There only ever seems to be protests against 'police brutality' when a black person is involved.
There only ever seems to be protests against 'police brutality' when a black person is involved.
Harry your flamebait needs to be less obvious.
It's a legitimate point to make.Originally Posted by Disco
To be fair, most white people just accept they deserved it.
Probably because black people seem to be brutalized by the police far more than white people do.
I welcome counterexamples to this, by the way. Knowledge is power.
They commit more crime, too.
That's really not what it's about; nobody's protesting black people being peacefully arrested. Committing a crime should not automatically lead to being shot up, and for too many young black people it has. I'd still love an example of a white person being unjustly shot by the police, though.
Why engage?
White people don't get unjustly shot by police because the police are all, uniformily, black haters. As you know.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/31/where-are-the-protests-for-this-white-man-shot-by-police-with-his-hands-up/
http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-cop-shoots-and-kills-6-year-old-white-boy-with-autism
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/06/us...lice-shooting/
Spoon has gone for a daft argument there. Of course there are white people unjustly shot by American police. There are just far more black people to whom it happens, especially young black men.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...lice-killings/
A fairer analysis, at ProPublica, found that black males aged 15 to 19 were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than white males in that age group. And The Washington Post reports that unarmed black men were seven times more likely to be killed by police this year than unarmed white men.
But the original 21-fold claim is based on worse than unreliable data. ProPublica acknowledges that the data on justifiable police killings are “terribly incomplete. . . . Vast numbers of the country’s 17,000 police departments don’t file fatal police shooting reports at all.”
But they don't make it clear that literally only a couple hundred police departments (217 in 2012, just 1.2% of all the departments in the country) report these numbers.
Even worse, the very few police departments that do report are predominately urban areas, which tend to have much higher concentrations of blacks. This skews the numbers to over-represent black deaths.http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/j...icle-1.2030545If you’re going to correctly compare the rates at which police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to compare teenage crime rates. You can’t just compare crime rates among the entire black and white populations. The rate that these teenagers commit murder, not including rape and other less serious crimes, also provides a somewhat better measure of the perceived threat that they might pose to police.
Among blacks, teenage crime is much more prevalent. Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers, black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts. That’s right, nine times, and the gap in these urban areas is undoubtedly even larger.
After adjusting for murder rates, black male teenagers are still killed by the police 2.3 times as often as whites. This is a considerable difference — but again, over-representation of urban areas in the data set could be a big part of the explanation.
Screaming “racism!” may attract a TV audience. But uncritically spreading bad information is downright dangerous
If that specific figure is incorrect, fair enough, but there are enough sources showing largely the same thing for it not to change the wider point. Black people are killed by police more frequently than white people, or any other race - and that includes data sets adjusted to reflect relative levels of crime for each group. I mean, your own article even confirms that.
Oh fuck off Spoon you daft twat, look what you've gone and started. Just ignore him.
Ah well, that's this thread done for then.
Classic inflammatory statement opening from Hazza B, followed up quickly by YouTube Video + multi-post combo, rounded off by Toby using tedious pedantry: it's super effective!
It's hardly tedious pedantry, and let's not pretend he wouldn't have just kept posting videos of his own accord anyway. Look at the last free speech thread and you'll see him posting away like a crap Twitter feed.
Ignore it.
Just as you and Raoul could ignore this.
My point is that he's going to post anyway, whether people indulge him or not.
So Harold provides facts for his points and he's still in the wrong?
Because they commit more crime than white/asian/hispanic people, simple as that
Why does nobody complain about all the whites killed by blacks?
Read again. Data sets adjusted to reflect relative levels of crime. Even Harold's article acknowledges that.So Harold provides facts for his points and he's still in the wrong?
Because they commit more crime than white/asian/hispanic people, simple as that
There probably is something there, but this kind of lazy acceptance of such ridiculous figures does nothing to further the cause. All it does it propogate a grievance culture and a round and round we go. As was stated - those figures were also taken from largely black areas.
Yes, because this place has been so fucking busy lately. Whatever will we do?
Well, there we go then. Yes, a lot of the data is at best incomplete and in many cases incorrect, but it all points to the same thing: black people, and especially young black men, being the victims of police violence to a disproportionate level. That is why people protest specifically against police violence towards black people. These protests aren't specifically for the individual victims but against the wider societal issues reflected by their deaths.
I said 'probably' because those sorts of facts are so twisted it's hard to tell for sure. Could it not be the case that young black men are the victims of increased police violence because they, themselves, are more violent and antagonistic towards police? (in no small part due to these ridiculous figures)
By the way, included in these 'deaths' of black people is a case of a woman who tried to hug a police officer from behind and triggered his firearm. How can you trust the figures?
