|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 07 2016 23:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Umm....no. That's just....not how proportions and math works. You need to rethink your math here. I think the proportion of african americans in the US is around 12 or 13 percent. If a quarter of police shootings are black folks, then they are far, far over-represented in police deaths than they should be (for technical statistical details they are actually shot at much greater than twice the rate because when you analyze differences in proportions you convert to odds ratios, but this is a bit above most stats level education), if shootings were "randomly distributed" among the population. This is not a x > y, this is a case of "the proportion of y is much higher than it should be if we were to just randomly sample the population".
We can assume way more blacks are arrested proportional to their demographic, I don't know if it's 2x more but certainly a lot more. The stat would indicate that out of those who have been in encounters with the police, blacks are not disproportionately being killed.
|
On July 07 2016 23:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
This is pretty pathetic, Gowdy's found that 3 documents had classified markings out of 60,000. It's like saying you've never been late in your life but it turns out you've been a couple minutes late a couple times because, y'know, that's really hard. And somehow that's a terrible lie which is a sign of moral turpitude.
He listed half a dozen outright fabrications she told the American people on multiple occasions, and some she testified to under oath or signed a document swearing to a federal judge, why do you all keep focusing on a few classified emails?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 07 2016 23:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
This is pretty pathetic, Gowdy's found that 3 documents had classified markings out of 60,000. It's like saying you've never been late in your life but it turns out you've been a couple minutes late a couple times because, y'know, that's really hard. And somehow that's a terrible lie which is a sign of moral turpitude.
Yeah, I only mishandled a few classified documents in such a way that they could have been compromised. No big, just a few.
|
On July 07 2016 23:42 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 23:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Umm....no. That's just....not how proportions and math works. You need to rethink your math here. I think the proportion of african americans in the US is around 12 or 13 percent. If a quarter of police shootings are black folks, then they are far, far over-represented in police deaths than they should be (for technical statistical details they are actually shot at much greater than twice the rate because when you analyze differences in proportions you convert to odds ratios, but this is a bit above most stats level education), if shootings were "randomly distributed" among the population. This is not a x > y, this is a case of "the proportion of y is much higher than it should be if we were to just randomly sample the population". We can assume way more blacks are arrested proportional to their demographic, I don't know if it's 2x more but certainly a lot more. The stat would indicate that out of those who have been in encounters with the police, blacks are not disproportionately being killed.
We cannot assume that and you seem to be confused as to how math works.
|
we can't assume that more blacks are arrested relative to their demographic than whites? And you guys are harping on about math?
Comparing those killed by the police to the general demographic instead of to those suspected or arrested works exactly by confusing people who are not good at math or common sense.
|
On July 07 2016 23:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 23:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
This is pretty pathetic, Gowdy's found that 3 documents had classified markings out of 60,000. It's like saying you've never been late in your life but it turns out you've been a couple minutes late a couple times because, y'know, that's really hard. And somehow that's a terrible lie which is a sign of moral turpitude. Yeah, I only mishandled a few classified documents in such a way that they could have been compromised. No big, just a few.
And did I disagree with that? No. But did her handling of emails cause harm? And is her handling of the situation a sign of corruption or anything like that? The standard she is being held to is pretty damn high.
|
On July 07 2016 23:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 23:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
This is pretty pathetic, Gowdy's found that 3 documents had classified markings out of 60,000. It's like saying you've never been late in your life but it turns out you've been a couple minutes late a couple times because, y'know, that's really hard. And somehow that's a terrible lie which is a sign of moral turpitude. Yeah, I only mishandled a few classified documents in such a way that they could have been compromised. No big, just a few.
And we don’t get the content of those emails, so we don’t get to know if the information is dangerous or harmless. The thing about documents being classified is that they are made that way by people. It is not automatic that all documents that are classified are dangerous or even should be considered secret.
But of course, that isn’t the point of the hearing. The point is to demand why the FBI isn't doing what congress could do themselves if they really wanted to.
|
On July 07 2016 23:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 23:45 LegalLord wrote:On July 07 2016 23:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
This is pretty pathetic, Gowdy's found that 3 documents had classified markings out of 60,000. It's like saying you've never been late in your life but it turns out you've been a couple minutes late a couple times because, y'know, that's really hard. And somehow that's a terrible lie which is a sign of moral turpitude. Yeah, I only mishandled a few classified documents in such a way that they could have been compromised. No big, just a few. And we don’t get the content of those emails, so we don’t get to know if the information is dangerous or harmless. The thing about documents being classified is that they are made that way by people. It is not automatic that all documents that are classified are dangerous or even should be considered secret. But of course, that isn’t the point of the hearing. The point is to demand why the FBI isn't doing what congress could do themselves if they really wanted to.
Well in fairness they did touch on my point before, and Comey basically said he didn't consider all of her lies to the public or under oath to people other than the FBI.
|
Peksy police screwups; does this new one have a dashcam at least? I'd assume no body cam at any rate.
Body cams and dash cams for all cops! hurry up with it I say.
And an independent agency to investigate all cop malfeasance issues.
|
On July 07 2016 23:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Have him repeat his condemtion line by line and then have to answer the meaning of them.
The money shot questions are "what is the difference between 'extreme carelessness' and 'gross negligence negligence'" and "why did you require evidence of intentional misconduct to recommend prosecution when the gross negligence statute does not require it?" Of course, the interrogators probably would use more leading forms of those questions, but that's where Comey is going to get in trouble.
|
On July 07 2016 23:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Umm....no. That's just....not how proportions and math works. You need to rethink your math here. I think the proportion of african americans in the US is around 12 or 13 percent. If a quarter of police shootings are black folks, then they are far, far over-represented in police deaths than they should be (for technical statistical details they are actually shot at much greater than twice the rate because when you analyze differences in proportions you convert to odds ratios, but this is a bit above most stats level education), if shootings were "randomly distributed" among the population. This is not a x > y, this is a case of "the proportion of y is much higher than it should be if we were to just randomly sample the population".
