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 10 2016 14:29 oBlade wrote: I don't think their skin color or exercise of open carry are key in why those Baton Rouge tweets would be unsettling and why there might be police in riot gear. Rather, what jumps out is the brazen racialism.
They're pretty much always in riot gear at these protests, and there's never not been brazen racialism coming from the police. Maybe you missed it, but people have had enough and they aren't going to take it anymore.
You are part of the problem. You cannot make these sweeping generalisations without qualification.
What are the facts? Black people make up 25% of police shooting victims and only 13% of the population. It's disproportionate. But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
What happens when an unarmed white victim is shot by the police? Very little, because it doesn't fit the media narrative. The majority of these incidents demonstrate incompetence, anxiety and a massive over reliance on firearms by police, but I think you have some serious work to do to demonstrate that they are racist.
You might want to drop a source in for all that. Somehow I'm guessing it's using FBI data or something if anything. People seem to mistake "people caught, prosecuted, and convicted" with "crime committed".
Just curious when you think racism stopped coming from the police? A year or decade should work fine.
I'm not saying individual police officers are never racist. Of course they are. I'm saying you don't get to just call the police racist because there are a disproportionate number of black victims when there are also a disproportionate number of black criminals.
Making this a racial issue as opposed to a general issue of police conduct is a mistake. It only serves to heighten divisive tensions. The real issues at hand are not racial, they are:
1. Police incompetence/arrogance. For example in the Eric Garner case. 2. Police unaccountability. Make bodycams mandatory and actually punish police officers when they do wrong. 3. Using firearms as anything other than a last resort. This is common sense in the rest of the western world, but apparently not in the US. For example I saw a video of an officer - who had a taser - shooting dead a man holding a screwdriver at some distance.
Let's be honest. When you have things like this (see video) and people shooting cops across the country, the only thing you are going to achieve is a galvinsation of the police force which will likely result in more anxiety and more innocent deaths.
On July 10 2016 16:03 Plansix wrote: It's not like great civil rights leaders of the past ever blocked traffic during a protest. Especially bridges /s
They didn't throw bricks, molotov cocktails and fireworks, though, did they? They probably didn't dance in front of police and mock them while their colleagues were being murdered, either.
That doesn't show any of the statistics you said?
Race is most definitely a part of this no matter how much people want to pretend it isn't.
Yes, I remember how MLK Jr.'s peaceful protests worked so well he just got to stop and retire on all his civil rights money. One NYC video posted over and over represents all of BLM but KKK police chiefs, racist messages in departments across the country, the stopping of more young black men in NYC then there are young black men in NYC, etc... and it's just individual racists sure, but this isn't a race issue.
Give me a break.
On July 10 2016 16:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Yup.The real tragedy is gang violence in Chicago (Detroit, Baltimore...) Headed for a record year of shootings.I heard 64 shootings in Chicago last weekend alone.
While it is a tragedy, we aren't paying those gang members to protect the citizens in that city, police kidnapping people and taking them to black sites is a bit more of a relevant issue.
Bring the drug trade above the table and you could have wealthy black owned corporations instead of gangs. You all believe in personal freedom and responsibility anyway.
You have to select the filters you want to see. For race, choose black. For weapon, choose unarmed. See the percentage. Then do the same with white and unarmed. The statistics have actually changed. It's now 2% for blacks and 4% for whites.
When black people commit crimes at the same rates as whites and the police are still disproportionately stopping black men we can say it's a race issue. For now, it's common sense. You police neighbourhoods with more crime more actively, and the neighbourhoods with the most crime are the neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of black people.
Again, you seem not to understand the relationship between policing and crime. If you put more police, looking for more crime, you find it. Doesn't matter where you put it. Otherwise you would think there is little or no cocaine in the Hollywood hills or other ridiculous things like that.
What we need to do is 1. get cops to do their jobs 2. adopt a sensible drug policy 3. address the underlying motivations for crime, and we need to do it yesterday.
EDIT: I said I was standing down for some other people to step up, I'm going to hold myself to that.
I do understand that relationship, but I think it's extremely disingenuous to suggest that the police are focusing on these areas because they have black people and not because they have high crime rates.
