The ratio of blacks killed at police detainments is definitely disproportionate to whites when comparing to general population percentages, but I'm not sure this statistic most accurately tells the story.
To investigate it further, I'd be curious to know what the ratios are for race and crime. In other words, for every 100 crimes committed, what percentage of those crimes are committed by blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc?
I'd like to compare those percentages to the cop shooting ratios which are frequently presented. I'm curious to know if cops shoot black people as often as they shoot white people in the same proportion as each race's criminal activity.
In other words, if blacks commit the majority of crimes for which police investigate, it goes without saying that more blacks would be shot than whites in the policing process.
Sheeeeeeeet..... You can't put that stat out for the general public to see. That'd B Racist!!!
The stats are already out there. You know criminal justice and sociology are fields of study, right?
I've reviewed the long list of studies you have presented. Among a few themes, they generally speak to the heightened level of suspicion many officers feel towards blacks compared to whites.
But I never saw one that answered this query (and subsequent clarification) cut and pasted from my original post:
"I'm curious to know if cops shoot black people as often as they shoot white people in the same proportion as each race's criminal activity. In other words, if blacks commit the majority of crimes for which police investigate, it goes without saying that more blacks would be shot than whites in the policing process."
Are stereotypes, attitudes, and actions on the part of police borne from inherently racist attitudes, or are they developed through experiences? Do racists become cops or do cops become racist?
It seems as if people are willing to put forth, or at least support, the proposition that blacks have been oppressed and as a result many turn to crime without anything more promising to lead a more positive life towards. I believe this is the case and I even understand why such a choice is made on the part of the individual. However, it also seems that there aren't many who care to talk of what that crime actually looks like on the streets for the police who we charge to take care of it. If crime often features black people as its perpetrators for some officers... those officers are going to grow 'suspicious' towards black people.
I am not making excuses for cops as much as I am pointing out... again... that we are all complicit in this situation. We need to offer hope to those born into conditions where there is little to none. Exactly what this assistance might look like is challenging to depict, however I can say the legalization of drugs would be a component of this picture (I've also listed the reasons why this would be positive earlier in this thread).
I've reviewed the long list of studies you have presented. Among a few themes, they generally speak to the heightened level of suspicion many officers feel towards blacks compared to whites.
But I never saw one that answered this query (and subsequent clarification) cut and pasted from my original post:
"I'm curious to know if cops shoot black people as often as they shoot white people in the same proportion as each race's criminal activity. In other words, if blacks commit the majority of crimes for which police investigate, it goes without saying that more blacks would be shot than whites in the policing process."
Are stereotypes, attitudes, and actions on the part of police borne from inherently racist attitudes, or are they developed through experiences? Do racists become cops or do cops become racist?
It seems as if people are willing to put forth, or at least support, the proposition that blacks have been oppressed and as a result many turn to crime without anything more promising to lead a more positive life towards. I believe this is the case and I even understand why such a choice is made on the part of the individual. However, it also seems that there aren't many who care to talk of what that crime actually looks like on the streets for the police who we charge to take care of it. If crime often features black people as its perpetrators for some officers... those officers are going to grow 'suspicious' towards black people.
I am not making excuses for cops as much as I am pointing out... again... that we are all complicit in this situation. We need to offer hope to those born into conditions where there is little to none. Exactly what this assistance might look like is challenging to depict, however I can say the legalization of drugs would be a component of this picture (I've also listed the reasons why this would be positive earlier in this thread).
Thanks for the response. Watching the debate right now. Will respond when I have the time.
I'm obviously getting too old to hang around here.
I would have thought some cop hater might have tried to tackle the questions I posed a few posts back... but all I get is 'scaredy cops'. Maybe it's me? Maybe I've got no f**king clue?
Fine. Cops suck. They're all chickenshit, racist bastards targeting black people as agents of the state.
I'm obviously getting too old to hang around here.
I would have thought some cop hater might have tried to tackle the questions I posed a few posts back... but all I get is 'scaredy cops'. Maybe it's me? Maybe I've got no f**king clue?
Fine. Cops suck. They're all chickenshit, racist bastards targeting black people as agents of the state.
