And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
Sorry. I'm not following you here.
I made a conclusion? And then went in reverse? Please explain.
You concluded that higher crime rate means more problems with police, and that's why blacks are shot at a higher rate.
You said "I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace." I just meant that framing it like that - "wish" to embrace - as though he's made up some idea in his head and now wants reality to match up to the fantasy. I just kind of saw that as saying you think he's already made up his mind no matter what the facts are, as though he actually doesn't have a good reason for his views on the matter.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
How so? And, no one referenced a city's crime rate. It was the crime rate by race. If blacks commit more crime, and are arrested more, and are also shot by police more, that is the exact definition of a positive correlation. Positive correlation means if one goes up, so does the other. Black crime went up, so did black shootings. Positive correlation. How can you argue against that, other than simply saying it doesn't exist?
Look at the info in the previous links. Some cities with high crime rates have a high rate of blacks being shot, and other cities with high crime rates have a low rate of blacks being shot. Same with cities with lower crime rates. That means there's no correlation between crime rate and blacks being shot.
Which also speaks to all the variables I suggested that made all studies somewhat moot.
Were you going to explain what you meant in that last post you directed at me?
You said "I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace." I just meant that framing it like that - "wish" to embrace - as though he's made up some idea in his head and now wants reality to match up to the fantasy. I just kind of saw that as saying you think he's already made up his mind no matter what the facts are, as though he actually doesn't have a good reason for his views on the matter.
A little bit of this.
Except I would suggest he does have good reasons for his view and that he hasn't come to his conclusions haphazardly.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
How so? And, no one referenced a city's crime rate. It was the crime rate by race. If blacks commit more crime, and are arrested more, and are also shot by police more, that is the exact definition of a positive correlation. Positive correlation means if one goes up, so does the other. Black crime went up, so did black shootings. Positive correlation. How can you argue against that, other than simply saying it doesn't exist?
Look at the info in the previous links. Some cities with high crime rates have a high rate of blacks being shot, and other cities with high crime rates have a low rate of blacks being shot. Same with cities with lower crime rates. That means there's no correlation between crime rate and blacks being shot.
Here's the issue I have with some of those sources. A Vanity Fair article posted here that highlighted multiple sources claimed this in the opening statements:"A study by a University of California, Davis professor found “evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is about 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police on average.” Additionally, the analysis found that “there is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”" and was posted.
While the last statement supports a lot of causes, in the actual article the previous sentence that is not included in VF reads : "police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents." So shootings more often occur in large cities with low incomes. Isn't that exactly where high crime is? But they focused on the larger portion of black residents instead to support the claim of racial bias instead.
Further down the same article here are other statements that were made. After making the claim that a black unarmed man was more likely to be shot in one particular county than a white man who is armed, they followed it up with "this pattern could be explained by reduced levels of crime being committed by armed white individuals."
This article doesn't seem to try and disprove the correlation of crime and shootings, but come up with other explanations. Even multiple times stated that "larger county population size, a higher proportion of black residents in the population, lower median income, and greater disparities in income all appear to be reliably associated with an elevated ratio of police shooting rate against unarmed black individuals" as a
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
How so? And, no one referenced a city's crime rate. It was the crime rate by race. If blacks commit more crime, and are arrested more, and are also shot by police more, that is the exact definition of a positive correlation. Positive correlation means if one goes up, so does the other. Black crime went up, so did black shootings. Positive correlation. How can you argue against that, other than simply saying it doesn't exist?
Look at the info in the previous links. Some cities with high crime rates have a high rate of blacks being shot, and other cities with high crime rates have a low rate of blacks being shot. Same with cities with lower crime rates. That means there's no correlation between crime rate and blacks being shot.
Which also speaks to all the variables I suggested that made all studies somewhat moot.
Were you going to explain what you meant in that last post you directed at me?
The variables are taken into consideration, but social science being a soft science, people will disagree about the outcomes and still feel their stance is supported. It would be like someone denying that good looking people aren't seen in a more positive light, despite research suggesting otherwise along with a zillion anecdotal examples.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
How so? And, no one referenced a city's crime rate. It was the crime rate by race. If blacks commit more crime, and are arrested more, and are also shot by police more, that is the exact definition of a positive correlation. Positive correlation means if one goes up, so does the other. Black crime went up, so did black shootings. Positive correlation. How can you argue against that, other than simply saying it doesn't exist?
