It's very similar to the violence against women movements. From my perspective, it's violence in general that is the problem.
Don't get me wrong... I'm definitely supportive of women and their varying struggles throughout the planet. I'm just saying a victim is a victim regardless of race or gender- they all deserve support.., and any violence is deplorable.
I have a son and a daughter. I'd feel the same if either were hurt at the hands of some loser.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
Good stuff, Thirty. Your last couple of posts are reasonable, rational and take reality into consideration. It is a tough, emotionally charged issue and it is nice to get past the knee jerk one liners.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
While this is true, it has a huge drawback. Adopting this attitude distracts from the real issues we have with policing in America and essentially absolves them of the responsibility to always continue to improve procedures and practices. On top of that there is the fact that solving the policing issues is a MUCH less complicated problem than solving the societal disadvantages of people living in poverty and geographic zones that are lagging in every way. You are talking about ignoring the simple partial solution to go all in on a complete solution that hasn't come to fruition despite decades of brilliant, dedicated people working to fix the problem of poverty.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
It seems the big divide is some think police abuse/bias is the cause of the lopsided data and explains why there's more arrest, shootings and longer sentencing for blacks. Others think that higher crime does exist among blacks, which would explain the larger amount of arrests, shootings and longer sentencing. I look at it and think the most likely explanation is that more blacks live in poorer neighborhoods, less income, more broken homes which all contribute to higher crime. Higher crime means you get arrested more. Getting arrested more means more police encounters. More police encounters means more shootings and higher sentencing. That seems the most plausible to me.
The other explanation would mean that the majority of the 600,000 cops are inherently racist and in on it together. Doesn't seem as practical to me. Sure its possible this line of work attracts more people with a power trip, or that this line of work can change ones thinking. Still doesn't seem as plausible as the first possibility though.
It seems the big divide is some think police abuse/bias is the cause of the lopsided data and explains why there's more arrest, shootings and longer sentencing for blacks. Others think that higher crime does exist among blacks, which would explain the larger amount of arrests, shootings and longer sentencing. I look at it and think the most likely explanation is that more blacks live in poorer neighborhoods, less income, more broken homes which all contribute to higher crime. Higher crime means you get arrested more. Getting arrested more means more police encounters. More police encounters means more shootings and higher sentencing. That seems the most plausible to me.
The other explanation would mean that the majority of the 600,000 cops are inherently racist and in on it together. Doesn't seem as practical to me. Sure its possible this line of work attracts more people with a power trip, or that this line of work can change ones thinking. Still doesn't seem as plausible as the first possibility though.
There are definitely some cops that are racist. There are doctors, lawyers, plumbers, and teachers who are racist as well.
There are most assuredly incidents where racism has led to an unjustified shooting, but racism is not the root of the bigger problem which everyone laments. The problem is much more profound than that and this is what needs to be acknowledged, but more often than not is ignored.
RG... I read your post. It would be nice, but it's a little unfair to suggest police handle the problem and to take more chances with uncooperative suspects until society finally gets its shit together.
I'm curious why the push isn't for an appeal to have people be more cooperative than to have cops be more patient as people are being uncooperative? Doesn't this seem easier? "Hey folks. Listen up. It's not a good idea to disobey basic police commands."
It's possible the BLM movement has done more harm than good: cops are more disrespected than ever and attitudes brewing within people are inevitably going to lead to more conflict and more decisions made under pressure.
It seems the big divide is some think police abuse/bias is the cause of the lopsided data and explains why there's more arrest, shootings and longer sentencing for blacks. Others think that higher crime does exist among blacks, which would explain the larger amount of arrests, shootings and longer sentencing. I look at it and think the most likely explanation is that more blacks live in poorer neighborhoods, less income, more broken homes which all contribute to higher crime. Higher crime means you get arrested more. Getting arrested more means more police encounters. More police encounters means more shootings and higher sentencing. That seems the most plausible to me.
The other explanation would mean that the majority of the 600,000 cops are inherently racist and in on it together. Doesn't seem as practical to me. Sure its possible this line of work attracts more people with a power trip, or that this line of work can change ones thinking. Still doesn't seem as plausible as the first possibility though.
There are definitely some cops that are racist. There are doctors, lawyers, plumbers, and teachers who are racist as well.
There are most assuredly incidents where racism has led to an unjustified shooting, but racism is not the root of the bigger problem which everyone laments. The problem is much more profound than that and this is what needs to be acknowledged, but more often than not is ignored.
