Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Shrunk wrote:The cop says he was walking away from her and not following instructions. The video is consistent with that.

What is your point exactly?

When he doesn't comply, he poses a threat. Big enough of a threat to warrant deadly force? Dunno. Was he reaching for something inside his car when he was shot?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Shrunk wrote:The cop says he was walking away from her and not following instructions. The video is consistent with that.

What is your point exactly?

When he doesn't comply, he poses a threat.

How do you figure?

WayOfTheDodo wrote: Big enough of a threat to warrant deadly force? Dunno. Was he reaching for something inside his car when he was shot?

The last sentence moves away from the more general 'not following instructions' to a more specific situation.
I fail to see how no following instructions in and of itself constitutes a thread, much less a response with lethal force.

aban57 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

aban57 wrote:You've all been saying that the guy was reaching for something in his car. But after seeing both videos, it feels like he's been told to put his hands on the car, and he does just that. Then he freezes, most likely he's been tazed, and he's shot. But even though he was reaching for something, killing man who is stunned after beeing tazed is just murder.

I don't see how you can tell he's been told to walk back to the car and put his hand on the car. Why would the officers tell him to that?

It's the only scenario that make a little sense to the situation. The guy going back to his car, hands up, and then seemingly putting his hands on the car. Maybe they wanted to restrain him, then search the car, I don't know. But this wouldn't explain why they shot him.
It's all assumptions since the whole thing doesn't make any sense. Why so many cop cars, and the helicopter, just for a car in the middle of the road ?

It doesn't make sense for the police to tell him to go back to his car. The car is "unknown territory". They will want to remove him from his car, which is his domain, and bring him somewhere they are in control.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Shrunk wrote:She says she thought he had a gun in the car. If she had reason to believe that, she was fully justified in shooting him before he could pull it out. So this comes down to whether that belief was justified, and on what she based that opinion. Personally, I would like that information before I start marching in the street in protest.

Why would she believe that? There are any number of things that COULD be in a car. But in most cases those things aren't in the car. This is the sort of assumption that gets people needlessly killed. Non-lethal force can be used to stop someone getting into their car. Or she could have waited to see if he came out with a gun. The latter option does involve more risk to the officer, but it isn't unreasonable to ask people to face some risk in order to avoid needless deaths. It's not as if the officer still wouldn't be at the advantage if she had her weapon ready when the person had finished retrieving whatever they had in the car.

Take a look at this scenario (from 1 min 18 sec in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g#t=1m18s

You are right, you have no idea if the person actually has a weapon or not. But when he's not complying he becomes a threat. If he then starts reaching for something, he becomes a potentially lethal threat. I don't think a police officer should be required to wait until the guy has managed to shoot before reacting.

Action beats reaction.

I don't know what the guy was doing in this particular situation, so I don't know if deadly force was justified. But if he was actually trying to reach for something in his car he was a lethal threat.

It also bothers me that police perception of safety may be tracking along with everyone else's, but it's wrong along with everyone else's. The number of police officers dying as a result of crime has dropped along with the number of civilians dying as a result of crime. The police have no rational reason to expect that they're in any more danger, on average, than they were in the past. So we have a growing number of police who feel unsafe and respond more often with deadly force when there is strong statistical evidence that the need for deadly force has, if anything, declined since the 1970s.

What if the decline in officer deaths is a result of training officers to put safety first? A change in the way officers approach situations can have a massive impact on the outcome. I don't know if such changes have taken place, though.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Shrunk wrote:The cop says he was walking away from her and not following instructions. The video is consistent with that.

What is your point exactly?

When he doesn't comply, he poses a threat.

How do you figure?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Big enough of a threat to warrant deadly force? Dunno. Was he reaching for something inside his car when he was shot?

The last sentence moves away from the more general 'not following instructions' to a more specific situation.
I fail to see how no following instructions in and of itself constitutes a thread, much less a response with lethal force.

Not complying makes someone a threat because the police officer isn't in control of the situation. The situation is unknown, and the person could potentially do something dangerous. However, at this point he is probably not a deadly threat.

He does become a deadly threat if he does something specific, such as reaching inside a car. At that point he has the potential to kill in a worst case scenario.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Comparing black people to animals. No racism there!

Black men make up about 6.5% of the American population yet 23% of people killed by police in the US this year have been black men.

That should worry anyone.

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?

Macdoc wrote:

For fuck sake a 6'4" 300lb black 18 year-old thug gets shot by a police officer while charging at the police officer in Ferguson Missouri in 2014 and people are still talking about it and remember his name

Well your true despicable colours finally bloom ....

Ferguson was unarmed, running away and shot in the back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

"Brown was unarmed and moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired."

?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:And your own statistics show that police target black people disproportionately.

They do? Didn't he write the following?

"This article from the Marshal Project would be a good place to start. That and this study done by Ronald Fryer. In at least two studies now, using empirical data and experiment rather than pure population statistics, it has been shown that police are less likely to pull the trigger on a black or Hispanic person even when armed."