Look at the info in the previous links. Some cities with high crime rates have a high rate of blacks being shot, and other cities with high crime rates have a low rate of blacks being shot. Same with cities with lower crime rates. That means there's no correlation between crime rate and blacks being shot.
Which also speaks to all the variables I suggested that made all studies somewhat moot.
Were you going to explain what you meant in that last post you directed at me?
The variables are taken into consideration, but social science being a soft science, people will disagree about the outcomes and still feel their stance is supported. It would be like someone denying that good looking people aren't seen in a more positive light, despite research suggesting otherwise along with a zillion anecdotal examples.
Sure. Some variables are taken into consideration lest they be ridiculed. However, there are way too many unwanted influences that have the potential to yield very inconsistent results.
Look at what location alone does (what you have presented): Some cities with high crime rates have a high rate of blacks being shot, and other cities with high crime rates have a low rate of blacks being shot.
Let alone variables such as: cause for detainment, level of resistance, level of threat, known history of the suspect, and on... and on... and on.
And why do you think there's a difference in the reaction?
I'm chiming in even if you don't care to hear my two cents.
There's a difference in reactions because some people don't have the capacity to understand the entire scope of the problem.
The BLM movement should move past the police confrontation stage of a young black man's life and look to the obstacles that led them to that point.
The long term solution isn't having cops be more patient and take more risks as they arrest black people. The long term solution is offering black people more of an opportunity to prosper outside of the drug trade or fast food restaurants in their neighbourhoods.
Because arresting a black guy is more risky thsn arresting a white guy? Hey, hiring a black guy might also be more risky. Even interacting with them could be risky. #whiteprivilege
See.
You must be one of the people I'm talking about.
No. Arresting a black guy is not more risky than arresting a white guy. Arresting a person (purple, blue, black, white, whatever color they might be) that resists arrest and doesn't comply with officer commands is risky.
You see... when cops need to ascertain level of threat and determine what their suspect is doing as they ask them to do simple things that get rebuffed... things get complicated. It's not Groundhog Day for police on the job- there are no mulligans for errors made that cost them their life. It has been established that cops do lose their life in the line of duty so call them scaredy all you want- the risk is real.
I know you're dying to firmly establish the idea that cops are inherently racist and they're preying on black people, but there's much more to it than that. That nice house in the suburbs with the big backyard for your dog... and your sweet ride... yah... part of the problem. The system that favours you and has given you the advantages you enjoy is the same one that places many blacks at a disadvantage and ultimately pits them against police- serving you.
Point fingers all you want, but make sure you point one in the mirror too. And if it was your child at the point of conflict... I bet you'd implore them to only shoot at a suspect if they shoot at him first. Right?
You don't seem aware of the fact, or maybe you just disagree with the fact that if a black person resists arrest, they are more likely to get shot than a white person resisting. You're take seems to be making excuses for cops. You refer to economic and social equality as the answer, and in the meantime nothing can change. I'm all for economic equality, and there's no need to be patronizing to me about my white privilege, as I've pointed out how I benefit from it about 600 times in here. I'm talking about prejudice and how that manifests in a face to face interaction with cops. This can be effectively dealt with. You're basically saying that blacks are more dangerous, so yeah, that's why cops shoot them at a higher rate. You're position supports the maintaining of the prejudice.
One reason I only read this thread every few days it it seems every 3-4 days the conversation makes a full circle. I would disagree with that first statement. I haven't seen a statistic that states if you're black and you resist arrest, you are more likely to get shot. There are statistics that show more black people are arrested and get shot by cops in general. There are also statistics that blacks commit more violent crimes as well, which explain the difference in arrests, shootings, and even sentencing. I would think if police have more violent encounters with a specific group of people, it would only be natural to be more cautions when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.
But someone previously posted data that states only 42 unarmed people were shot last year. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but it was not an overwhelming majority black. Even if it was, taken into consideration the 600,000 cops, the millions of stops and arrests every year, that 42 would be a statistically insignificant portion to suggest any sort of pattern. Which brings me back to the beginning of my comment, I just have to disagree that if you're black you are more likely to get shot because you are black.
