I fail to see how this video is relevant. It doesn't touch on racial bias.
And am I also to assume from the video that when the police murder civilians it's no big deal because of how much contact they have with the population? We shouldn't criticize them because the civilian population is violent? We shouldn't look to find problems within PD's to try and make them better at their jobs?
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
I know I'm probably wasting my time but, do you know how science works? You know what it takes to publish in a peer reviewed journal? Did you take a look at the links to the studies provided? The details are there....the science is there.....the evidence is there. But that doesn't fit your narrative so you dismiss it out of ignorance. Ever hear of confirmation bias?
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
I know I'm probably wasting my time but, do you know how science works? You know what it takes to publish in a peer reviewed journal? Did you take a look at the links to the studies provided? The details are there....the science is there.....the evidence is there. But that doesn't fit your narrative so you dismiss it out of ignorance. Ever hear of confirmation bias?
The way some people post on AMT is like they're looking for peer reviews. But not you in any way personal whatsoever
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
I think you're not understanding the quote you put in your comment. What that's saying is that looking at the variables, that none are significant in predicting whether a person will be shot outside if race. If you're black, you're more likely to be shot by cops, even if you're doing the same thing a white person is doing. You're wanting to draw conclusions from individual, anecdotal stories and ignore the data.
0
TL170678
Near Louisville, in Indiana, closer to Kentucky Posts: 422
So what's the point you're making by posting a clip feom some guy in his basement talking over clips of anecdotal stories?
0
TL170678
Near Louisville, in Indiana, closer to Kentucky Posts: 422
Point is there is an attack on cops by black people, it`s not new, and there is an attack on whites/hispanics by black people.... Disproportionate statistics to the point of if there is a violent attack between a black person and a white person, 85% of the time the black person is the perp, and 82% vs hispanic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J6PbL95Lwk
Point is there is an attack on cops by black people, it`s not new, and there is an attack on whites/hispanics by black people.... Disproportionate statistics to the point of if there is a violent attack between a black person and a white person, 85% of the time the black person is the perp, and 82% vs hispanic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J6PbL95Lwk
So cops denying blacks rights and freedoms, and killing them with prejudice is okay because blacks commit crimes?
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
I think you're not understanding the quote you put in your comment. What that's saying is that looking at the variables, that none are significant in predicting whether a person will be shot outside if race. If you're black, you're more likely to be shot by cops, even if you're doing the same thing a white person is doing. You're wanting to draw conclusions from individual, anecdotal stories and ignore the data.
The article didn't say blacks were more likely to get shot under the same circumstances. They were pretty clear and said the ONLY factor to being shot if you are unarmed is if you are black or not. That's it, nothing else. Meaning no other variables. Meaning only race is considered. They were clear in stating race is the only factor when being shot. It didn't say "more likely." Nope, it said race was the ONLY factor. And I'm suppose to take them as a legitimate resource and scientific study? Which is so ridiculous because if that is true and according to the article, the only deciding factor is color, then all black people would be shot every time they were pulled over. I'm not making that up, that's what the article wants you to believe when they use the words "only thing" and refer to race. Which is ridiculous. Every case that has made the news in the last few years also involved resisting arrest. An exponentially larger factor than race is resisting arrest and assaulting police officers.
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
I know I'm probably wasting my time but, do you know how science works? You know what it takes to publish in a peer reviewed journal? Did you take a look at the links to the studies provided? The details are there....the science is there.....the evidence is there. But that doesn't fit your narrative so you dismiss it out of ignorance. Ever hear of confirmation bias?
Yes, I actually know how science works. You're referring to Vanity Fair magazine here. Rolling Stone has better editors, and we all know what mess they can come up with. And the links were mostly other magazines or newspapers, not any "journal" on research. Some of the same newspapers that were dismissed as being bias on this same forum when they put out an article that wasn't agreed with. If you're referring to this vanity Fair magazine as a peer reviewed research journal, I'm guessing you've never read one.
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
I think you're not understanding the quote you put in your comment. What that's saying is that looking at the variables, that none are significant in predicting whether a person will be shot outside if race. If you're black, you're more likely to be shot by cops, even if you're doing the same thing a white person is doing. You're wanting to draw conclusions from individual, anecdotal stories and ignore the data.
The article didn't say blacks were more likely to get shot under the same circumstances. They were pretty clear and said the ONLY factor to being shot if you are unarmed is if you are black or not. That's it, nothing else. Meaning no other variables. Meaning only race is considered. They were clear in stating race is the only factor when being shot. It didn't say "more likely." Nope, it said race was the ONLY factor. And I'm suppose to take them as a legitimate resource and scientific study? Which is so ridiculous because if that is true and according to the article, the only deciding factor is color, then all black people would be shot every time they were pulled over. I'm not making that up, that's what the article wants you to believe when they use the words "only thing" and refer to race. Which is ridiculous. Every case that has made the news in the last few years also involved resisting arrest. An exponentially larger factor than race is resisting arrest and assaulting police officers.
If you click the links to the original article, it gets explained in more detail. What the quote is referencing is that crime level, and threat level isn't the factor. Meaning a white person and a black person can both be doing the same threatening behaviors, but the black person is more likely to be shot because there is a bias in the cops interpretation of the behavior. They're perceived to be more theatening.
Oh, I've also seen news clips of blacks being shot in the back running away and reaching back in their car to get ID. But again, anecdotal stories aren't necessarily proof.
His point is his opinion. An opinion not backed up by the data and research.
So there isn't an anti cop sentiment amongst black people across the country?
I would say probably, which under the circumstances would be reasonable.
He claims there is no problem with racism in PD's.....which flys in the face of the evidence.