You'll probably say I'm not answering your question directly, but in one of the linked articles earlier it show there's no correlation between a city's crime rate and the rate unarmed blacks are shot by police. So it's safe to say that some departments deal with the issue of prejudice and perception when stopping blacks better than other departments.
I'm obviously getting too old to hang around here.
I would have thought some cop hater might have tried to tackle the questions I posed a few posts back... but all I get is 'scaredy cops'. Maybe it's me? Maybe I've got no f**king clue?
Fine. Cops suck. They're all chickenshit, racist bastards targeting black people as agents of the state.
You'll probably say I'm not answering your question directly, but in one of the linked articles earlier it show there's no correlation between a city's crime rate and the rate unarmed blacks are shot by police. So it's safe to say that some departments deal with the issue of prejudice and perception when stopping blacks better than other departments.
There's no correlation between a city's crime rate and the rate unarmed blacks are shot? I did not look at the link, so I don't know this answer and im legitimately asking: how does the crime rate not have anything to do with police shooting people?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I'm obviously getting too old to hang around here.
I would have thought some cop hater might have tried to tackle the questions I posed a few posts back... but all I get is 'scaredy cops'. Maybe it's me? Maybe I've got no f**king clue?
Fine. Cops suck. They're all chickenshit, racist bastards targeting black people as agents of the state.
Don't let it get to you, its an online forum. Don't take it personal, allow it to be therapeutic. Whatever happens on here and real life is supposed to happen. Things are exactly where they should be. "Everything in its right place, it's right place"
AMT 1. Just obey the commands, obey the officers and you won't get shot. 2. David Washington was having a stroke 1. Pepper spray him for 5 seconds for not obeying commands 2. He was sitting in his car having a stroke 1. Obey commands its that simple
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
does anybody have any reliable data to answer the following: how many people were killed by cops this year? of that total: how many were white? how many were black? how many had weapons on them? how many had prior criminal records? how many were on drugs or mentally ill? female? male?
I was just interested in the breakdown.
Here you go:
In 2016, total is 708. In 2015 it was 990.
Male:679 Female: 29 White:325 Black:173 Hispanic: 111 Victim had Mental illness :169 no:539 Had a weapon?: Gun:389 Knife: 127 Toy weapon:28 Vehicle:43 Unarmed:42
No data on drug usage or criminal records that I could find
nice research bud. so only 42 were unarmed but of the 42 we aren't sure how many were under the influence of drugs.
breaking the 2016 numbers down further: blacks make up 12.2% of the u.s. population but account for 24.4% shooting deaths by police. hispanic: 15.6% of shooting deaths by police and 12.5% of the american population. white: 63.7% of the total u.s. population and accounts for 45.9% of shooting deaths by police.
Unarmed blacks are over three times more likely to be shot by cops than unarmed whites.
Of the 42 "Unarmed" people that were killed by police this year: 19 were white 15 were black 5 were hispanic 3 were unknown
You can look at each of the unarmed deaths on the Post website. It gives a brief description of each. Some of them were pure crap. some said the victim charged or got into a fight with an officer.
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The media should report facts, and armed or unarmed is a fact. "Potentially" is subjective and not a fact, and the potential for danger is swayed by prejudice, which is why we have this thread.
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The media should report facts, and armed or unarmed is a fact. "Potentially" is subjective and not a fact, and the potential for danger is swayed by prejudice, which is why we have this thread.
True. But they often get the armed/unarmed fact wrong, and downplay the level of threat by omitting other facts. At the very least, "Unarmed Black Man Shot By Police" is often a very misleading title
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The media should report facts, and armed or unarmed is a fact. "Potentially" is subjective and not a fact, and the potential for danger is swayed by prejudice, which is why we have this thread.
except the media sometimes reports what the family says as fact i.e. charlotte guy was holding a book before the true facts are actually out
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The media should report facts, and armed or unarmed is a fact. "Potentially" is subjective and not a fact, and the potential for danger is swayed by prejudice, which is why we have this thread.
except the media sometimes reports what the family says as fact i.e. charlotte guy was holding a book before the true facts are actually out
Did they report it as fact, or as a quote? The media I saw reported it as a quote.