RG... I read your post. It would be nice, but it's a little unfair to suggest police handle the problem and to take more chances with uncooperative suspects until society finally gets its shit together.
I'm curious why the push isn't for an appeal to have people be more cooperative than to have cops be more patient as people are being uncooperative? Doesn't this seem easier? "Hey folks. Listen up. It's not a good idea to disobey basic police commands."
It's possible the BLM movement has done more harm than good: cops are more disrespected than ever and attitudes brewing within people are inevitably going to lead to more conflict and more decisions made under pressure.
I think that is absolutely the case. I do find it interesting that the posters here who are most comfortable with big government and regulation are the same posters who are most quick to rush to judgement against cops and most likely to throw around racism as the only factor we need to consider. Cops are just an extension of that big, overarching government many are so fond of. It is hard to have any discussion about the issue of police abuse, if we aren't willing to look at any causes beyond racism (socioeconomic factors, disregard for the law, unwieldy drug laws, self-respect and responsibility, etc...). Constantly playing the race card is a myopic, narrow minded way of viewing the world, but I guess it helps some fit it into a tidy explanation. It is certainly easier than trying to get to the bottom of this complicated topic.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
It seems the big divide is some think police abuse/bias is the cause of the lopsided data and explains why there's more arrest, shootings and longer sentencing for blacks. Others think that higher crime does exist among blacks, which would explain the larger amount of arrests, shootings and longer sentencing. I look at it and think the most likely explanation is that more blacks live in poorer neighborhoods, less income, more broken homes which all contribute to higher crime. Higher crime means you get arrested more. Getting arrested more means more police encounters. More police encounters means more shootings and higher sentencing. That seems the most plausible to me.
The other explanation would mean that the majority of the 600,000 cops are inherently racist and in on it together. Doesn't seem as practical to me. Sure its possible this line of work attracts more people with a power trip, or that this line of work can change ones thinking. Still doesn't seem as plausible as the first possibility though.
There are definitely some cops that are racist. There are doctors, lawyers, plumbers, and teachers who are racist as well.
There are most assuredly incidents where racism has led to an unjustified shooting, but racism is not the root of the bigger problem which everyone laments. The problem is much more profound than that and this is what needs to be acknowledged, but more often than not is ignored.
RG... I read your post. It would be nice, but it's a little unfair to suggest police handle the problem and to take more chances with uncooperative suspects until society finally gets its shit together.
I'm curious why the push isn't for an appeal to have people be more cooperative than to have cops be more patient as people are being uncooperative? Doesn't this seem easier? "Hey folks. Listen up. It's not a good idea to disobey basic police commands."
It's possible the BLM movement has done more harm than good: cops are more disrespected than ever and attitudes brewing within people are inevitably going to lead to more conflict and more decisions made under pressure.
I think that is absolutely the case. I do find it interesting that the posters here who are most comfortable with big government and regulation are the same posters who are most quick to rush to judgement against cops and most likely to throw around racism as the only factor we need to consider. Cops are just an extension of that big, overarching government many are so fond of. It is hard to have any discussion about the issue of police abuse, if we aren't willing to look at any causes beyond racism (socioeconomic factors, disregard for the law, unwieldy drug laws, self-respect and responsibility, etc...). Constantly playing the race card is a myopic, narrow minded way of viewing the world, but I guess it helps some fit it into a tidy explanation. It is certainly easier than trying to get to the bottom of this complicated topic.
That's interesting because what I see are the people who go on and on about needing less government and saying the government can't do anything right, are often the first to bend over backward to make excuses for cops, support heavy handed enforcement, and be willing to give up rights such as probable cause. An overriding theme is that whites tend to have the experience that cops can be trusted and are here to protect. This bleeds into the discussion, but isn't made conscience very often. This is then applied to minorities in the "if you would just comply, everything would be just fine" type comments.
The broad topic itself is complicated, but I'm not being myopic. Police departments are government employees that can change their behavior. Trying to back out and look at the larger presence of racism in society is fine, but it shouldn't the go to response when a government agency is doing something wrong. Police departments can, and do, change the way they do things. People resisting this change seem to view the change as some sort of threat or that they'd be sacrificing their safety.
