Police shooting people.....

Point is there is an attack on cops by black people, it`s not new, and there is an attack on whites/hispanics by black people.... Disproportionate statistics to the point of if there is a violent attack between a black person and a white person, 85% of the time the black person is the perp, and 82% vs hispanic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J6PbL95Lwk

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

Just a little info to show that the Sheriff above has no idea what he is talking about and is completely full of shit.

WHAT THE DATA REALLY SAYS ABOUT POLICE AND RACIAL BIAS

Eighteen academic studies, legal rulings, and media investigations shed light on the issue roiling America.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Is vanityfair a reputable news agency?

Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.

I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not.
I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black."
That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out.
Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

Just a little info to show that the Sheriff above has no idea what he is talking about and is completely full of shit.

WHAT THE DATA REALLY SAYS ABOUT POLICE AND RACIAL BIAS

Eighteen academic studies, legal rulings, and media investigations shed light on the issue roiling America.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Is vanityfair a reputable news agency?

Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.

I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not.
I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black."
That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out.
Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.

I think you're not understanding the quote you put in your comment. What that's saying is that looking at the variables, that none are significant in predicting whether a person will be shot outside if race. If you're black, you're more likely to be shot by cops, even if you're doing the same thing a white person is doing. You're wanting to draw conclusions from individual, anecdotal stories and ignore the data.

The article didn't say blacks were more likely to get shot under the same circumstances. They were pretty clear and said the ONLY factor to being shot if you are unarmed is if you are black or not. That's it, nothing else. Meaning no other variables. Meaning only race is considered. They were clear in stating race is the only factor when being shot. It didn't say "more likely." Nope, it said race was the ONLY factor. And I'm suppose to take them as a legitimate resource and scientific study?
Which is so ridiculous because if that is true and according to the article, the only deciding factor is color, then all black people would be shot every time they were pulled over. I'm not making that up, that's what the article wants you to believe when they use the words "only thing" and refer to race. Which is ridiculous.
Every case that has made the news in the last few years also involved resisting arrest. An exponentially larger factor than race is resisting arrest and assaulting police officers.

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

Just a little info to show that the Sheriff above has no idea what he is talking about and is completely full of shit.

WHAT THE DATA REALLY SAYS ABOUT POLICE AND RACIAL BIAS

Eighteen academic studies, legal rulings, and media investigations shed light on the issue roiling America.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Is vanityfair a reputable news agency?

Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.

I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not.
I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black."
That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out.
Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.

I know I'm probably wasting my time but, do you know how science works? You know what it takes to publish in a peer reviewed journal? Did you take a look at the links to the studies provided? The details are there....the science is there.....the evidence is there. But that doesn't fit your narrative so you dismiss it out of ignorance. Ever hear of confirmation bias?

Yes, I actually know how science works. You're referring to Vanity Fair magazine here. Rolling Stone has better editors, and we all know what mess they can come up with. And the links were mostly other magazines or newspapers, not any "journal" on research. Some of the same newspapers that were dismissed as being bias on this same forum when they put out an article that wasn't agreed with. If you're referring to this vanity Fair magazine as a peer reviewed research journal, I'm guessing you've never read one.

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

dignin said:

Degeneratefk said:

dignin said:

Just a little info to show that the Sheriff above has no idea what he is talking about and is completely full of shit.

WHAT THE DATA REALLY SAYS ABOUT POLICE AND RACIAL BIAS

Eighteen academic studies, legal rulings, and media investigations shed light on the issue roiling America.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Doesn't make his point any less valid.

Yes it does.

His point is his opinion. An opinion not backed up by the data and research.

So there isn't an anti cop sentiment amongst black people across the country?

Sure there is. Not even just amongst black people. What is your point though?

dignin said:

Degeneratefk said:

dignin said:

Degeneratefk said:

dignin said:

Just a little info to show that the Sheriff above has no idea what he is talking about and is completely full of shit.

WHAT THE DATA REALLY SAYS ABOUT POLICE AND RACIAL BIAS

Eighteen academic studies, legal rulings, and media investigations shed light on the issue roiling America.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Doesn't make his point any less valid.

Yes it does.

His point is his opinion. An opinion not backed up by the data and research.

So there isn't an anti cop sentiment amongst black people across the country?

I would say probably, which under the circumstances would be reasonable.

He claims there is no problem with racism in PD's.....which flys in the face of the evidence.

No, it's not reasonable. How many of the police shootings have ended up as convictions against the police officers? You can NOT promote hate against the people trying to protect you. And that is what this sheriff is saying. The argument isn't whether racism exists in police departments. It's the BLM promoting an unsafe environment for cops to be in. That is never acceptable.

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

Just a little info to show that the Sheriff above has no idea what he is talking about and is completely full of shit.

WHAT THE DATA REALLY SAYS ABOUT POLICE AND RACIAL BIAS

Eighteen academic studies, legal rulings, and media investigations shed light on the issue roiling America.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Is vanityfair a reputable news agency?

Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.

I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not.
I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black."
That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out.
Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.