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The media should report facts, and armed or unarmed is a fact. "Potentially" is subjective and not a fact, and the potential for danger is swayed by prejudice, which is why we have this thread.
except the media sometimes reports what the family says as fact i.e. charlotte guy was holding a book before the true facts are actually out
Did they report it as fact, or as a quote? The media I saw reported it as a quote.
come on man now you are just using semantics. the armed vs. unarmed isn't really a fact until it's fully investigated either is it not?
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The media should report facts, and armed or unarmed is a fact. "Potentially" is subjective and not a fact, and the potential for danger is swayed by prejudice, which is why we have this thread.
except the media sometimes reports what the family says as fact i.e. charlotte guy was holding a book before the true facts are actually out
Did they report it as fact, or as a quote? The media I saw reported it as a quote.
come on man now you are just using semantics. the armed vs. unarmed isn't really a fact until it's fully investigated either is it not?
just like "hands up don't shoot" was taken as fact
does anybody have any reliable data to answer the following: how many people were killed by cops this year? of that total: how many were white? how many were black? how many had weapons on them? how many had prior criminal records? how many were on drugs or mentally ill? female? male?
I was just interested in the breakdown.
Here you go:
In 2016, total is 708. In 2015 it was 990.
Male:679 Female: 29 White:325 Black:173 Hispanic: 111 Victim had Mental illness :169 no:539 Had a weapon?: Gun:389 Knife: 127 Toy weapon:28 Vehicle:43 Unarmed:42
No data on drug usage or criminal records that I could find
nice research bud. so only 42 were unarmed but of the 42 we aren't sure how many were under the influence of drugs.
breaking the 2016 numbers down further: blacks make up 12.2% of the u.s. population but account for 24.4% shooting deaths by police. hispanic: 15.6% of shooting deaths by police and 12.5% of the american population. white: 63.7% of the total u.s. population and accounts for 45.9% of shooting deaths by police.
Unarmed blacks are over three times more likely to be shot by cops than unarmed whites.
Of the 42 "Unarmed" people that were killed by police this year: 19 were white 15 were black 5 were hispanic 3 were unknown
You can look at each of the unarmed deaths on the Post website. It gives a brief description of each. Some of them were pure crap. some said the victim charged or got into a fight with an officer.
That is an interesting statistic. But people will break down that statistic with another statistic so it can be disregarded.
They probably don't track it, but I would like to see statistics of how many times police have drawn their weapon per year.
another one bites the dust in El Cajon Ca. pointing a gun at a police officer is good way to get dead...El Cajon has turned into a shithole I grew up in east county and remember when things were different.
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The media should report facts, and armed or unarmed is a fact. "Potentially" is subjective and not a fact, and the potential for danger is swayed by prejudice, which is why we have this thread.
except the media sometimes reports what the family says as fact i.e. charlotte guy was holding a book before the true facts are actually out
Did they report it as fact, or as a quote? The media I saw reported it as a quote.
come on man now you are just using semantics. the armed vs. unarmed isn't really a fact until it's fully investigated either is it not?
Ummmm, that is not semantics at all. I think you need to learn what facts vs quotes are, and how to tell the difference between the two!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The media should report facts, and armed or unarmed is a fact. "Potentially" is subjective and not a fact, and the potential for danger is swayed by prejudice, which is why we have this thread.
except the media sometimes reports what the family says as fact i.e. charlotte guy was holding a book before the true facts are actually out
Did they report it as fact, or as a quote? The media I saw reported it as a quote.
come on man now you are just using semantics. the armed vs. unarmed isn't really a fact until it's fully investigated either is it not?
Ummmm, that is not semantics at all. I think you need to learn what facts vs quotes are, and how to tell the difference between the two!
We all here might be able to tell the difference between the two, but this also goes to my original point. When something like that is printed in the news many take it as fact. Ferguson was burned down because they allowed themselves to believe those lies, many of the "witnesses" weren't even at the scene. And many of the incidents since are just a repeat of that. Statements are made before facts are known, and by the time they are known its too late. It seems like you were willing to take the statements of the San Diego situation as fact and ignore the photo of the guy in a "shooting position" and criticize the police for using that as a defense though, is that not correct? You mentioned seizures and told me to look it up as if I didn't know, and used that as your argument, so you clearly took that at more than just a statement, all while mocking even such a thing as shooting stance even existed, even though there is a photo of it. I haven't seen video, or any other proof of seizures, only statements of witnesses, most who used the term "erratic behavior." So what are you considering fact in this case?