Take homicides, for example, 52.5% of which were committed by black Americans between 1980 - 2008. Having a higher police presence does not result in you 'finding' more homicides, because homicides will be reported to the police regardless of whether they are in the vicinity of them or not. Or do you think white suburbia is full of corpses that the police just haven't come across because they're too busy being racist and only looking in black neighbourhoods?
You might also want to look at page 24 of the NYPD's annual firearms report from 2012. They seem to have stopped including these stats since 2012, but it is likely illustrative nonetheless.
On July 10 2016 14:29 oBlade wrote: I don't think their skin color or exercise of open carry are key in why those Baton Rouge tweets would be unsettling and why there might be police in riot gear. Rather, what jumps out is the brazen racialism.
They're pretty much always in riot gear at these protests, and there's never not been brazen racialism coming from the police. Maybe you missed it, but people have had enough and they aren't going to take it anymore.
You are part of the problem. You cannot make these sweeping generalisations without qualification.
What are the facts? Black people make up 25% of police shooting victims and only 13% of the population. It's disproportionate. But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
What happens when an unarmed white victim is shot by the police? Very little, because it doesn't fit the media narrative. The majority of these incidents demonstrate incompetence, anxiety and a massive over reliance on firearms by police, but I think you have some serious work to do to demonstrate that they are racist.
You might want to drop a source in for all that. Somehow I'm guessing it's using FBI data or something if anything. People seem to mistake "people caught, prosecuted, and convicted" with "crime committed".
Just curious when you think racism stopped coming from the police? A year or decade should work fine.
I'm not saying individual police officers are never racist. Of course they are. I'm saying you don't get to just call the police racist because there are a disproportionate number of black victims when there are also a disproportionate number of black criminals.
Making this a racial issue as opposed to a general issue of police conduct is a mistake. It only serves to heighten divisive tensions. The real issues at hand are not racial, they are:
1. Police incompetence/arrogance. For example in the Eric Garner case. 2. Police unaccountability. Make bodycams mandatory and actually punish police officers when they do wrong. 3. Using firearms as anything other than a last resort. This is common sense in the rest of the western world, but apparently not in the US. For example I saw a video of an officer - who had a taser - shooting dead a man holding a screwdriver at some distance.
Let's be honest. When you have things like this (see video) and people shooting cops across the country, the only thing you are going to achieve is a galvinsation of the police force which will likely result in more anxiety and more innocent deaths.
On July 10 2016 16:03 Plansix wrote: It's not like great civil rights leaders of the past ever blocked traffic during a protest. Especially bridges /s
They didn't throw bricks, molotov cocktails and fireworks, though, did they? They probably didn't dance in front of police and mock them while their colleagues were being murdered, either.
That doesn't show any of the statistics you said?
Race is most definitely a part of this no matter how much people want to pretend it isn't.
Yes, I remember how MLK Jr.'s peaceful protests worked so well he just got to stop and retire on all his civil rights money. One NYC video posted over and over represents all of BLM but KKK police chiefs, racist messages in departments across the country, the stopping of more young black men in NYC then there are young black men in NYC, etc... and it's just individual racists sure, but this isn't a race issue.
Give me a break.
On July 10 2016 16:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Yup.The real tragedy is gang violence in Chicago (Detroit, Baltimore...) Headed for a record year of shootings.I heard 64 shootings in Chicago last weekend alone.
While it is a tragedy, we aren't paying those gang members to protect the citizens in that city, police kidnapping people and taking them to black sites is a bit more of a relevant issue.
Bring the drug trade above the table and you could have wealthy black owned corporations instead of gangs. You all believe in personal freedom and responsibility anyway.
You have to select the filters you want to see. For race, choose black. For weapon, choose unarmed. See the percentage. Then do the same with white and unarmed. The statistics have actually changed. It's now 2% for blacks and 4% for whites.
When black people commit crimes at the same rates as whites and the police are still disproportionately stopping black men we can say it's a race issue. For now, it's common sense. You police neighbourhoods with more crime more actively, and the neighbourhoods with the most crime are the neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of black people.
Again, you seem not to understand the relationship between policing and crime. If you put more police, looking for more crime, you find it. Doesn't matter where you put it. Otherwise you would think there is little or no cocaine in the Hollywood hills or other ridiculous things like that.