I know I'm probably wasting my time but, do you know how science works? You know what it takes to publish in a peer reviewed journal? Did you take a look at the links to the studies provided? The details are there....the science is there.....the evidence is there. But that doesn't fit your narrative so you dismiss it out of ignorance. Ever hear of confirmation bias?

Yes, I actually know how science works. You're referring to Vanity Fair magazine here. Rolling Stone has better editors, and we all know what mess they can come up with. And the links were mostly other magazines or newspapers, not any "journal" on research. Some of the same newspapers that were dismissed as being bias on this same forum when they put out an article that wasn't agreed with. If you're referring to this vanity Fair magazine as a peer reviewed research journal, I'm guessing you've never read one.

There were 7 scientific papers referenced in that article. Not to mention other sources referenced like the NYT's, Washington Post and conclusions from government investigations.

At the very least you are being disingenuous. Like I said, wasting my time.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

"Wow. Another black guy got shot by a cop!"
- implies cops mowing down black guys fueled by racist attitudes

"Wow. Another black guy resisting arrest got shot by a cop!"
- implies guy at point of arrest challenged cops and got shot for doing so

Which of the big profile cases were of the first variety? I can think of Tamir Rice and the recent one in Minnesota off the top of my head.

The other cases I'm remembering were of the second variety. And being of the second variety, in many circles including ones here, a very significant part of the equation is consistently left out- damning cops in the process and nurturing the 'us versus them' attitude which has recently resulted in cops targeted for death by people buying the 'us versus them' attitude.

The police have had an us vs. them attitude for a long time. It is shitty that civilians are starting to buy into that but who couldn't see that happening?

Sorry I wasted your time, feel free to not read my response.
So by your own statement more than half aren't research journals, and my comment was about the lack of research and the spin that was made in it. Take the final point in the VF article, VF highlights the discrepancy in speed, but completely ignored the statement "although community respondents set the decision criterion lower for Black targets than for White targets (indicating bias), police officers did not." Indicated there is less and virtually no racial bias with the police than compared to the community when it comes to deciding whether or not to shoot. Isn't that a pretty big finding against police bias?
The first link was another research article that made the claim that racial bias is found in big cities with large minority groups and higher poverty level, but added there was no correlation to existing crime. I had an issue with that because every major city with poverty levels has higher crime, so if thats where any bias is found how can you claim crime rates had no impact? Instead of attempting to say why crime is not related it just said "data is not explanation by crime rates." Okay, if you make that claim, but your results suggest otherwise, thats something you should explain a little.

But let's assume every article had zero bias, you completely missed my biggest complaint, that none accounted for resisting arrest. It's pretty hard to ignore that factor and make the claims they've made, that the only deciding factor (or even biggest) is race when to comes to police shootings. Simply not true.

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

"Wow. Another black guy got shot by a cop!"
- implies cops mowing down black guys fueled by racist attitudes

"Wow. Another black guy resisting arrest got shot by a cop!"
- implies guy at point of arrest challenged cops and got shot for doing so

Which of the big profile cases were of the first variety? I can think of Tamir Rice and the recent one in Minnesota off the top of my head.

The other cases I'm remembering were of the second variety. And being of the second variety, in many circles including ones here, a very significant part of the equation is consistently left out- damning cops in the process and nurturing the 'us versus them' attitude which has recently resulted in cops targeted for death by people buying the 'us versus them' attitude.

The police have had an us vs. them attitude for a long time. It is shitty that civilians are starting to buy into that but who couldn't see that happening?

I know. That's stupid on the part of civilians. The criminals are the only ones that should think of themselves as 'them'.

I'm on the 'us' side of the equation alongside cops. I don't break the law and I value their efforts to uphold it.

What bothers me is that you hold citizens to higher standards than police.
Your expectations are jacked. A highly trained professional officer is allowed to suspend judgement and act out of fear at the mere suggestion of a weapon, but when a cop points a weapon in a citizens face, the citizen is expected to keep their cool, follow directions, and remain calm.
That's just fucked.

I give police the right to protect themselves. I ask citizens to comply with the police.

If a citizen doesn't comply, resists, and is shot as a result... what can you say? I am not going to say cops need to exercise unbelievable restraint when dealing with confrontational people at the point of arrest- especially when doing so might place their lives at risk.

Don't want to get shot? Comply. Better yet... don't break the law.

Edit: what is f**ked is your eagerness to hold the bar so low for citizens... as if it is their right to not only break it, but resist it in a last ditch effort to avoid arrest.

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

Just a little info to show that the Sheriff above has no idea what he is talking about and is completely full of shit.

WHAT THE DATA REALLY SAYS ABOUT POLICE AND RACIAL BIAS

Eighteen academic studies, legal rulings, and media investigations shed light on the issue roiling America.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Is vanityfair a reputable news agency?

Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.

I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not.
I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black."
That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out.
Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

Just a little info to show that the Sheriff above has no idea what he is talking about and is completely full of shit.

WHAT THE DATA REALLY SAYS ABOUT POLICE AND RACIAL BIAS

Eighteen academic studies, legal rulings, and media investigations shed light on the issue roiling America.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias

Is vanityfair a reputable news agency?