Because the differences are significant enough to still stand once things like that are considered. This is shown time and again in every data set you can find. Even those you and Yaysus and others like you look to when trying to argue against them end up acknowledging that, yes, there is a difference, no matter how many additional considerations we make to mitigate it.
Do you really want to suggest accidental misfirings like you set out in your edit there are so common as to skew the figures in any meaningful way? There were 965 deaths by police shooting in the US last year. Call it 964 if you want, it's not going to change the breakdowns to any significant level.
How do you conclude that, though? If twice as many black men were violent and antagonistic towards police then a doubling of incidents the other way would be expected. I'm sure you won't disagree with me that young black men have a much worse opinion of the police than young white men. Like I said, it's a circle that won't stop until black people stop being told they are the victims.
I gave the example of the misfiring to show how ridiculous and skewed these figures can be. Either do it honestly or not at all. It's also a fact that blacks commit violent crime at 7 times more than whites - this might, just might, be taken into account.
Harry resorting to his own aliases to back him up
It wouldn't. If the difference was purely down to black men who were aggressive towards police (i.e. the numbers shot when unarmed and nonantagonistic were proportional) you may have more of a point. There's no basis for that claim though. What you're saying is that "more violence against police is perpetrated by black men" as if that's a justification for police to look at a black person and treat him as more likely to be violent. That is pretty much dictionary definition racism.
Yes, I would agree on that. As I said above, this reflects wider societal issues that need to be tackled. One of those issues is most certainly the approach and attitude of the police.I'm sure you won't disagree with me that young black men have a much worse opinion of the police than young white men. Like I said, it's a circle that won't stop until black people stop being told they are the victims.
And yet whatever caveats people have added to the data, I've yet to see any that does suggests black Americans are not disproportionately the victims of police violence.I gave the example opf the misfiring to show how ridiculous and skewed these figures can be. Either do it honestly or not at all.
Why do you think that's my alias? Is it beyond your comprehension that someone else might not buy this black victimhood myth?Harry resorting to his own aliases to back him up
Them being 'not armed' would be totally irrelevant if they woul;dn't remove their hands from their pocket, for example. Also included in the 'unarmed deaths' stats, by the way, are those who were using their vehicles as a weapon.
But this wi9ll continue if young blacks are continually told they are victims. The perceived injustice will continue to lead to more anger, more violence, and result in more deaths.Yes, I would agree on that. As I said above, this reflects wider societal issues that need to be tackled. One of those issues is most certainly the approach and attitude of the police.
They are, but you refuse to see any reason other omg racism as to why that may be. Again, 7 times more blacks commit violent crimes as opposed to whites. It's hardly a surprise that more end up on the receiving end.And yet whatever caveats people have added to the data, I've yet to see any that does suggests black Americans are not disproportionately the victims of police violence.
No they're not. You're conflating metrics looking at whether they were in possession of a firearm with those looking at whether they were armed. The Washington Post's figures for last year break down deaths to those who were armed with a gun, those armed with another weapon (including use of a vehicle as a weapon) and those unarmed.
Forty of the ninety victims of police shootings who were unarmed at the time were black people.
I agree that attitude doesn't help, but it's hardly an easy fix, is it? I don't think most of the "young blacks" you refer to are building their perceptions based on datasets they've reported in the media. For them it will stem from lived experience - of their friends, relatives and neighbours living in that environment. It needs to be recognised as a wider societal issue, rather than trying to dumb it down to any one thing.But this wi9ll continue if young blacks are continually told they are victims.
I've acknowledged various reasons for large differences. It's just that the data has been scrutinised with those caveats in place and it still comes back showing a disproportionate number of victims of police violence are black.They are, but you refuse to see any reason other omg racism as to why that may be.
really? I posted on the dugout for years, mostly in the fm section thoughHarry resorting to his own aliases to back him up
The Washington Post link doesn't work. Like I said, this doesn't include those who might have appeared to be armed. Those who refused to comply etc.
So what? Those killed were likely to have been those who were not complying and/or making iot seem they were armed. And given that we both agree that blacks have a much worse view of the police, it would be no surprise oif more black people were antagonistic and less compliant.Forty of the ninety victims of police shootings who were unarmed at the time were black people.
No, they're basing their views on twats like Black Lives Matter, an openly racist and segregationist organisation. And stats like whose you peddled before you backtracked a bit. But how many of these people are going to bother researching instead of just blindly believing the '21 times more likely' propoganda bullshit?I agree that attitude doesn't help, but it's hardly an easy fix, is it? I don't think most of the "young blacks" you refer to are building their perceptions based on datasets they've reported in the media. For them it will stem from lived experience - of their friends, relatives and neighbours living in that environment. It needs to be recognised as a wider societal issue, rather than trying to dumb it down to any one thing.