The data is in the vanity fair article that has the links to the studies. The shootings are basically the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem of police bias and buas in the justice system. But these always come back around to basically justifying it by referencing the higher arrest rate of blacks.
I don't know why you bother. I don't know how many times I've posted the evidence, it's always explained away....never really challenged.
I challenged it by saying there are way too many variables to ever conduct a study that can definitively make the conclusions you wish to embrace.
You made a conclusion, then went in reverse to say the stats aren't valid because there's too many variables. When variables are accounted for, the same behavior done by a black person is perceived to be more dangerous then when a white person does it.
Also, the continual reference to a higher crime rate by blacks as a reason would suggest that there's a direct positive correlation between a city's crime rate and the number of unarmed blacks being shot, but this isn't the case, there's no correlation.
How so? And, no one referenced a city's crime rate. It was the crime rate by race. If blacks commit more crime, and are arrested more, and are also shot by police more, that is the exact definition of a positive correlation. Positive correlation means if one goes up, so does the other. Black crime went up, so did black shootings. Positive correlation. How can you argue against that, other than simply saying it doesn't exist?
Look at the info in the previous links. Some cities with high crime rates have a high rate of blacks being shot, and other cities with high crime rates have a low rate of blacks being shot. Same with cities with lower crime rates. That means there's no correlation between crime rate and blacks being shot.
Which also speaks to all the variables I suggested that made all studies somewhat moot.
Were you going to explain what you meant in that last post you directed at me?
The variables are taken into consideration, but social science being a soft science, people will disagree about the outcomes and still feel their stance is supported. It would be like someone denying that good looking people aren't seen in a more positive light, despite research suggesting otherwise along with a zillion anecdotal examples.
Sure. Some variables are taken into consideration lest they be ridiculed. However, there are way too many unwanted influences that have the potential to yield very inconsistent results.
Look at what location alone does (what you have presented): Some cities with high crime rates have a high rate of blacks being shot, and other cities with high crime rates have a low rate of blacks being shot.
Let alone variables such as: cause for detainment, level of resistance, level of threat, known history of the suspect, and on... and on... and on.
The point about cities and crime rates related to the shooting of blacks is that it debunks the argument the cops are shooting them because they're engaged in more crime.
It doesn't debunk anything for me because the pattern is all over the map- there's no rhyme or reason.
Even if one could control the exact scenario 100 times where officer response to 50 blacks and 50 whites was measured in accordance (time of day, nature of call out, criminal history, available back up, level of threat, level of disobedience, level of agitation, etc.)... this wouldn't even take into account the officers' side of the equation (race, experience, gender, etc.).
The only thing undeniable is that the overwhelming common element to these shootings we speak of is resistance. I still don't think this gets emphasized enough. Don't resist. Just as you wouldn't move your head while getting a haircut to avoid getting a shitty haircut... don't resist arrest to avoid getting hurt by officers.
It doesn't debunk anything for me because the pattern is all over the map- there's no rhyme or reason.
Even if one could control the exact scenario 100 times where officer response to 50 blacks and 50 whites was measured in accordance (time of day, nature of call out, criminal history, available back up, level of threat, level of disobedience, level of agitation, etc.)... this wouldn't even take into account the officers' side of the equation (race, experience, gender, etc.).
The only thing undeniable is that the overwhelming common element to these shootings we speak of is resistance. I still don't think this gets emphasized enough. Don't resist. Just as you wouldn't move your head while getting a haircut to avoid getting a shitty haircut... don't resist arrest to avoid getting hurt by officers.
One of the articles linked several days ago through a Vanity Fair column even stated they ignored many variables. They open the article with the statement that there is no link between higher crime and police shootings. I actually spent about 45 minutes reading the article because it was long, and was even less convinced when I was done reading it. Part of their argument for making that claim was if black was was a certain percent higher than white crime, then black shootings should be that same percentage higher. And when it wasn't, that was their claim for racial bias.
There was a very short paragraph towards the end that probably no one else bothered to read to that included a disclaimer that not all data was available, and did not take into consideration of resisting police or a physical assault. All it did was look at how many whites were shot while being arresting for crime X, and how many blacks were arrested for crime X. That's all! But these reports have half of America convinced that the majority of cops are racist.
