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? Particularly when it turns out it was completely unnecessary in most cases.

Yes, racism is a typical form of human behavior unfortunately. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight and seek to curtail it where we can. There's a presumption of guilt there for no other reason than belonging to an ethnic group that is overrepresented in crime statistics. But surely it goes without saying that a person is not his race or ethnicity? We should all be treated equally and afforded the same rights and presumption of innocense until proven guilty in a cout of law. But we are not. Black people are suspected of being violent criminals even when they are not.

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."

Obviously the cop can't say that, so you're fed some bullshit line about failing to blink when turning. How many times have we heard stories like these? You're annoyed by that because you're convinced you did blink so you say you did actually blink. Now he wants to give you a ticket. But you didn't do anything. Cop-dude is now annoyed because you're disrespecting his authority, he thinks he "smells marijuana in your car". Maybe he even does? Pulls gun, points it at you and orders you to get out of the car.

You'd get pretty tired of it eventually. At some point it will start to frustrate you to no end. Maybe one day you just had enough and you can't follow orders and say "yes sir", in exhasperation you just want to get back in your car and leave and not have to deal with another racist cop who's convinced you're a gangster thug. Bang, you're dead. You didn't follow orders, you probably had something to hide, you probably were a young, angry black male. A thug, or drug dealer.

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. Rather what it shows is that cops assume something about a suspect which they invariably discover was unwarranted in the vast majority of cases.

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.

I haven't seen anyone here say that blacks deserve it. Whatever the "it" is that you mean by "deserve it". 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.

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. 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.

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?

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.

Oldskeptic 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.

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".

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Teague wrote:
Yes, it's appauling that it seems to be routine now that deadly force is just acceptable. Had it not been for mobile phones recording all of this, would it be reasonable to say this behaviour would be even more rampant because we know for a fact the police themselves would cover it up.

I sort of agree (about the number of police shootings being appalling), but no, it would not be reasonable to say this behavior would be even more rampant without mobile phones recording stuff. You've established no basis for making that claim. We do not know for a fact that police would cover it up. This is another one of those generalizations I've taken you to task for before. There's nothing reasonable about making so many generalizations, and I wish you would stop.

Except that we have examples of police covering things up so it's a fact. We know for a fact they close ranks too as has been shown historically. What we cannot know is how rampant it was before and we can only speculate on that though it's only through mobile devices we're seeing what a failed police force the US PD system is.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

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.

Correction: factual reality.

WayOfTheDodo wrote: Someone who is complying is obviously less of a threat

You're shifting the goal posts, you initial claim was that someone is a threat, just for not following instructions.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

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.

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.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

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.

Yes, it is.
Simply not raising your arms when asked to is not at all similar to deliberately moving to grab something from your car. Or your pocket for that matter.

WayOfTheDodo wrote: 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.

I don't have to as you're now conflating not complying, with deliberately doing something else.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

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?

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?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

The_Piper wrote:The guy is acting odd ignoring her questions and putting his hands in his pockets, and from there, all the way to now he has to get on his knees at gunpoint? Because he might be on drugs? That doesn't sound right.

Her behavior definitely gets sketchy prior to the shooting. I'm glad charges are being filed, and I hope it will help dispel the view that police are allowed to kill unarmed citizens with impunity.

Yes of course ONE charge of manslaughter logically dispels everything. I do wish you go tell that to a black community.

Acetone wrote:No body cams or mics? No sound from the vehicle mic? I swear in videos you can hear the cops yelling orders from a mile away in the cop car videos. You can DEFINITELY hear gun shots.

The Police don't cover things up so they must have all been broken that day....

laklak wrote:At least they charged her, now it's up to the courts to sort it out. This is as it should be.

Surely the way "it should be" is not to murder them in the first place and fix the training perhaps?

If you shot someone with their hands in their pockets I'm sure you'd be treated exactly like a police officer would over it.

Had this been a blond white woman in beverly hills, do you think this would have even come close to a shooting even if she was high on pcp?

Fix the training.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:just make the units you want talk about to small enough so that it's not a systematic problem, right?

Yeah, I know: not what you said, but a good strategy to burry the debate.

707 shot dead by police this year, 990 last year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ?tid=a_inl

That's only what gets reported and afaik, not all police authorities report on everything because they're not required to?

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

Teague wrote:
Yes of course ONE charge of manslaughter logically dispels everything. I do wish you go tell that to a black community.

Given that I didn't say that, I don't see that you've really made a point. I would be concerned about what your misrepresentation does to others' perception of me on this forum, but you've made an ass of yourself often enough that I'm confident nobody outside your little echo chamber will care about it.

The "inherent racism" thingy comes into play long before the shooting starts, at the point where police stop the alleged perps. Why are blacks arrested at a rate so far out of proportion to their population percentage? Is it because they're committing more crimes, is it because all cops are racists, or is it a combination of circumstances not amenable to knee-jerk, agenda driven explanations?

Color me skeptical, but I think the third alternative holds more water than the first two.

laklak wrote:The "inherent racism" thingy comes into play long before the shooting starts, at the point where police stop the alleged perps. Why are blacks arrested at a rate so far out of proportion to their population percentage? Is it because they're committing more crimes, is it because all cops are racists, or is it a combination of circumstances not amenable to knee-jerk, agenda driven explanations?

Color me skeptical, but I think the third alternative holds more water than the first two.

Because they go into black neighbourhoods to fill their quota according to a baltimore police officer.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Teague wrote:
Yes of course ONE charge of manslaughter logically dispels everything. I do wish you go tell that to a black community.

Given that I didn't say that, I don't see that you've really made a point. I would be concerned about what your misrepresentation does to others' perception of me on this forum, but you've made an ass of yourself often enough that I'm confident nobody outside your little echo chamber will care about it.

Then explain how one cop being charged is going to dispel the view that they can kill with impunity. She hasn't been tried yet so we've yet to see though I don't see how one example is going to help when it seems like 5 other ones crop up that don't.

Also, I'm not quite sure why you want to dispel the view they get away with it. Let's bring the viewpoint front and center and have the DOJ step in and do something about it. Let's review every single case of murder here and bring the perps to justice.

Teague wrote:
Because they go into black neighbourhoods to fill their quota according to a baltimore police officer.

Case in point .

The unsourced comments of an unidentified police officer in a single jurisdiction is taken as indicative of the attitude of law enforcement in a country of over 300 million people with approximately 18,000 separate police agencies.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jul/10/charles-ramsey/how-many-police-departments-are-us/

There you go.

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.

Teague wrote:
Then explain how one cop being charged is going to dispel the view that they can kill with impunity. She hasn't been tried yet so we've yet to see though I don't see how one example is going to help when it seems like 5 other ones crop up that don't.

Why should I defend a claim I didn't make?