So you say. You haven't really addressed thye point that blacks commit seven times moire violent crimes than whites, though. I would imagine that is a pretty major factor.I've acknowledged various reasons for large differences. It's just that the data has been scrutinised with those caveats in place and it still comes back showing a disproportionate number of victims of police violence are black.
Works for me. The link is below if you want to copy and paste it. You can literally go through every death and see a short summary of what happened. Yes, a lot of them resisted arrest, but that's not justification to fatally shoot them. Most other police forces around the world manage to deal with that. Plus, there are cases where witnesses say the victim did not resist, as well as cases where the police accidentally shot somebody or otherwise admit there was no just reason to shoot them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ice-shootings/
It's not though, given various people have attempted to apply that to the data and still found (usually to their disappointment and against their best efforts) that there is a disproportionate number of black people among the victims. We've been over that a few times now, so I'll assume reverting to your original point is a sign that you're struggling to think of a new one.So you say. You haven't really addressed thye point that blacks commit seven times moire violent crimes than whites, though. I would imagine that is a pretty major factor.
I didn't "backtrack a bit", I explicitly accepted it could be inaccurate. It doesn't change the wider point though. There is no claim that could be made to suggest black people aren't disproportionately the victims of police violence. There are many reasons that may be the case, but to attempt to dispute it is a bit silly.
It might well be justification. What if the police had information that the suspect is a violent offender and is armed? And we both know that blacks are much more likely to be violent criminals. What is they had their hands in their pockets and refused to remove them? There's mall manner of justifications that are possible. Which right-minded officer would want to be guilty of murder and have their career ended for some petty 'racist' mindset? Very few, I'd say.
Sorry, but you have not addressed what I said at all. How do you apply the fact that blacks are seven times more likely to be violent criminals to the data? How does that work? It seems like it's ignored completely to me.It's not though, given various people have attempted to apply that to the data and still found (usually to their disappointment and against their best efforts) that there is a disproportionate number of black people among the victims. We've been over that a few times now, so I'll assume reverting to your original point is a sign that you're struggling to think of a new one.
You're continually second guessing the figures because it doesn't suit your argument. If somebody else did this you'd be among the first to point it out. All this stuff about "maybe they thought they were armed", "maybe their hands were in their pockets" is just blusterous crap. There's no reason to think the same wasn't true of the white or Asian or Hispanic people killed.
Black people may be seven times more likely to be violent criminals, but they were over ten times as likely to be killed by police while unarmed last year. You may note one of those numbers is larger than the other.
No, I'm using other figures to show why it might be the case, and I think the fact that they are 7 times more likely to be violent is a significant factor. Very significant.
Is it 10 times now? First time I heard that one.
http://therightstuff.biz/2016/02/12/...k-crime-myths/The idea that there is a war against Black males being waged by the police neglects one glaringly obvious fact: Black males do more than their fair share of crime and, as a result, are more likely to get shot by cops.
FBI data suggests that Blacks account for roughly half of murder offenders, 38% of all violent criminals, and 29% of all persons arrested (2014, Crime in the United States, Table 43). Given this, if we had a just police force which only killed criminals who posed a serious danger to society, and if such criminals whether White or Black were equally likely to be killed by police, then we would expect somewhere between 29% and 38% of those killed by police to be Black.
There are various sources on police killings. Which one is best is a matter of controversy. But it doesn’t really matter, because they all show basically the same thing. To begin with, the Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan analyzed UCR data and found that 32% of those killed by police were Black (Mullainathan 2015). Similarly, the sociologist Peter Moskos analyzed data from the website Killedbypolice.net, which claims to be “The most accurate, most comprehensive and always up-to-date list of people killed by U.S. law enforcement officers.” The site basically aggregates all news stories in the country about someone being killed by a cop. The site is supposed to offer a rigorous alternative to biased and lazy statistics released by the government. Using this data set, Moskos found that 30% of those killed by police in 2013-2015 were Black (Moskos 2015). A third source we can use is the CDC’s Compressed Mortality Database. This database’s focus isn’t on crime but, rather, the causes of American deaths. However, one such cause is being killed by law enforcement (excluding legal execution).
Using this data, we can see that the CDC estimates Blacks to have been 27% of those killed by police between 1999 and 2014 (Compressed Mortality Database). Thus, across multiple data sources, we see that, if anything, Blacks make up a lower proportion of those killed by police than what we would expect given their crime rates. In light of this, there is no good reason to think that the police are running around unjustly killing Blacks.
Still not managed to open that link, I guess.
Mods do have the ability to split threads, if we don't want the first 25 posts being lost among the conversation the thread starter initiated.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