What we need to do is 1. get cops to do their jobs 2. adopt a sensible drug policy 3. address the underlying motivations for crime, and we need to do it yesterday.
EDIT: I said I was standing down for some other people to step up, I'm going to hold myself to that.
I do understand that relationship, but I think it's extremely disingenuous to suggest that the police are focusing on these areas because they have black people and not because they have high crime rates.
Take homicides, for example, 52.5% of which were committed by black Americans between 1980 - 2008. Having a higher police presence does not result in you 'finding' more homicides, because homicides will be reported to the police regardless of whether they are in the vicinity of them or not. Or do you think white suburbia is full of corpses that the police just haven't come across because they're too busy being racist and only looking in black neighbourhoods?
You might also want to look at page 24 of the NYPD's annual firearms report from 2012. They seem to have stopped including these stats since 2012, but it is likely illustrative nonetheless.
You misunderstand what I'm saying altogether.
I can't help myself on this one point. A lot of focus has been placed specifically on the killing of black people, but that's not all this is about, just the only thing that got yall's attention. On that, I'm stepping back down.
But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
On July 10 2016 14:29 oBlade wrote: I don't think their skin color or exercise of open carry are key in why those Baton Rouge tweets would be unsettling and why there might be police in riot gear. Rather, what jumps out is the brazen racialism.
They're pretty much always in riot gear at these protests, and there's never not been brazen racialism coming from the police. Maybe you missed it, but people have had enough and they aren't going to take it anymore.
You are part of the problem. You cannot make these sweeping generalisations without qualification.
What are the facts? Black people make up 25% of police shooting victims and only 13% of the population. It's disproportionate. But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
What happens when an unarmed white victim is shot by the police? Very little, because it doesn't fit the media narrative. The majority of these incidents demonstrate incompetence, anxiety and a massive over reliance on firearms by police, but I think you have some serious work to do to demonstrate that they are racist.
You might want to drop a source in for all that. Somehow I'm guessing it's using FBI data or something if anything. People seem to mistake "people caught, prosecuted, and convicted" with "crime committed".
Just curious when you think racism stopped coming from the police? A year or decade should work fine.
I'm not saying individual police officers are never racist. Of course they are. I'm saying you don't get to just call the police racist because there are a disproportionate number of black victims when there are also a disproportionate number of black criminals.
Making this a racial issue as opposed to a general issue of police conduct is a mistake. It only serves to heighten divisive tensions. The real issues at hand are not racial, they are:
1. Police incompetence/arrogance. For example in the Eric Garner case. 2. Police unaccountability. Make bodycams mandatory and actually punish police officers when they do wrong. 3. Using firearms as anything other than a last resort. This is common sense in the rest of the western world, but apparently not in the US. For example I saw a video of an officer - who had a taser - shooting dead a man holding a screwdriver at some distance.
Let's be honest. When you have things like this (see video) and people shooting cops across the country, the only thing you are going to achieve is a galvinsation of the police force which will likely result in more anxiety and more innocent deaths.
On July 10 2016 16:03 Plansix wrote: It's not like great civil rights leaders of the past ever blocked traffic during a protest. Especially bridges /s
They didn't throw bricks, molotov cocktails and fireworks, though, did they? They probably didn't dance in front of police and mock them while their colleagues were being murdered, either.
That doesn't show any of the statistics you said?
Race is most definitely a part of this no matter how much people want to pretend it isn't.
Yes, I remember how MLK Jr.'s peaceful protests worked so well he just got to stop and retire on all his civil rights money. One NYC video posted over and over represents all of BLM but KKK police chiefs, racist messages in departments across the country, the stopping of more young black men in NYC then there are young black men in NYC, etc... and it's just individual racists sure, but this isn't a race issue.
Give me a break.
On July 10 2016 16:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Yup.The real tragedy is gang violence in Chicago (Detroit, Baltimore...) Headed for a record year of shootings.I heard 64 shootings in Chicago last weekend alone.
While it is a tragedy, we aren't paying those gang members to protect the citizens in that city, police kidnapping people and taking them to black sites is a bit more of a relevant issue.
Bring the drug trade above the table and you could have wealthy black owned corporations instead of gangs. You all believe in personal freedom and responsibility anyway.
You have to select the filters you want to see. For race, choose black. For weapon, choose unarmed. See the percentage. Then do the same with white and unarmed. The statistics have actually changed. It's now 2% for blacks and 4% for whites.