The reports of officer involved shootings are at least getting creative, the latest in San Diego is a first, assumed a "shooting position". Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was: Quick draw McGraw Classic Clint Eastwood 357 Famous kneeling Osama AK47 Standing Ron Jeremy Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
That's why I sometimes hate the media and all the publicity of these shootings. They get people all riled up over, more often then not, what turns out to be a justified shooting. But by the time that has been figured out BLM has already made up their mind on the situation. I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun. But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Lets go with every shooting in the US since guns were invented was justified, let's just focus on this san diego shooting for now. Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct. Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
My comment wasn't meant that I am completely convinced this is justified. But from the article headings and your previous comment almost all but ignores that fact he at least to be taking a stance that would be consistent with shooting a gun, and mocked that defense.
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill. Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat. I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Speaking of Sandy Hook and still frame photos...have we ever seen a still of Adam Lanza entering the school or from inside the school like we seen of Harris and Klebold? I was intrigued by that horrible massacre. Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
They shouldn't release information in any scenario if there is a potential investigation that would lead to a trial.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
The media should report facts, and armed or unarmed is a fact. "Potentially" is subjective and not a fact, and the potential for danger is swayed by prejudice, which is why we have this thread.
except the media sometimes reports what the family says as fact i.e. charlotte guy was holding a book before the true facts are actually out
Did they report it as fact, or as a quote? The media I saw reported it as a quote.
come on man now you are just using semantics. the armed vs. unarmed isn't really a fact until it's fully investigated either is it not?
Ummmm, that is not semantics at all. I think you need to learn what facts vs quotes are, and how to tell the difference between the two!
We all here might be able to tell the difference between the two, but this also goes to my original point. When something like that is printed in the news many take it as fact. Ferguson was burned down because they allowed themselves to believe those lies, many of the "witnesses" weren't even at the scene. And many of the incidents since are just a repeat of that. Statements are made before facts are known, and by the time they are known its too late. It seems like you were willing to take the statements of the San Diego situation as fact and ignore the photo of the guy in a "shooting position" and criticize the police for using that as a defense though, is that not correct? You mentioned seizures and told me to look it up as if I didn't know, and used that as your argument, so you clearly took that at more than just a statement, all while mocking even such a thing as shooting stance even existed, even though there is a photo of it. I haven't seen video, or any other proof of seizures, only statements of witnesses, most who used the term "erratic behavior." So what are you considering fact in this case?
I am not following the particular case closely enough to say.
As for how folks are interpreting the news.... yeah, it's a massive problem. I think the education system and government actually need to make media literacy and awareness a massive priority in our society, because right now the way a lot of people are doing it is actually starting to fuck shit up.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
I've reviewed the long list of studies you have presented. Among a few themes, they generally speak to the heightened level of suspicion many officers feel towards blacks compared to whites.
But I never saw one that answered this query (and subsequent clarification) cut and pasted from my original post:
"I'm curious to know if cops shoot black people as often as they shoot white people in the same proportion as each race's criminal activity. In other words, if blacks commit the majority of crimes for which police investigate, it goes without saying that more blacks would be shot than whites in the policing process."
Are stereotypes, attitudes, and actions on the part of police borne from inherently racist attitudes, or are they developed through experiences? Do racists become cops or do cops become racist?
It seems as if people are willing to put forth, or at least support, the proposition that blacks have been oppressed and as a result many turn to crime without anything more promising to lead a more positive life towards. I believe this is the case and I even understand why such a choice is made on the part of the individual. However, it also seems that there aren't many who care to talk of what that crime actually looks like on the streets for the police who we charge to take care of it. If crime often features black people as its perpetrators for some officers... those officers are going to grow 'suspicious' towards black people.
I am not making excuses for cops as much as I am pointing out... again... that we are all complicit in this situation. We need to offer hope to those born into conditions where there is little to none. Exactly what this assistance might look like is challenging to depict, however I can say the legalization of drugs would be a component of this picture (I've also listed the reasons why this would be positive earlier in this thread).
