Oldskeptic wrote:

BWE wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

BWE wrote:

Ah yes, the 'they deserve it' argument. Well done sir. Well done.

Ah yes, the straw man argument. Well done sir. Well done.

Explain how that is a straw man?

Did WayOfTheDodo say that blacks "deserve it"? Did I? No.

Did you attack WayOfTheDodo and by extension me because I was the one that brought up the higher violent crime rates among black people as if either one of us had said that blacks "deserve it"? Yes.

Straw man argument.

Rumraket wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

BWE wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Well, blacks are also disproportionately involved in crime, particularly violent crime. Is it really a surprise that they get guns pulled on them more frequently? And if we agree that what you are saying is true, the police are in fact showing even more restraint than Oldskeptic credits them with.

Ah yes, the 'they deserve it' argument. Well done sir. Well done.

I haven't seen anyone here say that blacks deserve it.

Sure you have, that's what YOU say. Not explicitly, but you seem to condone it in practice. Blacks contribute roughly 50% of homicides, therefore it makes perfect sense that 25% of people killed by police are blacks. In other words, they had it coming.

Apparently it is possible in your view to be in the wrong location at the wrong time of day if you're black and wearing certain clothes:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Rumraket wrote:They see a young black person, they suspect he's probabably in a gang, or carrying drugs.

Everywhere? At any time? Now who's stereotyping? I'm betting that cops put much larger weight on where they are, what time it is, how they are acting, and how they are dressed than simply whether they are black, white, Hispanic, or Asian.

This makes it pretty clear that you think it is to be expected that a black person being somewhere in particular while wearing certain attire should be suspected of being a criminal.

Oldskeptic wrote: Whatever the "it" is that you mean by "deserve it".

Apparently YOU think some blacks deserve it:

Oldskeptic wrote:The stereotype of violent young black men you talk about is inaccurate when applied to all young black men. But how inaccurate is it when applied to young black men, or for that matter young white men, in high crime low income areas?

Apparently a young black man from a high crime low income area should expect to be under constant suspicion of guilt. Oh by the way, how do you tell whether a random black person passing you on the street or in a car is from a "high crime low income area"?

Are you telling me police SHOULD target and search these people? And that it is entirely reasonable to have their guns drawn on them?

Oldskeptic wrote:What I have seen though is that uninformed preformed knee jerk opinions and stereotypes of both blacks and police often get a pass. While most anyone that points out the actual statistics receives veiled accusations of racism as you did above, and not so veiled outright accusations of racism.

Pointing out the statistics isn't racism. But using them as justification for discrimination is. That's what you're doing. You're saying police have good reasons for discriminating against young male blacks.

Oldskeptic wrote:Citing university funded and sanctioned accepted peer reviewed research by respected professionals in the field of social economics (Ronald Fryer) and criminal justice psychology (Lois James) showing no implicit or explicit racism in police shooting is not victim blaming.

That's not what they show at all. The numbers simply don't bear out such a conclusion, sorry. No, you do not establish that there is no racially motivated police shootings just because blacks are less likely to get shot out of all the times they have guns drawn on them. For the reasons already explained. Particularly when you then go on to cite homicide statistics as if they justify the disproportionate number of blacks killed by police.

There's a obvious ambivalence at the heart of what you're trying to say. On the one hand you want to show there's no racism in police treatment of blacks, yet at the same time you also refer to crime statistics as justification for how many black people have guns drawn on them and are shot by police.

Neither is citing the Washington Post data base that shows that "unarmed" doesn't mean what a lot of people make it seem, or the FBI data base that shows that of the almost 12,000 murders in the US in 2015 6095 of those murders were of black people and over 90 percent of them by other black people.

You may not like the numbers, and would rather go with willful ignorance and personal credulity and incredulity as Rumraket does, but snarky insinuations of racist victim blaming are uncalled for.

It is amazing you can't see the irony in you mentioning the homicide statistics by race as an explanation for why blacks are disproportionally shot by police, yet simultaneously declare there's "no implicit or explicit racism in police shooting".

BWE wrote:Is that a rebuttal?

Oldskeptic wrote:

Logical sense, common sense, stands to reason, or any other related phrase you use doesn't always tell the whole story. It's just common sense to say that 13% of the population shouldn't be shot by police 26% of the time. Right? Well yeah but it's also common sense to say that a population that commits 50% of the violent crime ought to make up 50% of the police shootings.

So, which number is right? Which common sense do you choose to go with? Put them together and they begin to makes sense. (990 X .13) X (12000 / 6000) = 257.4, 990 being the number of people killed by police in 2015, .13 being the estimated percentage of black people in the population, 12,000 being the apx number of murders, and 6000 being the apx number of murders committed by black people, usually young black men. The number of black people killed by police given by the Washington Post data base is 258, the number calculated by using population statistics along with crime statistics is ~257.

People that are intent on insisting that shooting of blacks is racially motivated will stick with the twice as likely number drawn from raw population data. Actual racists will want to ignore that and go with the blacks commit 50% of violent crimes number. Someone more interested in the truth of the matter will combine the numbers as I have done.