When black people commit crimes at the same rates as whites and the police are still disproportionately stopping black men we can say it's a race issue. For now, it's common sense. You police neighbourhoods with more crime more actively, and the neighbourhoods with the most crime are the neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of black people.
Again, you seem not to understand the relationship between policing and crime. If you put more police, looking for more crime, you find it. Doesn't matter where you put it. Otherwise you would think there is little or no cocaine in the Hollywood hills or other ridiculous things like that.
What we need to do is 1. get cops to do their jobs 2. adopt a sensible drug policy 3. address the underlying motivations for crime, and we need to do it yesterday.
EDIT: I said I was standing down for some other people to step up, I'm going to hold myself to that.
I do understand that relationship, but I think it's extremely disingenuous to suggest that the police are focusing on these areas because they have black people and not because they have high crime rates.
Take homicides, for example, 52.5% of which were committed by black Americans between 1980 - 2008. Having a higher police presence does not result in you 'finding' more homicides, because homicides will be reported to the police regardless of whether they are in the vicinity of them or not. Or do you think white suburbia is full of corpses that the police just haven't come across because they're too busy being racist and only looking in black neighbourhoods?
You might also want to look at page 24 of the NYPD's annual firearms report from 2012. They seem to have stopped including these stats since 2012, but it is likely illustrative nonetheless.
You misunderstand what I'm saying altogether.
I can't help myself on this one point. A lot of focus has been placed specifically on the killing of black people, but that's not all this is about, just the only thing that got yall's attention. On that, I'm stepping back down.
I don't think I misunderstood; I think you're shifting the goal posts. I actually agree with your three points. I think drug policy in the US (and in the UK, albeit to a lesser extent) is incredibly stupid. I agree that policing needs improvements and that there is a desperate need for the US to recognise and address the underlying causes of crime. We probably also agree that the prison system has become a sinister source of labour.
But as long as crime proliferates in black areas, black people are going to be disproportionately affected by police misconduct.
The deeper issues are extremely complex, and the simplistic approach of BLM does nothing to address them.
But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
No what I mean is that if you knew anything about how the "stats" are collected, or not collected, or how police who give false reports are treated, or how neighborhoods are actually policed, or how police have never not enforced the law differently based on race, etc... then you would understand how essentially you are coming at this about three years behind the discussion.
Now someone could be kind enough to go back through all of that with you, but you can't really expect to have you're hand held (at least not by me). It's like going to a book club and expecting people to read the book to you. Find a friend, do you're own research, or perhaps some responsible non-black person will pick it up. But the folks expecting to get this all spoon fed to them on protest signs and in soundbites from protesters have a better chance growing a tail. We've been saying it for decades (centuries really), it's on you all (those who still don't understand why the protests are far less criminal than what they are protesting and whose anger is grossly misdirected) to learn at this point.
But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
No what I mean is that if you knew anything about how the "stats" are collected, or not collected, or how police who give false reports are treated, or how neighborhoods are actually policed, or how police have never not enforced the law differently based on race, etc... then you would understand how essentially you are coming at this about three years behind the discussion.
Now someone could be kind enough to go back through all of that with you, but you can't really expect to have you're hand held (at least not by me). It's like going to a book club and expecting people to read the book to you. Find a friend, do you're own research, or perhaps some responsible non-black person will pick it up. But the folks expecting to get this all spoon fed to them on protest signs and in soundbites from protesters have a better chance growing a tail. We've been saying it for decades (centuries really), it's on you all (those who still don't understand why the protests are far less criminal than what they are protesting and whose anger is grossly misdirected) to learn at this point.
The numbers I am discussing are number of killings done by blacks, whites, police officers and number of victims that are black or white. I'm not really going into how justified the killings are. Theres no doubt in my mind that the police should have better training and better recruitment. Im saying it is not true to reallity that police are killing a disproportional number of blacks relative to the crime. I don't think number of dead bodies are fabricated whoever it is that killed them. Do I think police have different criteria based on race? Yes. However i don't think that that means they are racist per se (a lot of times it does mean exactly that but not always). Do I think that they are too trigger happy? Absolutelly. Do I think you have a problem? Yes. Do i think this problem is greatly exajurbated? Yes.