As op mentioned black people commit crimes at a higher rate than the rest of the population, so you have to factor that into it as well.
|
Hearing the distinctions between Patraeus and Clinton, what in the world were people thinking even bringing that up. Patraeus fucked up so incredibly badly.
|
"randomly sample the population" -- don't know which population to sample, it's okay, neither does The Guardian.
Going back to the original point, if blacks are more likely to be suspected or arrested, assuming 2x, probably more, than the % of blacks in the US, and they are 2x more likely to be killed by the police, it would seem that police killings are not disproportionately black, and that it's not as much of an race issue as people believe.
|
On July 08 2016 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
Hearing the distinctions between Patraeus and Clinton, what in the world were people thinking even bringing that up. Patraeus fucked up so incredibly badly.
Yeah, Petraeus isn't the right comparison. That guy from California that we were talking about a few days ago is the better one. Regardless, the entire point is that Comey and the FBI clearly are turning a blind eye to the gross negligence statute in Hillary's case.
|
On July 08 2016 00:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
"randomly sample the population" -- don't know which population to sample, it's okay, neither does The Guardian.
Going back to the original point, if blacks are more likely to be suspected or arrested, assuming 2x, probably more, than the % of blacks in the US, and they are 2x more likely to be killed by the police, it would seem that police killings are not disproportionately black, and that it's not as much of an race issue as people believe.
The problem isn't that cops are racists. The problem is that cops are assholes. If you do anything to resist a cop or piss him off, you run the risk of getting your ass beaten/killed. It doesn't matter what race you are.
|
On July 08 2016 00:08 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 23:34 BallinWitStalin wrote:Umm....no. That's just....not how proportions and math works. You need to rethink your math here. I think the proportion of african americans in the US is around 12 or 13 percent. If a quarter of police shootings are black folks, then they are far, far over-represented in police deaths than they should be (for technical statistical details they are actually shot at much greater than twice the rate because when you analyze differences in proportions you convert to odds ratios, but this is a bit above most stats level education), if shootings were "randomly distributed" among the population. This is not a x > y, this is a case of "the proportion of y is much higher than it should be if we were to just randomly sample the population". As op mentioned black people commit crimes at a higher rate than the rest of the population, so you have to factor that into it as well.
There are a lot of crimes which wouldn't need to result in police shooting people to death. All these oh so smart naïve fallacys here are (almost) useless to begin with.
Would the "Falcon Heights Shooting" already be defined as a "crime" here? Would a white have been shot in the same circumstance? That's the question you have to ask, not if we can somehow interprete data the way we want (that there is no problem indeed)
|
On July 08 2016 00:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
"randomly sample the population" -- don't know which population to sample, it's okay, neither does The Guardian.
Going back to the original point, if blacks are more likely to be suspected or arrested, assuming 2x, probably more, than the % of blacks in the US, and they are 2x more likely to be killed by the police, it would seem that police killings are not disproportionately black, and that it's not as much of an race issue as people believe.
The point you're missing is that black people interact with police more frequently regardless of whether they are committing crimes. As an example.
An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 5 million times since 2002, and that black and Latino communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD’s own reports:
Source
Anyone who claims they care about people's constitutional rights can't look at information like that and come to any other conclusion than it's a gross and rampant problem that's unacceptable. Of course if your belief in constitutional rights doesn't apply to black people, one could probably say things like "but black people commit more crime".
On July 08 2016 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
"randomly sample the population" -- don't know which population to sample, it's okay, neither does The Guardian.
Going back to the original point, if blacks are more likely to be suspected or arrested, assuming 2x, probably more, than the % of blacks in the US, and they are 2x more likely to be killed by the police, it would seem that police killings are not disproportionately black, and that it's not as much of an race issue as people believe. The problem isn't that cops are racists. The problem is that cops are assholes. If you do anything to resist a cop or piss him off, you run the risk of getting your ass beaten/killed. It doesn't matter what race you are.
That's absolutely NOT true.
|
I mean clearly you can see he's a black man and therefore wearing gang colors, its likely he has committed a crime at some point even with the "clean" record. I'm sure it will come to light in the coming days that he actually stole his gun and that the woman was so quick to record the event because she's an agent of BLM trying to destroy our nation's police departments and replace them with all african american police officers.
|
Cops are still probably racist. But turning police killings into a race issue distorts the problem and makes it more unlikely to be dealt with.
|
On July 08 2016 00:18 ZeaL. wrote:
I mean clearly you can see he's a black man and therefore wearing gang colors, its likely he has committed a crime at some point even with the "clean" record. I'm sure it will come to light in the coming days that he actually stole his gun and that the woman was so quick to record the event because she's an agent of BLM trying to destroy our nation's police departments and replace them with all african american police officers.
or she was worried for her life after just watching her husband be executed in front of her and her young child while the cop freaks out and keeps a gun on her.
On July 08 2016 00:20 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Cops are still probably racist. But turning police killings into a race issue distorts the problem and makes it more unlikely to be dealt with.
No it doesn't, people claiming race isn't a factor intentionally pettifog the issue and it disgusts me.
Also did Comey say that Hillary's lawyers didn't even have clearance to do the review she said they did?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