The New York Times wrote:

A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

The Marshal Project wrote:

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. It is worth looking at the specific cases included in the Post’s unarmed victim classification in some detail, since that category is the most politically explosive. The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.

The Washington State University News wrote:

SPOKANE, Wash. – Participants in an innovative Washington State University study of deadly force were more likely to feel threatened in scenarios involving black people. But when it came time to shoot, participants were biased in favor of black suspects, taking longer to pull the trigger against them than against armed white or Hispanic suspects.

BWE wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

BWE wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Ah yes, the straw man argument. Well done sir. Well done.

Explain how that is a straw man?

Did WayOfTheDodo say that blacks "deserve it"? Did I? No.

Did you attack WayOfTheDodo and by extension me because I was the one that brought up the higher violent crime rates among black people as if either one of us had said that blacks "deserve it"? Yes.

Straw man argument.

Because you didn't use the exact phrase it is a strawman?

I think it would also require the exact phrase to misrepresent the words you used. But whatever.

Oldskeptic wrote:

BWE wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

BWE wrote:

Explain how that is a straw man?

Did WayOfTheDodo say that blacks "deserve it"? Did I? No.

Did you attack WayOfTheDodo and by extension me because I was the one that brought up the higher violent crime rates among black people as if either one of us had said that blacks "deserve it"? Yes.

Straw man argument.

Because you didn't use the exact phrase it is a strawman?

No, because no one here even hinted at anyone deserving "it".

I think it would also require the exact phrase to misrepresent the words you used. But whatever.

There are no exact words to misrepresent because no one said anything remotely like blacks or anyone else deserve "it". You don't have to misrepresent exact words to attack an argument that hasn't been made, and that is what you did.

Well, blacks are also disproportionately involved in crime, particularly violent crime. Is it really a surprise that they get guns pulled on them more frequently?

Teague wrote:

johnbrandt wrote:702 people killed by police in the USA this year...
Only 163 of them black males.

Remind me again why it's only "#BlackLivesMatter" and that only one group wigs out and riots like animals in the streets...?

What's the percentage of black people in the US?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=percentage+of+blac ... +in+the+US

BWE wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

BWE wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Did WayOfTheDodo say that blacks "deserve it"? Did I? No.

Did you attack WayOfTheDodo and by extension me because I was the one that brought up the higher violent crime rates among black people as if either one of us had said that blacks "deserve it"? Yes.

Straw man argument.

Because you didn't use the exact phrase it is a strawman?

No, because no one here even hinted at anyone deserving "it".

I think it would also require the exact phrase to misrepresent the words you used. But whatever.

There are no exact words to misrepresent because no one said anything remotely like blacks or anyone else deserve "it". You don't have to misrepresent exact words to attack an argument that hasn't been made, and that is what you did.

first of all, I don't know that your argument is racist and didn't say anything about that one way or the other. But the quote which I labeled "the they deserve it argument" was as follows:

Well, blacks are also disproportionately involved in crime, particularly violent crime. Is it really a surprise that they get guns pulled on them more frequently?

If that isn't equivalent to 'they deserve it' then we are using language very differently.

Oldskeptic wrote:

BWE wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

BWE wrote:
Because you didn't use the exact phrase it is a strawman?

No, because no one here even hinted at anyone deserving "it".

I think it would also require the exact phrase to misrepresent the words you used. But whatever.

There are no exact words to misrepresent because no one said anything remotely like blacks or anyone else deserve "it". You don't have to misrepresent exact words to attack an argument that hasn't been made, and that is what you did.

first of all, I don't know that your argument is racist and didn't say anything about that one way or the other. But the quote which I labeled "the they deserve it argument" was as follows:

Well, blacks are also disproportionately involved in crime, particularly violent crime. Is it really a surprise that they get guns pulled on them more frequently?

If that isn't equivalent to 'they deserve it' then we are using language very differently.

I don't see how you come up with that. Disproportionate in this case means not expected when compared to percentage of population. But as it turns out two things are disproportionate in the same direction blacks, mostly men between the ages of 17 and 44, are shot at twice the rate as would be expected if all things were equal ~26%, but all things are not equal. Blacks, mostly men between the ages of 17 and 44 commit between 40% and 50% of the violent crimes in the US. Pointing those two statistics out together is not victim blaming as saying that they deserve it would imply.

It's a fact and some people just need to get over it. In 20015 all things being equal the death by cop figure for blacks would have been expected to be ~129, (990 X .13) but all things weren't equal and the figure was 258. Twice the expected number according to the Washington Post database.

If you go at it from another point all things being equal the expected number of violent crimes committed by black people would be ~13% of the total number of violent crimes, but again all things are not equal and the number of violent crimes committed by black people is 40% - 50% of all violent crimes.

Focusing on one statistic while ignoring the other, after it has been brought to attention, is dishonest.

