Study: Black Americans 3 times more likely to be killed by police (1 Viewer)

[uptower]

Yes, there is a disparity, and that is a problem. But there is no reason on the face of it to think that reducing unjustified killings will reduce the proportion of unjustified killings of blacks.

Then what cannot be argued against, even with fuzzy math, is that the total number of unjustified killings will come down. You can even take the 'all lives matter' stance if it's more comfortable, but there's no denying that reducing police brutality will reduce unjustified killings. Percentages are still no argument against training cops to be better.

 

[uptower]

Because as long as blacks are more likely to be involved in violent crime, they will more likely be involved in deadly encounters with the police.

That is likely true. But better cops mean fewer unjustified killings as well. We can't do much about the guy who pulls a gun on the cops, but the one who makes a bad call and flails about while they're trying to cuff him doesn't need to be choked to death. I see the difference between a shootout started by a perp and rough handling where there were plenty of chances to de-escalate. It takes time to suffocate someone - time to realized the cuffs are on, or they're subdued or restrained and it's time to back off. Floyd is a classic example of this.

 

[vanceen]

Then what cannot be argued against, even with fuzzy math, is that the total number of unjustified killings will come down. You can even take the 'all lives matter' stance if it's more comfortable, but there's no denying that reducing police brutality will reduce unjustified killings. Percentages are still no argument against training cops to be better.

1. Did anyone say that reducing police brutality would not reduce unjustified killings? I didn't.

2. Did anyone argue against training cops to be better? I didn't.

I really don't see what you're arguing against.

 

[vanceen]

That is likely true. But better cops mean fewer unjustified killings as well. We can't do much about the guy who pulls a gun on the cops, but the one who makes a bad call and flails about while they're trying to cuff him doesn't need to be choked to death. I see the difference between a shootout started by a perp and rough handling where there were plenty of chances to de-escalate. It takes time to suffocate someone - time to realized the cuffs are on, or they're subdued or restrained and it's time to back off. Floyd is a classic example of this.

Well said.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

has anyone on this site claimed the law enforcement agencies across the country are perfect, or even close to it?

when there are 800k members of that fraternity, it doesnt take a huge % to put numbers into perspective does it?

1% is 8000 officers....that is a crap load....i dont know any profession where 99% of the work force is really proficient, do you?

yet we seem to expect that from our LE departments....

so much of what they do is spelled out in manuals, and taught in academies....and yet when they are put into high stress situations, they panic, they make mistakes, and then like every other type of human being, they try to cover their asses

and again...we arent talking 50k LE officers making those mistakes.....we are talking maybe 500-1000 a year.....less than 1/10 of 1% of the total on the street

i cant condone the mistakes....i cant understand how some of these officers get through the training....yet they do....and they are weeded out as fast as we can

we are a society that needs to be regulated and policed....otherwise it will be anarchy and lawlessness....back to the wild west era

maybe a few member of BLM need to sit through the LA or NYC academy classes and see what is taught and maybe what changes could be made.....that then could go nationwide

All good points but with one minor deviation from reality.

That deviation is that the "bad apples" don't get weeded out anywhere nearly fast enough AND the administration/unions have vested interests in "determining" that the "bad apple" didn't actually do anything wrong REGARDLESS of what the evidence "looks like to someone who isn't fully conversant with the realities of policing".

 

[Manc Skipper]

No dog whistles here, it just happens to be the case. The violent crime rate is high in impoverished communities, regardless of the predominant skin color of a given community. Since there is a high rate of violent crime in those communities there is a high rate of police activity and violent police response to violence in those communities.

When you remove the deaths due to armed altercations with the police, justifiable shootings, the disparity vanishes between races, and there is a very slightly higher chance of an unarmed white man dying to police brutality than a black man. That is just the facts.

What pisses me off is that progressives have moved from an actual virtuous, though misguided, attempt to eliminate POVERTY, which is the underlying problem to community violence, and have now tried to short circuit it and just make the problem about the Police, who are the men and women who are actually standing between law abiding citizens ion impoverished communities, who make up the vast majority, and the 2 bit criminals that prey on their communities.

And as the virtue signaling schmucks push the police out of poor communities the actual violence and death in those communities skyrockets. We've seen it for years in Chicago, and Baltimore where a unjustified death of someone in police custody lead to a backlash on policing in general, resulting in skyrocketing murder and crime rates. But you never hear any of those schmucks say a damn thing about the innocent dead they leave in their wake as they remove these communities' protection from violent crime.

As long as you refuse to see ALL of the underlying statistics you can only be part of the problem.

There's no need to consider the made up parts.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No dog whistles here, it just happens to be the case. The violent crime rate is high in impoverished communities, regardless of the predominant skin color of a given community. Since there is a high rate of violent crime in those communities there is a high rate of police activity and violent police response to violence in those communities.

