crimes in poor neighborhoods that stem from the realities of poverty. The result is still that blacks tend to end up having to deal with the police more often.

Black and white are adjectives. It bugs me when people use them as nouns; at best it's lazy and incorrect, at worst it's dehumanizing. 'Black people' and 'white people' is not a whole lot harder to type or to say.

But from what little I've read, I'm inclined to suspect that the overall gist of the article/OP is sound.

 

[MaggieD]

It its the black community which has to teach them that their beliefs are wrong. That isn't gonna happen.

---

No. Not untruthful.
It is a matter of perspective and how eye witness accounts can be unreliable because of that perspective.
Laquan's spin can certainly be interpreted as the start of a lunging movement to attack.
Hopefully the trier of fact in this case finds the Officer's actions reasonable given the circumstances.

Oh, Lord. Excon again.

 

[DamnYankee]

Well, there's obviously a problem and that problem can be identified quite easily. It's liberalism and it's assault on the American family, black families in particular. Members of an intact family are less likely to become involved in crime. Girls, whose fathers are in the home, are less likely to become knocked up. Kids do better in school. We should be lifting up the family, fathers especially, not destroying them leftist-style, where the state becomes the nanny and assumes the role of daddy.

 

[Excon]

Oh, Lord. Excon again.

Again?
You mean I can not post a reply that is counter to what you said?

Should I not be afforded the ability to point out that the Officer could have reasonably believed he was being lunged at in response to what you said?

I hope not.

 

[MaggieD]

Again?
You mean I can not post a reply that is counter to what you said?

Should I not be afforded the ability to point out that the Officer could have reasonably believed he was being lunged at in response to what you said?

I hope not.

You're generally....hey! Wait! Are you related to Glenn Contrarian???

 

[Gaius46]

Black and white are adjectives. It bugs me when people use them as nouns; at best it's lazy and incorrect, at worst it's dehumanizing. 'Black people' and 'white people' is not a whole lot harder to type or to say.

But from what little I've read, I'm inclined to suspect that the overall gist of the article/OP is sound.

Colors can act as both adjectives and nouns.

 

[Excon]

You're generally....hey! Wait! Are you related to Glenn Contrarian???

Only on the second Thursday of each week.

Wait a minute ... No, I am not!

 

[Captain America]

Well, there's obviously a problem and that problem can be identified quite easily. It's liberalism and it's assault on the American family, black families in particular. Members of an intact family are less likely to become involved in crime. Girls, whose fathers are in the home, are less likely to become knocked up. Kids do better in school. We should be lifting up the family, fathers especially, not destroying them leftist-style, where the state becomes the nanny and assumes the role of daddy.

View attachment 67204025

 

[Captain America]

View attachment 67204026

 

[Gaius46]

On the OP while I suspect the conclusion may well be correct the more salient question is whether the killings are justifiable. And here I'm not talking about justifiable as in "in accordance with the law and PD policy" but whether the laws and policies themselves are correct.

It's always seemed to me to be incredibly stupid when police and prosecutors justify a police killing by saying "it's a legal shoot" or it "falls within department guidelines." People frankly don't give a ****. All they see is someone who was killed who in their minds shouldn't have been or if they were placed in the cop's position and did the same thing as a citizen they'd be in jail.

"It was legal" doesn't make it right. And the powers that be need to get much better at explaining why it was the right thing to do.

 

[DamnYankee]

View attachment 67204025

:screwy

 

[blaxshep]

On the OP while I suspect the conclusion may well be correct the more salient question is whether the killings are justifiable. And here I'm not talking about justifiable as in "in accordance with the law and PD policy" but whether the laws and policies themselves are correct.

It's always seemed to me to be incredibly stupid when police and prosecutors justify a police killing by saying "it's a legal shoot" or it "falls within department guidelines." People frankly don't give a ****. All they see is someone who was killed who in their minds shouldn't have been or if they were placed in the cop's position and did the same thing as a citizen they'd be in jail.

"It was legal" doesn't make it right. And the powers that be need to get much better at explaining why it was the right thing to do.

"It was a legal shoot" works for me. We should be asking why are these blacks resisting arrest and assaulting police NOT why are the cops shooting them.

 

[DamnYankee]

We should be asking why are these blacks resisting arrest and assaulting police NOT why are the cops shooting them.

Some of that might be the entitlement mentality fostered by liberalism.

 

[Gaius46]

"It was a legal shoot" works for me. We should be asking why are these blacks resisting arrest and assaulting police NOT why are the cops shooting them.

Doesn't work for me honestly. "It's legal" is a poor response to the question "is it the right thing to do."

And more to the point you don't need convincing. People who see the killings as unjustified need to be convinced that the killing were not only legal but the right thing to do.

Your point on resisting arrest is a perfect example of what I'm talking. Shooting someone whose resisting may be legal but most people who see two cops on top of an unarmed guy who then shoot the guy are going to ask "why was that necessary." It's a legitimate question and one that demands a better answer than "because the rules say we could."

 

[blaxshep]

Doesn't work for me honestly. "It's legal" is a poor response to the question "is it the right thing to do."

And more to the point you don't need convincing. People who see the killings as unjustified need to be convinced that the killing were not only legal but the right thing to do.

People who see the killings as unjustified should be assaulted by a black thug and see if that clears it up for them.

 

[Gaius46]

People who see the killings as unjustified should be assaulted by a black thug and see if that clears it up for them.

If I was assaulted by a black thug and shot him in NY there's a good chance I'd be spending the night in jail and looking at criminal charges. Not so the cop.

And again so what? The cops may be totally justified but they are seriously losing the PR war and the result is the protests and unrest we see. They need to do better.

 

[jaeger19]

This author reluctantly comes to the conclusion that the data isn't in line with police bias or racism. It is just this: About 30% of offenders in violent crimes are reported to be black. Therefore about 30% of perps sought by police are black. Therefore about 30% of encounters police have are with blacks. Therefore about 30% of those shot in violent encounters with police are black.

The relative proportions for whites are about the same. A certain percentage of whites reported to have committed a violent crime will end up being killed by police, about the same proportion as with blacks.

The author is quick to point out that this doesn't prove that cops are not racist. But he contends that the data would be no different if there were no racism; racism doesn't appear to be a significant factor.

It just starts with the fact that witnesses, almost all black witnesses, by the way, see blacks committing crimes in numbers out of proportion to the black population.

The author goes on to point out that the racism might not be in the cops but in society. For example, crack offenders are dealt with more harshly than powder cocaine offenders. The author forgets, if he ever knew, that harsh laws against crack cocaine were championed by black legislators who were trying to get crack out of their neighborhoods. And there are more crimes in poor neighborhoods that stem from the realities of poverty. The result is still that blacks tend to end up having to deal with the police more often.

Bull.

The issue is what happens WHEN a police officer pulls over a black person. And anyone that thinks that on average.. the interaction is the same whether its a minority (black or Hispanic) or a white person is fooling themselves.

 

[jaeger19]

People who see the killings as unjustified should be assaulted by a black thug and see if that clears it up for them.

And there you have the intellectual disconnect and thus racism.

to paraphrase what was just said.

"Killing a black fellow regardless of the situation is justified if you have ever been assaulted by a black thug"