On July 10 2016 14:29 oBlade wrote: I don't think their skin color or exercise of open carry are key in why those Baton Rouge tweets would be unsettling and why there might be police in riot gear. Rather, what jumps out is the brazen racialism.
Some anecodtal evidence for you.. I can't speak for all over the country but there is riot gear at almost every Don't Shoot Portland and almost every Black Lives Matter associated event like clockwork.
I know a few people who have been flash banged/pepper sprayed during these marches, which i believe some of the marches in particular didn't have a permit for going off course or something but really is no excuse to do that to those in that particular situation.
Speaks nothing of the nature of the event to me at least who know some people involved around here at least and have heard about what was going on when those events happened.
Now Baton Rouge might be completely different idk...
But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
No what I mean is that if you knew anything about how the "stats" are collected, or not collected, or how police who give false reports are treated, or how neighborhoods are actually policed, or how police have never not enforced the law differently based on race, etc... then you would understand how essentially you are coming at this about three years behind the discussion.
Now someone could be kind enough to go back through all of that with you, but you can't really expect to have you're hand held (at least not by me). It's like going to a book club and expecting people to read the book to you. Find a friend, do you're own research, or perhaps some responsible non-black person will pick it up. But the folks expecting to get this all spoon fed to them on protest signs and in soundbites from protesters have a better chance growing a tail. We've been saying it for decades (centuries really), it's on you all (those who still don't understand why the protests are far less criminal than what they are protesting and whose anger is grossly misdirected) to learn at this point.
Whithin your contribution you claim to possess certain inside knowledge while your continuing inability to properly distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' casts severe doubt on your intellectual capability. Maybe next time you write don't be so scarce on information, or perpetuate the notion of being a complete jerk.
But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
No what I mean is that if you knew anything about how the "stats" are collected, or not collected, or how police who give false reports are treated, or how neighborhoods are actually policed, or how police have never not enforced the law differently based on race, etc... then you would understand how essentially you are coming at this about three years behind the discussion.
Now someone could be kind enough to go back through all of that with you, but you can't really expect to have you're hand held (at least not by me). It's like going to a book club and expecting people to read the book to you. Find a friend, do you're own research, or perhaps some responsible non-black person will pick it up. But the folks expecting to get this all spoon fed to them on protest signs and in soundbites from protesters have a better chance growing a tail. We've been saying it for decades (centuries really), it's on you all (those who still don't understand why the protests are far less criminal than what they are protesting and whose anger is grossly misdirected) to learn at this point.
Whithin your contribution you claim to possess certain inside knowledge while your continuing inability to properly distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' casts severe doubt on your intellectual capability. Maybe next time you write don't be so scarce on information, or perpetuate the notion of being a complete jerk.
or that it's 3 am I'm tired and you're post is childish.
But black people also account for over 50% of most violent crimes in the US. Disproportionate. The majority of people who open fire on police are black. Disproportionate. Black neighbourhoods are disproportionately dangerous to police while simultaneously requiring more active policing. Black gangster culture encourages hatred of the police, and violence towards police officers. It is very easy to see how these factors would result in a disproportionate number of black victims of police shootings without any requirement for racism.
3% of black victims of police shootings are unarmed. 3% of white victims of police shootings are unarmed. Proportionate.
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
No what I mean is that if you knew anything about how the "stats" are collected, or not collected, or how police who give false reports are treated, or how neighborhoods are actually policed, or how police have never not enforced the law differently based on race, etc... then you would understand how essentially you are coming at this about three years behind the discussion.
Now someone could be kind enough to go back through all of that with you, but you can't really expect to have you're hand held (at least not by me). It's like going to a book club and expecting people to read the book to you. Find a friend, do you're own research, or perhaps some responsible non-black person will pick it up. But the folks expecting to get this all spoon fed to them on protest signs and in soundbites from protesters have a better chance growing a tail. We've been saying it for decades (centuries really), it's on you all (those who still don't understand why the protests are far less criminal than what they are protesting and whose anger is grossly misdirected) to learn at this point.
Whithin your contribution you claim to possess certain inside knowledge while your continuing inability to properly distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' casts severe doubt on your intellectual capability. Maybe next time you write don't be so scarce on information, or perpetuate the notion of being a complete jerk.
or that it's 3 am I'm tired and you're post is childish.