Care to respond to that?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:And your own statistics show that police target black people disproportionately.

They do? Didn't he write the following?

"This article from the Marshal Project would be a good place to start. That and this study done by Ronald Fryer. In at least two studies now, using empirical data and experiment rather than pure population statistics, it has been shown that police are less likely to pull the trigger on a black or Hispanic person even when armed."

Care to respond to that?

Yes, I responded to that in another thread.

Rumraket wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:The logical next step is to verify the extrapolation of being stopped more, searched more, pushed around more, having a gun drawn on blacks more to being shot or shot at more. And when studies and experiments like Fryer's and James' have been done to verify the extrapolation and find the actual rate of discrimination the common sense conclusion was found not to be valid.

Ooohh, I get what you're saying now. What you mean is that, as a fraction of how often blacks are stopped, searched, harrassed and have a gun drawn on them, fewer of those incidents results in the trigger being pulled. How comforting.
That's basically saying that despite all that harrassment, police find that most of those incidents don't merit killing a black guy. That police, out looking for assumed dangerous blacks, find one, pull a gun on him(because, he is after all black), yet discover it's unnecessary to kill him. It's almost like black people are used to having police pull guns on them and have learned to remain calm and follow orders.

Nevertheless, as a proportion of the population, they are still much much more likely to get fatally shot by police.

"In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race)."

732 whites killed.
381 blacks killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity
White American 223,553,265 72.4 %
Black American 38,929,319 12.6 %

Conclusion: Blacks are FAR more likely to get shot than whites.

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. I already explained this to Oldskeptic before, he left the thread. Now he's back pushing that same dishonest shit.

Think about it, what he's showing wouldn't make logical sense otherwise. How in the hell else would a minority that constitutes 12% of the population end up dying at 50% the rate of one that constitutes 72% of the population, while still being less likely to be shot out of all the times they're pulled guns on? The only way to solve this logically is if they're pulled guns on pretty much routinely. Which they are for easy to understand reasons that is just another sad example of human nature.

There's a stereotype about young violent black men in the country. "Black culture". Everyone knows this stereotype. Including the police. So why would they end up killing blacks less out of all the times guns are pulled on them? It can't be because they somehow sympathize with them, because we already know they systematically target blacks and black neighborhoods for patrols, stops, seaches and random arrestations etc.

The statistics show the black community is consistently overrepresented in crime. Police knows this, they target them for patrols, stops, searches and arrests for that reason. It sort of makes sense from their perspective. After all, they have so many statistics to go by. And they keep going to these neighborhoods and eventually find something.

They see a young black person, they suspect he's probabably in a gang, or carrying drugs. Whatever. Pull a gun on him, strip search him. Find he's just a random dude didn't do anything wrong. Didn't have to kill him. Over and over and over again. That's why they end up being shot less out of all the times they're pulled guns on, because they're pulled guns on all the time. That's it.

No, Oldskeptic's studies aren't evidence that there is no systematic bias against blacks. The other way around. Oldskeptic in actual fact is bringing evidence blacks are systematically suspected of being violent criminals and that that suspicion is unwarranted. That the suspicion is systematically wrong, because once the gun is pulled which is way way more, the cops find out they're not dealing with a sociopathic violent gangmember, so they don't have to actually pull the trigger.

Rumraket wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:And your own statistics show that police target black people disproportionately.

They do? Didn't he write the following?

"This article from the Marshal Project would be a good place to start. That and this study done by Ronald Fryer. In at least two studies now, using empirical data and experiment rather than pure population statistics, it has been shown that police are less likely to pull the trigger on a black or Hispanic person even when armed."

Care to respond to that?

Yes, I responded to that in another thread.

Rumraket wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:The logical next step is to verify the extrapolation of being stopped more, searched more, pushed around more, having a gun drawn on blacks more to being shot or shot at more. And when studies and experiments like Fryer's and James' have been done to verify the extrapolation and find the actual rate of discrimination the common sense conclusion was found not to be valid.

Ooohh, I get what you're saying now. What you mean is that, as a fraction of how often blacks are stopped, searched, harrassed and have a gun drawn on them, fewer of those incidents results in the trigger being pulled. How comforting.
That's basically saying that despite all that harrassment, police find that most of those incidents don't merit killing a black guy. That police, out looking for assumed dangerous blacks, find one, pull a gun on him(because, he is after all black), yet discover it's unnecessary to kill him. It's almost like black people are used to having police pull guns on them and have learned to remain calm and follow orders.

Nevertheless, as a proportion of the population, they are still much much more likely to get fatally shot by police.

"In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race)."

732 whites killed.
381 blacks killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity
White American 223,553,265 72.4 %
Black American 38,929,319 12.6 %

Conclusion: Blacks are FAR more likely to get shot than whites.

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. I already explained this to Oldskeptic before, he left the thread. Now he's back pushing that same dishonest shit.

Think about it, what he's showing wouldn't make logical sense otherwise. How in the hell else would a minority that constitutes 12% of the population end up dying at 50% the rate of one that constitutes 72% of the population, while still being less likely to be shot out of all the times they're pulled guns on?