Coining of the phrase; racism Edit

William Ryan coined the phrase "blaming the victim" in his 1971 book Blaming the Victim.[4][5][6][7][8] In the book, Ryan described victim blaming as an ideology used to justify racism and social injustice against black people in the United States.[7] Ryan wrote the book to refute Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 work The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (usually simply referred to as the Moynihan Report).[9]

Moynihan had concluded that three centuries of brutilization at the hands of whites, and in particular the uniquely cruel structure of American slavery as opposed to its Latin American counterparts, had created a long series of chaotic disruptions within the black family structure which, at the time of the report, manifested itself in high rates of unwed births, absent fathers, and single mother households in black families. Moynihan then correlated these familial outcomes, which he considered undesirable, to the relatively poorer rates of employment, educational achievement, and financial success found among the black population. Moynihan advocated the implementation of government programs designed to strengthen the black nuclear family.[citation needed]

Ryan objected that Moynihan then located the proximate cause of the plight of black Americans in the prevalence of a family structure in which the father was often sporadically, if at all, present, and the mother was often dependent on government aid to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for her children. Ryan's critique cast the Moynihan theories as attempts to divert responsibility for poverty from social structural factors to the behavioral and cultural patterns of the poor.[10][11]

laklak wrote:OK, so he has a name, and he's an "ex" officer. What part of "over 300 million people with approximately 18,000 separate police agencies" does that change? How does it make his comments any more applicable to those 18,000 separate agencies? It would not be hard, I'm sure, to find a Utube video of any number of people saying something completely opposite. Like I said, knee-jerk and agenda-driven.

Oldskeptic wrote:I wonder what you won't do, what lengths you won't got to, what twisting of the words of others you won't employ, what pretzel logic you won't use in order to keep your own personal brand of bias intact? Credulity and incredulity is a bad mix when that's all you have.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:the only interesting "other" statistic would be (black) people actually shooting at cops. (or threatening their lives by orher means)

Rumraket wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:I wonder what you won't do, what lengths you won't got to, what twisting of the words of others you won't employ, what pretzel logic you won't use in order to keep your own personal brand of bias intact? Credulity and incredulity is a bad mix when that's all you have.

Yes yes bla bla... I will say one thing with regards to the case you've made so far, I don't really think you're racist, however little you thinks that's worth coming from me.

Rumraket wrote:And I do think the matter is complicated. It does bring up a difficult issue, this whole thing with how statistics influence interactions between police and the black community.

Rumraket wrote:Is it even possible, or is it realistic to expect of police officers, which are just as human as the rest of us, that they totally ignore their knowledge of statistics and their own experiences and approach any and all situations with a "blank slate"? It's basic human nature to learn from and act on your experiences. I some times wonder if this problem is solvable once it has begun due to the nature of the viscious cycle it invariably leads to.

BWE wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

BWE wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
Well, blacks are also disproportionately involved in crime, particularly violent crime. Is it really a surprise that they get guns pulled on them more frequently? And if we agree that what you are saying is true, the police are in fact showing even more restraint than Oldskeptic credits them with.

Ah yes, the 'they deserve it' argument. Well done sir. Well done.

Ah yes, the straw man argument. Well done sir. Well done.

Explain how that is a straw man?

Rumraket wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:What it shows is that blacks are so disproportionately stopped and pulled guns on, that out of that colossal number of times it happens, relatively few of them require the trigger to be pulled. As in police pretty much pull guns on blacks routinely, but consistently discover they don't have to actually kill them.

Well, blacks are also disproportionately involved in crime, particularly violent crime. Is it really a surprise that they get guns pulled on them more frequently?

No, the issue isn't that it is surprising. The issue is that it is racist and unnecessary. After all, not ALL backs are criminals. Right? So why would you pull guns on them so much?

Some black people commit lots of crime, therefore we should approach most black people as if they are highly likely to be violent criminals? That's the definition of racism and discrimination. It is to deliberately treat another person differently just because of how they look.

Try to put yourself at the recieving end of that for a moment, day in and day out for 30 years of your life. "I had to pull you over and pull a gun on you because statistics show blacks are overrepresented in crime statistics."

WayOfTheDodo wrote:And if we agree that what you are saying is true, the police are in fact showing even more restraint than Oldskeptic credits them with.

No, that's not retraint. Not pulling a gun on them would be to show restraint.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again, this is a shifting of your initial argument in which you claimed people were a threat because they would not follow orders.

Anyone can decide to stop following orders at any given time, even after they've initially complied.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
What about crime rate? Aren't african americans overrepresented when it comes to crime, and at a higher rate than 23%? So are they being killed because of racist cops or because they are involved in more crime, including violent crime, than the rest of the population?

The same stupendous feat of logic that gave birth to gay bowel syndrome.

So what you are saying is that police officers aren't more likely to pull their weapons when dealing with violent crime?

Care to point where in my quoted post there's a statement that comes anywhere near this asinine straw-man that completely fails to adress the actual point I made?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again, this is a shifting of your initial argument in which you claimed people were a threat because they would not follow orders.

This is just retarded.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Your argument assumes there are only two threat levels, not a sliding scale.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Anyone can decide to stop following orders at any given time, even after they've initially complied.

At which point they become more of a threat.