No, it's not reasonable. How many of the police shootings have ended up as convictions against the police officers? You can NOT promote hate against the people trying to protect you. And that is what this sheriff is saying. The argument isn't whether racism exists in police departments. It's the BLM promoting an unsafe environment for cops to be in. That is never acceptable.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
I think you're not understanding the quote you put in your comment. What that's saying is that looking at the variables, that none are significant in predicting whether a person will be shot outside if race. If you're black, you're more likely to be shot by cops, even if you're doing the same thing a white person is doing. You're wanting to draw conclusions from individual, anecdotal stories and ignore the data.
The article didn't say blacks were more likely to get shot under the same circumstances. They were pretty clear and said the ONLY factor to being shot if you are unarmed is if you are black or not. That's it, nothing else. Meaning no other variables. Meaning only race is considered. They were clear in stating race is the only factor when being shot. It didn't say "more likely." Nope, it said race was the ONLY factor. And I'm suppose to take them as a legitimate resource and scientific study? Which is so ridiculous because if that is true and according to the article, the only deciding factor is color, then all black people would be shot every time they were pulled over. I'm not making that up, that's what the article wants you to believe when they use the words "only thing" and refer to race. Which is ridiculous. Every case that has made the news in the last few years also involved resisting arrest. An exponentially larger factor than race is resisting arrest and assaulting police officers.
If you click the links to the original article, it gets explained in more detail. What the quote is referencing is that crime level, and threat level isn't the factor. Meaning a white person and a black person can both be doing the same threatening behaviors, but the black person is more likely to be shot because there is a bias in the cops interpretation of the behavior. They're perceived to be more theatening.
Oh, I've also seen news clips of blacks being shot in the back running away and reaching back in their car to get ID. But again, anecdotal stories aren't necessarily proof.
I referenced the links in another response. Most are other magazines and newspapers, and not "research journals." Newspapers can be as biased and FOX or CNN. On your last paragraph I thought of those two stories while writing my original post. The dude running away was resisting arrest. Yes, 100% unjustified and the cop was arrested for murder, but also fits under the variable of "resisting arrest," which I had pointed out as being a larger factor than race. The other story the guy was armed. According to the girlfriend was armed and licensed to carry, but still armed and this article was about unarmed black men. And there's already threads about this story, I haven't been convinced one way or the other on this story since there is limited information out and he was only going for his ID according to the girlfriend. Even if you believe the cop decided it was his best chance to murder a black male when there were 2 others in the car, he was still armed and doesn't pertain to this article in discussion. Leaving the single biggest factor on unarmed men getting shot still resisting arrest, and not color. Ever instance of an unarmed black man being shot that has made national news he was resisting arrent. An extremely large variable that is commonly ignored. So if you are black and don't want to get shot by the police, stay unarmed and don't resist arrest and we wouldn't have a single story to discuss here.
Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.
I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not. I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black." That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out. Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
I know I'm probably wasting my time but, do you know how science works? You know what it takes to publish in a peer reviewed journal? Did you take a look at the links to the studies provided? The details are there....the science is there.....the evidence is there. But that doesn't fit your narrative so you dismiss it out of ignorance. Ever hear of confirmation bias?
Yes, I actually know how science works. You're referring to Vanity Fair magazine here. Rolling Stone has better editors, and we all know what mess they can come up with. And the links were mostly other magazines or newspapers, not any "journal" on research. Some of the same newspapers that were dismissed as being bias on this same forum when they put out an article that wasn't agreed with. If you're referring to this vanity Fair magazine as a peer reviewed research journal, I'm guessing you've never read one.
There were 7 scientific papers referenced in that article. Not to mention other sources referenced like the NYT's, Washington Post and conclusions from government investigations.
At the very least you are being disingenuous. Like I said, wasting my time.
Comments
we will find a way, we will find our place
His point is his opinion. An opinion not backed up by the data and research.
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
He claims there is no problem with racism in PD's.....which flys in the face of the evidence.
And am I also to assume from the video that when the police murder civilians it's no big deal because of how much contact they have with the population? We shouldn't criticize them because the civilian population is violent? We shouldn't look to find problems within PD's to try and make them better at their jobs?
I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black."
That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out.
Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.
But not you in any way personal whatsoever
Which is so ridiculous because if that is true and according to the article, the only deciding factor is color, then all black people would be shot every time they were pulled over. I'm not making that up, that's what the article wants you to believe when they use the words "only thing" and refer to race. Which is ridiculous.
Every case that has made the news in the last few years also involved resisting arrest. An exponentially larger factor than race is resisting arrest and assaulting police officers.
I'd sincerely be curious to see the ratio of black people killed to white people killed when 'resisting arrest' is the qualifier.
Oh, I've also seen news clips of blacks being shot in the back running away and reaching back in their car to get ID. But again, anecdotal stories aren't necessarily proof.
we will find a way, we will find our place
On your last paragraph I thought of those two stories while writing my original post. The dude running away was resisting arrest. Yes, 100% unjustified and the cop was arrested for murder, but also fits under the variable of "resisting arrest," which I had pointed out as being a larger factor than race.
The other story the guy was armed. According to the girlfriend was armed and licensed to carry, but still armed and this article was about unarmed black men. And there's already threads about this story, I haven't been convinced one way or the other on this story since there is limited information out and he was only going for his ID according to the girlfriend. Even if you believe the cop decided it was his best chance to murder a black male when there were 2 others in the car, he was still armed and doesn't pertain to this article in discussion.
Leaving the single biggest factor on unarmed men getting shot still resisting arrest, and not color. Ever instance of an unarmed black man being shot that has made national news he was resisting arrent. An extremely large variable that is commonly ignored. So if you are black and don't want to get shot by the police, stay unarmed and don't resist arrest and we wouldn't have a single story to discuss here.
At the very least you are being disingenuous. Like I said, wasting my time.