Its pretty simple. More police encounters = more police shootings. And furthermore, if blacks commit more violent crime, would it not be reasonable to assume that they are also more likely to physically assault a cop while being arrested. Therefore more likely to be shot? Something that the articles stated they don't have the data for (I'm assuming because it didn't fit their narrative of racist cops).
It doesn't debunk anything for me because the pattern is all over the map- there's no rhyme or reason.
Even if one could control the exact scenario 100 times where officer response to 50 blacks and 50 whites was measured in accordance (time of day, nature of call out, criminal history, available back up, level of threat, level of disobedience, level of agitation, etc.)... this wouldn't even take into account the officers' side of the equation (race, experience, gender, etc.).
The only thing undeniable is that the overwhelming common element to these shootings we speak of is resistance. I still don't think this gets emphasized enough. Don't resist. Just as you wouldn't move your head while getting a haircut to avoid getting a shitty haircut... don't resist arrest to avoid getting hurt by officers.
One of the articles linked several days ago through a Vanity Fair column even stated they ignored many variables. They open the article with the statement that there is no link between higher crime and police shootings. I actually spent about 45 minutes reading the article because it was long, and was even less convinced when I was done reading it. Part of their argument for making that claim was if black was was a certain percent higher than white crime, then black shootings should be that same percentage higher. And when it wasn't, that was their claim for racial bias.
There was a very short paragraph towards the end that probably no one else bothered to read to that included a disclaimer that not all data was available, and did not take into consideration of resisting police or a physical assault. All it did was look at how many whites were shot while being arresting for crime X, and how many blacks were arrested for crime X. That's all! But these reports have half of America convinced that the majority of cops are racist.
Its pretty simple. More police encounters = more police shootings. And furthermore, if blacks commit more violent crime, would it not be reasonable to assume that they are also more likely to physically assault a cop while being arrested. Therefore more likely to be shot? Something that the articles stated they don't have the data for (I'm assuming because it didn't fit their narrative of racist cops).
When the authors say there may be other variables and not everything was taken into account, that's being a responsible researcher and suggesting other areas of further research. The article runs counter to your sentence of "more police encounters = more police shootings". If it's blacks committing more violent crime as being a reason, then all you would have to do is overlay black violent crime rate in each city over the chart with how many blacks are shot by cops in each city to get a correlation, but if you did that, you won't get a correlation.
It doesn't debunk anything for me because the pattern is all over the map- there's no rhyme or reason.
Even if one could control the exact scenario 100 times where officer response to 50 blacks and 50 whites was measured in accordance (time of day, nature of call out, criminal history, available back up, level of threat, level of disobedience, level of agitation, etc.)... this wouldn't even take into account the officers' side of the equation (race, experience, gender, etc.).
The only thing undeniable is that the overwhelming common element to these shootings we speak of is resistance. I still don't think this gets emphasized enough. Don't resist. Just as you wouldn't move your head while getting a haircut to avoid getting a shitty haircut... don't resist arrest to avoid getting hurt by officers.
One of the articles linked several days ago through a Vanity Fair column even stated they ignored many variables. They open the article with the statement that there is no link between higher crime and police shootings. I actually spent about 45 minutes reading the article because it was long, and was even less convinced when I was done reading it. Part of their argument for making that claim was if black was was a certain percent higher than white crime, then black shootings should be that same percentage higher. And when it wasn't, that was their claim for racial bias.
There was a very short paragraph towards the end that probably no one else bothered to read to that included a disclaimer that not all data was available, and did not take into consideration of resisting police or a physical assault. All it did was look at how many whites were shot while being arresting for crime X, and how many blacks were arrested for crime X. That's all! But these reports have half of America convinced that the majority of cops are racist.
Its pretty simple. More police encounters = more police shootings. And furthermore, if blacks commit more violent crime, would it not be reasonable to assume that they are also more likely to physically assault a cop while being arrested. Therefore more likely to be shot? Something that the articles stated they don't have the data for (I'm assuming because it didn't fit their narrative of racist cops).
When the authors say there may be other variables and not everything was taken into account, that's being a responsible researcher and suggesting other areas of further research. The article runs counter to your sentence of "more police encounters = more police shootings". If it's blacks committing more violent crime as being a reason, then all you would have to do is overlay black violent crime rate in each city over the chart with how many blacks are shot by cops in each city to get a correlation, but if you did that, you won't get a correlation.