It seems the big divide is some think police abuse/bias is the cause of the lopsided data and explains why there's more arrest, shootings and longer sentencing for blacks. Others think that higher crime does exist among blacks, which would explain the larger amount of arrests, shootings and longer sentencing. I look at it and think the most likely explanation is that more blacks live in poorer neighborhoods, less income, more broken homes which all contribute to higher crime. Higher crime means you get arrested more. Getting arrested more means more police encounters. More police encounters means more shootings and higher sentencing. That seems the most plausible to me.
The other explanation would mean that the majority of the 600,000 cops are inherently racist and in on it together. Doesn't seem as practical to me. Sure its possible this line of work attracts more people with a power trip, or that this line of work can change ones thinking. Still doesn't seem as plausible as the first possibility though.
There are definitely some cops that are racist. There are doctors, lawyers, plumbers, and teachers who are racist as well.
There are most assuredly incidents where racism has led to an unjustified shooting, but racism is not the root of the bigger problem which everyone laments. The problem is much more profound than that and this is what needs to be acknowledged, but more often than not is ignored.
RG... I read your post. It would be nice, but it's a little unfair to suggest police handle the problem and to take more chances with uncooperative suspects until society finally gets its shit together.
I'm curious why the push isn't for an appeal to have people be more cooperative than to have cops be more patient as people are being uncooperative? Doesn't this seem easier? "Hey folks. Listen up. It's not a good idea to disobey basic police commands."
It's possible the BLM movement has done more harm than good: cops are more disrespected than ever and attitudes brewing within people are inevitably going to lead to more conflict and more decisions made under pressure.
I think that is absolutely the case. I do find it interesting that the posters here who are most comfortable with big government and regulation are the same posters who are most quick to rush to judgement against cops and most likely to throw around racism as the only factor we need to consider. Cops are just an extension of that big, overarching government many are so fond of. It is hard to have any discussion about the issue of police abuse, if we aren't willing to look at any causes beyond racism (socioeconomic factors, disregard for the law, unwieldy drug laws, self-respect and responsibility, etc...). Constantly playing the race card is a myopic, narrow minded way of viewing the world, but I guess it helps some fit it into a tidy explanation. It is certainly easier than trying to get to the bottom of this complicated topic.
That's interesting because what I see are the people who go on and on about needing less government and saying the government can't do anything right, are often the first to bend over backward to make excuses for cops, support heavy handed enforcement, and be willing to give up rights such as probable cause. An overriding theme is that whites tend to have the experience that cops can be trusted and are here to protect. This bleeds into the discussion, but isn't made conscience very often. This is then applied to minorities in the "if you would just comply, everything would be just fine" type comments.
The broad topic itself is complicated, but I'm not being myopic. Police departments are government employees that can change their behavior. Trying to back out and look at the larger presence of racism in society is fine, but it shouldn't the go to response when a government agency is doing something wrong. Police departments can, and do, change the way they do things. People resisting this change seem to view the change as some sort of threat or that they'd be sacrificing their safety.
I can't help but take away from your post that cops shouldn't be trusted, complying is optional, and there shouldn't be any consequences
That's because people polarize the issue too much. I'm saying trust of police has a lot to do with cultural influence, and whites often don't understand why a black person might not trust the police, or if they acknowledge it, the response has a vibe of "well if those blacks would just behave, everything would be fine".
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
The data I've seen and that's been posted never said "if you are black you are X times more likely to be shot than if you are white." The reason, as thirty pointed out, is there are so many other variables, that data doesn't exist. And when it does exist, it ignores factors of physical assault of other variables that justify the shooting. But justifying the shooting with relevant facts is apparently just making excuses and explaining it away. Yes, there's been data posted that ignores many of the other variables and states how many blacks are arrest, shot and sentenced to prison
I don't know why every time black statistics are brought up, the higher crime rate is ignored and considered "explaining away" the problem. How does higher crime in certain communities not directly affect the arrest rates, and every other data mentioned? How can that be ignored and those who bring it up be accused of trying to explain it away?
I really just cant understand why higher crime = more problems with police and how that is not a valid explanation. I am not saying black people just need to behave or they just need to figure it out. I am saying blaming race instead of acknowledging the real problem won't solve anything. Real problem being many things, socialeconomic differences among the largest. If a community continues t blame race instead of solving the problems in poverty, education, broken homes then those communities will continue to have high crime which leads to high tension with police and the problem will only get worse, never better.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
Sorry. I'm not following you here.
I made a conclusion? And then went in reverse? Please explain.