When you remove the deaths due to armed altercations with the police, justifiable shootings, the disparity vanishes between races, and there is a very slightly higher chance of an unarmed white man dying to police brutality than a black man. That is just the facts.

What pisses me off is that progressives have moved from an actual virtuous, though misguided, attempt to eliminate POVERTY, which is the underlying problem to community violence, and have now tried to short circuit it and just make the problem about the Police, who are the men and women who are actually standing between law abiding citizens ion impoverished communities, who make up the vast majority, and the 2 bit criminals that prey on their communities.

And as the virtue signaling schmucks push the police out of poor communities the actual violence and death in those communities skyrockets. We've seen it for years in Chicago, and Baltimore where a unjustified death of someone in police custody lead to a backlash on policing in general, resulting in skyrocketing murder and crime rates. But you never hear any of those schmucks say a damn thing about the innocent dead they leave in their wake as they remove these communities' protection from violent crime.

As long as you refuse to see ALL of the underlying statistics you can only be part of the problem.

"Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims." (admittedly somewhat dated) would mean that you believe that 9.4% is MORE than 14.8%.

"Deaths From Police Harm Disproportionately Affect People of Color" would indicate that you believe that 13% is MORE than 17%.

 

[dixon01767]

I think you make a good point there, in your inimitable fashion. I would be very interested to see a breakdown of police killings by income of the victim.

Not something that is even recorded in their oh so desperate attempt to show that the police are racist.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not something that is even recorded in their oh so desperate attempt to show that the police are racist.

I see, so it appears that your position is that people are deliberately suppressing the recording of "economic status" in arrest records simply in order to "prove" that "racism" exists in the United States of America.

I'd be somewhat more willing to credit that thesis as something that could be vaguely considered to sort of resemble a rough imitation of something that was more or less in the general neighbourhood of reality if you could show me when people STOPPED the recording of "economic status" in American arrest records and how that compares with the way that other countries almost uniformly record "economic status" in their arrest records.

Are you going to show me when people STOPPED the recording of "economic status" in American arrest records and how that compares with the way that other countries almost uniformly record "economic status" in their arrest records before or after the pig learns to fly (while carrying the singing horse on its back)?

 

[dixon01767]

I see, so it appears that your position is that people are deliberately suppressing the recording of "economic status" in arrest records simply in order to "prove" that "racism" exists in the United States of America.

No need to suppress what does not exist.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No need to suppress what does not exist.

Your statement that I responded to was "Not something that is even recorded in their oh so desperate attempt to show that the police are racist.".

That statement carries the strong implication that the non-recording was BECAUSE of the "fact" that someone was attempting to show that "the police are racist".

Possibly you'd like to let me know when the "economic status" of persons who were arrested STOPPED being recording with respect to when the "campaign" to show that "the police are racist" started.

If you can show no correlation between those two, then your original contention that the data is "Not something that is even recorded in their oh so desperate attempt to show that the police are racist" (emphasis added) is total BS.

 

[upsideguy]

They are probably three times more stupid when they deal with the police. You know...resisting, fighting, shooting, running, etc.

Therein is exactly why people taken to the streets. The OP puts a fact in front of you and you dismiss as their fault. Social injustice is rarely the fault of those suffering the injustice. Until most of America actually takes the time to listen, we will have unrest. Violence is the of the unheard. Listen. Its you civic duty to be educated on the issues of our day.

 

[dixon01767]

Your statement that I responded to was "Not something that is even recorded in their oh so desperate attempt to show that the police are racist.".

That statement carries the strong implication that the non-recording was BECAUSE of the "fact" that someone was attempting to show that "the police are racist".

Possibly you'd like to let me know when the "economic status" of persons who were arrested STOPPED being recording with respect to when the "campaign" to show that "the police are racist" started.

If you can show no correlation between those two, then your original contention that the data is "Not something that is even recorded in their oh so desperate attempt to show that the police are racist" (emphasis added) is total BS.

No need to have "stopped" what was never started.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No need to have "stopped" what was never started.

In short, the NON-recording of "economic status" is probative of exactly nothing.

Right?

That means that there is no data base to consider.

Right?

That means that there is absolutely no reason to consider whether "poverty" has anything whatsoever to do with "criminal behaviour".

Right?

<SARC>[And that means that, since there is a data base concerning "race", then it is absolutely proper to assign all "criminal behaviour" to "racial" causes.

Right?

And, I'll bet you that, if you dug deep enough into the genealogy of those so-called "White" criminals, you'd find that there was some Rassenschande or Blutschande (which should have been taken care of by the establishment of a network of Säuglingsheimen) in their backgrounds.

Right</SARC>[?