That is true, you would not get that same correlation. And I would consider the authors statements more of a disclaimer than being responsible. As even the article points out, they did not take into consideration the difference in resisting arrest and physically assaulting police. Those are pretty big factors to not consider. I don't have data to back this up, but I think it would be common sense if a group has a higher percentage of violent crimes, they will also be more likely to assault police and resist arrest as well.
Another point I made was some of these counties there were only 1 or 2 shootings. Someone recently posted there was a total of only 42 unarmed shootings of all colors. The number of blacks was something like 10 or 12. That means most major cities didn't even have an unarmed shooting, so this data was used to debunk the idea that high crime cities are more likely to have a shooting. There is just not enough data to make that claim. Again, that would be like flipping a coin 3 times and as a result claiming a quarter is twice as likely to land heads. Not enough data.
Black man takes a knee during national anthem at a sporting event.
National shit loss for weeks on end!
Disabled black man takes a bullet reading a book waiting for his kid at bus stop.
Protests and looting not cool.
Comments
I just meant that framing it like that - "wish" to embrace - as though he's made up some idea in his head and now wants reality to match up to the fantasy. I just kind of saw that as saying you think he's already made up his mind no matter what the facts are, as though he actually doesn't have a good reason for his views on the matter.
Were you going to explain what you meant in that last post you directed at me?
Except I would suggest he does have good reasons for his view and that he hasn't come to his conclusions haphazardly.
While the last statement supports a lot of causes, in the actual article the previous sentence that is not included in VF reads : "police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents." So shootings more often occur in large cities with low incomes. Isn't that exactly where high crime is? But they focused on the larger portion of black residents instead to support the claim of racial bias instead.
Further down the same article here are other statements that were made. After making the claim that a black unarmed man was more likely to be shot in one particular county than a white man who is armed, they followed it up with "this pattern could be explained by reduced levels of crime being committed by armed white individuals."
This article doesn't seem to try and disprove the correlation of crime and shootings, but come up with other explanations. Even multiple times stated that "larger county population size, a higher proportion of black residents in the population, lower median income, and greater disparities in income all appear to be reliably associated with an elevated ratio of police shooting rate against unarmed black individuals" as a
Look at what location alone does (what you have presented): Some cities with high crime rates have a high rate of blacks being shot, and other cities with high crime rates have a low rate of blacks being shot.
Let alone variables such as: cause for detainment, level of resistance, level of threat, known history of the suspect, and on... and on... and on.
Even if one could control the exact scenario 100 times where officer response to 50 blacks and 50 whites was measured in accordance (time of day, nature of call out, criminal history, available back up, level of threat, level of disobedience, level of agitation, etc.)... this wouldn't even take into account the officers' side of the equation (race, experience, gender, etc.).
The only thing undeniable is that the overwhelming common element to these shootings we speak of is resistance. I still don't think this gets emphasized enough. Don't resist. Just as you wouldn't move your head while getting a haircut to avoid getting a shitty haircut... don't resist arrest to avoid getting hurt by officers.
There was a very short paragraph towards the end that probably no one else bothered to read to that included a disclaimer that not all data was available, and did not take into consideration of resisting police or a physical assault. All it did was look at how many whites were shot while being arresting for crime X, and how many blacks were arrested for crime X. That's all! But these reports have half of America convinced that the majority of cops are racist.
Its pretty simple. More police encounters = more police shootings.
And furthermore, if blacks commit more violent crime, would it not be reasonable to assume that they are also more likely to physically assault a cop while being arrested. Therefore more likely to be shot? Something that the articles stated they don't have the data for (I'm assuming because it didn't fit their narrative of racist cops).
It used the term 'some' to describe certain situations that stood in contrast to the 'volume principle'.
Another point I made was some of these counties there were only 1 or 2 shootings. Someone recently posted there was a total of only 42 unarmed shootings of all colors. The number of blacks was something like 10 or 12. That means most major cities didn't even have an unarmed shooting, so this data was used to debunk the idea that high crime cities are more likely to have a shooting. There is just not enough data to make that claim. Again, that would be like flipping a coin 3 times and as a result claiming a quarter is twice as likely to land heads. Not enough data.
we will find a way, we will find our place