The difference between unarmed blacks and whites being shot is so insignificantly small you cant draw the conclusion that if you are black you are more likely to get shot. Of the millions of stops and arrests in the country, you're talking like 10 unarmed black men being killed, which isn't too far off from the number of white men. That is such a small number to draw such a big bold conclusion.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
How so? And, no one referenced a city's crime rate. It was the crime rate by race. If blacks commit more crime, and are arrested more, and are also shot by police more, that is the exact definition of a positive correlation. Positive correlation means if one goes up, so does the other. Black crime went up, so did black shootings. Positive correlation. How can you argue against that, other than simply saying it doesn't exist?
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
How so? And, no one referenced a city's crime rate. It was the crime rate by race. If blacks commit more crime, and are arrested more, and are also shot by police more, that is the exact definition of a positive correlation. Positive correlation means if one goes up, so does the other. Black crime went up, so did black shootings. Positive correlation. How can you argue against that, other than simply saying it doesn't exist?
Look at the info in the previous links. Some cities with high crime rates have a high rate of blacks being shot, and other cities with high crime rates have a low rate of blacks being shot. Same with cities with lower crime rates. That means there's no correlation between crime rate and blacks being shot.
Comments
It's very similar to the violence against women movements. From my perspective, it's violence in general that is the problem.
Don't get me wrong... I'm definitely supportive of women and their varying struggles throughout the planet. I'm just saying a victim is a victim regardless of race or gender- they all deserve support.., and any violence is deplorable.
I have a son and a daughter. I'd feel the same if either were hurt at the hands of some loser.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
#whiteprivilegerocksfor10Cpeoplethatdontevenknowtheyrockwithit
Adopting this attitude distracts from the real issues we have with policing in America and essentially absolves them of the responsibility to always continue to improve procedures and practices.
On top of that there is the fact that solving the policing issues is a MUCH less complicated problem than solving the societal disadvantages of people living in poverty and geographic zones that are lagging in every way. You are talking about ignoring the simple partial solution to go all in on a complete solution that hasn't come to fruition despite decades of brilliant, dedicated people working to fix the problem of poverty.
I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
I look at it and think the most likely explanation is that more blacks live in poorer neighborhoods, less income, more broken homes which all contribute to higher crime. Higher crime means you get arrested more. Getting arrested more means more police encounters. More police encounters means more shootings and higher sentencing. That seems the most plausible to me.
The other explanation would mean that the majority of the 600,000 cops are inherently racist and in on it together. Doesn't seem as practical to me. Sure its possible this line of work attracts more people with a power trip, or that this line of work can change ones thinking. Still doesn't seem as plausible as the first possibility though.
There are most assuredly incidents where racism has led to an unjustified shooting, but racism is not the root of the bigger problem which everyone laments. The problem is much more profound than that and this is what needs to be acknowledged, but more often than not is ignored.
RG... I read your post. It would be nice, but it's a little unfair to suggest police handle the problem and to take more chances with uncooperative suspects until society finally gets its shit together.
I'm curious why the push isn't for an appeal to have people be more cooperative than to have cops be more patient as people are being uncooperative? Doesn't this seem easier? "Hey folks. Listen up. It's not a good idea to disobey basic police commands."
It's possible the BLM movement has done more harm than good: cops are more disrespected than ever and attitudes brewing within people are inevitably going to lead to more conflict and more decisions made under pressure.
The broad topic itself is complicated, but I'm not being myopic. Police departments are government employees that can change their behavior. Trying to back out and look at the larger presence of racism in society is fine, but it shouldn't the go to response when a government agency is doing something wrong. Police departments can, and do, change the way they do things. People resisting this change seem to view the change as some sort of threat or that they'd be sacrificing their safety.
I don't know why every time black statistics are brought up, the higher crime rate is ignored and considered "explaining away" the problem. How does higher crime in certain communities not directly affect the arrest rates, and every other data mentioned? How can that be ignored and those who bring it up be accused of trying to explain it away?
I really just cant understand why higher crime = more problems with police and how that is not a valid explanation. I am not saying black people just need to behave or they just need to figure it out. I am saying blaming race instead of acknowledging the real problem won't solve anything. Real problem being many things, socialeconomic differences among the largest. If a community continues t blame race instead of solving the problems in poverty, education, broken homes then those communities will continue to have high crime which leads to high tension with police and the problem will only get worse, never better.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
I made a conclusion? And then went in reverse? Please explain.