Irrelevant, since they site and link to 18 studies. Anyone on the face of the planet could do the same thing, and it would be no less relevant than if the New York Times did it.

I disagree since a reputable news agency would check the facts (how the research was done) and others may not.
I found this article to be lacking details, and coming up with some ridiculous conclusions. One of the top first sources they cite them as saying "the only thing thing that significant in predicting whether the person shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black."
That's ridiculous because every single case I have seen where someone was shot and killed and unarmed they either resisted arrest or had a toy gun. Seems like pretty significant detail to leave out.
Go ahead and Google "unarmed white man shot by police" and you'll find matches for that too. I don't have any respect for that article.

I think you're not understanding the quote you put in your comment. What that's saying is that looking at the variables, that none are significant in predicting whether a person will be shot outside if race. If you're black, you're more likely to be shot by cops, even if you're doing the same thing a white person is doing. You're wanting to draw conclusions from individual, anecdotal stories and ignore the data.

The article didn't say blacks were more likely to get shot under the same circumstances. They were pretty clear and said the ONLY factor to being shot if you are unarmed is if you are black or not. That's it, nothing else. Meaning no other variables. Meaning only race is considered. They were clear in stating race is the only factor when being shot. It didn't say "more likely." Nope, it said race was the ONLY factor. And I'm suppose to take them as a legitimate resource and scientific study?
Which is so ridiculous because if that is true and according to the article, the only deciding factor is color, then all black people would be shot every time they were pulled over. I'm not making that up, that's what the article wants you to believe when they use the words "only thing" and refer to race. Which is ridiculous.
Every case that has made the news in the last few years also involved resisting arrest. An exponentially larger factor than race is resisting arrest and assaulting police officers.

If you click the links to the original article, it gets explained in more detail. What the quote is referencing is that crime level, and threat level isn't the factor. Meaning a white person and a black person can both be doing the same threatening behaviors, but the black person is more likely to be shot because there is a bias in the cops interpretation of the behavior. They're perceived to be more theatening.

Oh, I've also seen news clips of blacks being shot in the back running away and reaching back in their car to get ID. But again, anecdotal stories aren't necessarily proof.

I referenced the links in another response. Most are other magazines and newspapers, and not "research journals." Newspapers can be as biased and FOX or CNN.
On your last paragraph I thought of those two stories while writing my original post. The dude running away was resisting arrest. Yes, 100% unjustified and the cop was arrested for murder, but also fits under the variable of "resisting arrest," which I had pointed out as being a larger factor than race.
The other story the guy was armed. According to the girlfriend was armed and licensed to carry, but still armed and this article was about unarmed black men. And there's already threads about this story, I haven't been convinced one way or the other on this story since there is limited information out and he was only going for his ID according to the girlfriend. Even if you believe the cop decided it was his best chance to murder a black male when there were 2 others in the car, he was still armed and doesn't pertain to this article in discussion.
Leaving the single biggest factor on unarmed men getting shot still resisting arrest, and not color. Ever instance of an unarmed black man being shot that has made national news he was resisting arrent. An extremely large variable that is commonly ignored. So if you are black and don't want to get shot by the police, stay unarmed and don't resist arrest and we wouldn't have a single story to discuss here.

The instance I referred to of the guy reaching into his car and getting shot is different than what you're talking about. You're really digging your heals in on this one, but missing the point, which is if a white person resists arrest at the same level a black person does, that white person has less of a chance getting shot, and the black person more of a chance. I guess your conclusion is that it's essentially a black person's fault (except for the few "bad apple" cops) and that they should should follow a higher behavioral expectation than whites?

mace1229 said:

Sorry I wasted your time, feel free to not read my response.
So by your own statement more than half aren't research journals, and my comment was about the lack of research and the spin that was made in it. Take the final point in the VF article, VF highlights the discrepancy in speed, but completely ignored the statement "although community respondents set the decision criterion lower for Black targets than for White targets (indicating bias), police officers did not." Indicated there is less and virtually no racial bias with the police than compared to the community when it comes to deciding whether or not to shoot. Isn't that a pretty big finding against police bias?
The first link was another research article that made the claim that racial bias is found in big cities with large minority groups and higher poverty level, but added there was no correlation to existing crime. I had an issue with that because every major city with poverty levels has higher crime, so if thats where any bias is found how can you claim crime rates had no impact? Instead of attempting to say why crime is not related it just said "data is not explanation by crime rates." Okay, if you make that claim, but your results suggest otherwise, thats something you should explain a little.

But let's assume every article had zero bias, you completely missed my biggest complaint, that none accounted for resisting arrest. It's pretty hard to ignore that factor and make the claims they've made, that the only deciding factor (or even biggest) is race when to comes to police shootings. Simply not true.

Maybe you're speed reading the links. The one about crime rate is saying there's no correlation to police shooting people and the cities rate of crime. As they list the cities from high to low crime rate and plot police shootings over the top of it, there's not trend in the police shooting numbers that follows the crime rate stats, it's all over the place.