At seizures to the long list of imminent threats to scaredy cops
I would have thought some cop hater might have tried to tackle the questions I posed a few posts back... but all I get is 'scaredy cops'. Maybe it's me? Maybe I've got no f**king clue?
Fine. Cops suck. They're all chickenshit, racist bastards targeting black people as agents of the state.
we will find a way, we will find our place
"Everything in its right place, it's right place"
1. Just obey the commands, obey the officers and you won't get shot.
2. David Washington was having a stroke
1. Pepper spray him for 5 seconds for not obeying commands
2. He was sitting in his car having a stroke
1. Obey commands its that simple
Lets see what they call a shooting position once video is released, if released.
Any guesses what the shooting position was:
Quick draw McGraw
Classic Clint Eastwood 357
Famous kneeling Osama AK47
Standing Ron Jeremy
Kobe Bryant step back
From the video stills, looks like a shooting position to me. They said he did not have a gun, but he had something. this guy was probably messed up. Whether that be because of drugs, a mental condition, or whatever, he made a move at police. One fired his taser, the other fired his gun. Is it sad that this man died, yes, but what are cops supposed to do? They have a right to protect themselves just as much as anyone else.
19 were white
15 were black
5 were hispanic
3 were unknown
You can look at each of the unarmed deaths on the Post website. It gives a brief description of each. Some of them were pure crap. some said the victim charged or got into a fight with an officer.
I don't know why anyone would mock a shooting position as a defense. There is definitely a stance most people would take, and from the picture you linked this guy even appears to raise his arms as if he was pointing a gun.
But that doesn't matter to some, it will still be advertised as "unarmed black man killed by police" in the media and just confirm the false belief of open season and many will protest again over what is another justified shooting.
Yes, making a judgement call from the still frame only, without any other information justifies the murder. But, that's not the only information officers had. They were called because of an epileptic seizure, once at the scene they have experience eye ears and instinct.
Google epileptic seizures and tell me what you find?
I know people with epileptic seizures, but I googled it anyway. All the articles I read didn't mention seizures, but that he was acting erratically and obstructing traffic. Seems more consistent with someone on drugs, but who knows, I didn't see any further information other than somebody claiming to be his sister said he's mentally ill.
Didn't people claim the Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill? Should we wait until he shoots up a school before we intervene? That shouldn't be a defense not to shoot if someone is posing an imminent threat.
I'm not completely convinced it was justified because there are a lot of facts not out right now. But it is definitely far from mocking the police and hanging them out as murders again. I mean, yes it is only one still photo, but that one still photo does show an image that is consistent the police story and not with his hands up in the air as I'm sure the looters are going to claim.
Anyway back to topic... Do you think the police immediately release info that contradicts their story? I would bet they watch the video before and then frame a plausible narrative around the video.
Weren't they the ones that released the Tulsa video, and that one did look bad. I wouldn't call her a "murderer," but doesn't seem it was necessary. But it got released pretty fast.
Would you at least agree that an unarmed person can still justifiably be shot it a) the cop perceived he was going for the cop's weapon. b) the cop had reason the believe he was reaching for a gun (maybe reaching for something out of view), c) or in this case took a pose that resembles someone shooting a gun after failing to comply with police orders.
If you can agree on that, then you can understand why these headings upset me, which was my original post. The media and news reports focus on the "unarmed black" portion. Knowing it will lead to protest that often turn into riots and looting, over something that has in more cases turned out to be justified. Title it the truth, "Potentially dangerous man threatened police and was shot."
They probably don't track it, but I would like to see statistics of how many times police have drawn their weapon per year.
I grew up in east county and remember when things were different.
Godfather.
It seems like you were willing to take the statements of the San Diego situation as fact and ignore the photo of the guy in a "shooting position" and criticize the police for using that as a defense though, is that not correct? You mentioned seizures and told me to look it up as if I didn't know, and used that as your argument, so you clearly took that at more than just a statement, all while mocking even such a thing as shooting stance even existed, even though there is a photo of it. I haven't seen video, or any other proof of seizures, only statements of witnesses, most who used the term "erratic behavior." So what are you considering fact in this case?
As for how folks are interpreting the news.... yeah, it's a massive problem. I think the education system and government actually need to make media literacy and awareness a massive priority in our society, because right now the way a lot of people are doing it is actually starting to fuck shit up.