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.

Rumraket wrote: The only way to solve this logically is if they're pulled guns on pretty much routinely. Which they are for easy to understand reasons that is just another sad example of human nature.

If you want to call a black coefficient of 1.206 plus or minus .043 compared to the remainder of the population at 1.0 routine or colossal compared to other groups then I guess. Proposing that blacks are so used to having a gun pointed at them by police that "It's almost like black people are used to having police pull guns on them and have learned to remain calm and follow orders." is laughable. Especially when you're trying to refute the findings of a massive research project done by a well respected black Harvard professor of social economics. Putting up your simple incredulity against the most recent findings of multiple studies and actual experiments is more than laughable, it's absurd.

Rumraket wrote:There's a stereotype about young violent black men in the country. "Black culture". Everyone knows this stereotype. Including the police. So why would they end up killing blacks less out of all the times guns are pulled on them? It can't be because they somehow sympathize with them, because we already know they systematically target blacks and black neighborhoods for patrols, stops, seaches and random arrestations etc.

The statistics show the black community is consistently overrepresented in crime. Police knows this, they target them for patrols, stops, searches and arrests for that reason. It sort of makes sense from their perspective. After all, they have so many statistics to go by. And they keep going to these neighborhoods and eventually find something.

Disproportionately yes, going by population statistics, but using crime statistics, over represented? No. 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?

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.

Rumraket wrote:Whatever. Pull a gun on him, strip search him. Find he's just a random dude didn't do anything wrong. Didn't have to kill him. Over and over and over again. That's why they end up being shot less out of all the times they're pulled guns on, because they're pulled guns on all the time. That's it.

All the time? Really? Do you ever engage in anything other than hyperbole and both credulity and incredulity depending on whether you're promoting or rejecting a proposition? You're so ready and willing to believe anything that supports your preconceptions and disbelieve anything that undermines your preconceptions that it is obvious your bias overrules anything contrary to what you want to be true.

Rumraket wrote:No, Oldskeptic's studies aren't evidence that there is no systematic bias against blacks.

They're not my studies. I haven't done a study but at least I have some studies to cite rather than just saying that it's common sense or I can't believe this or that.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
Not complying makes someone a threat because the police officer isn't in control of the situation. The situation is unknown, and the person could potentially do something dangerous. However, at this point he is probably not a deadly threat.

This is a load of baloney. If they're considering anyone not under their control to be a threat, then that's something which needs to change immediately. They aren't SUPPOSED to be in control, in most jurisdictions, except in very specific situations. The rights of citizens do not evaporate whenever a police officer rounds the corner.

Edit: Found a glaring logical error in my response. Disregard everything.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
What is your point exactly?

When he doesn't comply, he poses a threat.

How do you figure?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Big enough of a threat to warrant deadly force? Dunno. Was he reaching for something inside his car when he was shot?

The last sentence moves away from the more general 'not following instructions' to a more specific situation.
I fail to see how no following instructions in and of itself constitutes a thread, much less a response with lethal force.

Not complying makes someone a threat because the police officer isn't in control of the situation.

Nonsense, unless someone's cuffed and in a locked car, an officer is never in control of the situation.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:The situation is unknown, and the person could potentially do something dangerous.

They could anyhow, even if they're lying on the floor with their hands over their heads.

WayOfTheDodo wrote: However, at this point he is probably not a deadly threat.
He does become a deadly threat if he does something specific, such as reaching inside a car. At that point he has the potential to kill in a worst case scenario.

There's a big difference between reaching for something and not complying with the demands made by the officer.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Comparing black people to animals. No racism there!

Black men make up about 6.5% of the American population yet 23% of people killed by police in the US this year have been black men.

That should worry anyone.

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.

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? 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.

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? 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.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Not complying makes someone a threat because the police officer isn't in control of the situation.

Nonsense, unless someone's cuffed and in a locked car, an officer is never in control of the situation.

False dichotomy. Someone who is complying is obviously less of a threat than someone who isn't because the police will order the person to do things that enable them to more easily judge the situation, such as showing his hands.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:The situation is unknown, and the person could potentially do something dangerous.

They could anyhow, even if they're lying on the floor with their hands over their heads.

However, someone who complies and gets on the floor with their hands over their heads is far less of a threat than someone who refuses to comply.

WayOfTheDodo wrote: However, at this point he is probably not a deadly threat.
He does become a deadly threat if he does something specific, such as reaching inside a car. At that point he has the potential to kill in a worst case scenario.

There's a big difference between reaching for something and not complying with the demands made by the officer.

Not necessarily. Not complying by moving towards a dangerous area could mean that there's something there which could be a direct and deadly threat. See the video I posted earlier.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Comparing black people to animals. No racism there!

Black men make up about 6.5% of the American population yet 23% of people killed by police in the US this year have been black men.

That should worry anyone.

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?

BWE 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? 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.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

BWE 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? 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?