On July 10 2016 16:56 RolleMcKnolle wrote: [quote]
The only "fact" you gave any sources for are the 3%. And even there it shows that a higher percentage of black people were unarmed while being shot by the police. You didn't produce evidence for the other claims. Especially the bolded part. The rest are assumptions anyway.
Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
No what I mean is that if you knew anything about how the "stats" are collected, or not collected, or how police who give false reports are treated, or how neighborhoods are actually policed, or how police have never not enforced the law differently based on race, etc... then you would understand how essentially you are coming at this about three years behind the discussion.
Now someone could be kind enough to go back through all of that with you, but you can't really expect to have you're hand held (at least not by me). It's like going to a book club and expecting people to read the book to you. Find a friend, do you're own research, or perhaps some responsible non-black person will pick it up. But the folks expecting to get this all spoon fed to them on protest signs and in soundbites from protesters have a better chance growing a tail. We've been saying it for decades (centuries really), it's on you all (those who still don't understand why the protests are far less criminal than what they are protesting and whose anger is grossly misdirected) to learn at this point.
Whithin your contribution you claim to possess certain inside knowledge while your continuing inability to properly distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' casts severe doubt on your intellectual capability. Maybe next time you write don't be so scarce on information, or perpetuate the notion of being a complete jerk.
or that it's 3 am I'm tired and you're post is childish.
It just keeps getting better and better.
lol. seriously, I guess I should of put it in italics
On July 10 2016 16:59 NukeD wrote: [quote] Well the mayor of NY says the same thing as him. I posted a interview of him few pages back. Is he racist too? Do you think you are more informed than him on the issue?
I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
No what I mean is that if you knew anything about how the "stats" are collected, or not collected, or how police who give false reports are treated, or how neighborhoods are actually policed, or how police have never not enforced the law differently based on race, etc... then you would understand how essentially you are coming at this about three years behind the discussion.
Now someone could be kind enough to go back through all of that with you, but you can't really expect to have you're hand held (at least not by me). It's like going to a book club and expecting people to read the book to you. Find a friend, do you're own research, or perhaps some responsible non-black person will pick it up. But the folks expecting to get this all spoon fed to them on protest signs and in soundbites from protesters have a better chance growing a tail. We've been saying it for decades (centuries really), it's on you all (those who still don't understand why the protests are far less criminal than what they are protesting and whose anger is grossly misdirected) to learn at this point.
Whithin your contribution you claim to possess certain inside knowledge while your continuing inability to properly distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' casts severe doubt on your intellectual capability. Maybe next time you write don't be so scarce on information, or perpetuate the notion of being a complete jerk.
or that it's 3 am I'm tired and you're post is childish.
It just keeps getting better and better.
lol. seriously, I guess I should of put it in italics
On July 10 2016 18:00 RolleMcKnolle wrote: [quote] I haven't watched that video yet. But I am sorry if I did anything to offend you. I didn't call anyone racist (yet) and never claimed anyone was ill informed or worse informed than me. I just stated that his sources are not supporting his claims.
Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
No what I mean is that if you knew anything about how the "stats" are collected, or not collected, or how police who give false reports are treated, or how neighborhoods are actually policed, or how police have never not enforced the law differently based on race, etc... then you would understand how essentially you are coming at this about three years behind the discussion.
Now someone could be kind enough to go back through all of that with you, but you can't really expect to have you're hand held (at least not by me). It's like going to a book club and expecting people to read the book to you. Find a friend, do you're own research, or perhaps some responsible non-black person will pick it up. But the folks expecting to get this all spoon fed to them on protest signs and in soundbites from protesters have a better chance growing a tail. We've been saying it for decades (centuries really), it's on you all (those who still don't understand why the protests are far less criminal than what they are protesting and whose anger is grossly misdirected) to learn at this point.
Whithin your contribution you claim to possess certain inside knowledge while your continuing inability to properly distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' casts severe doubt on your intellectual capability. Maybe next time you write don't be so scarce on information, or perpetuate the notion of being a complete jerk.
or that it's 3 am I'm tired and you're post is childish.
It just keeps getting better and better.
lol. seriously, I guess I should of put it in italics
I was having a serious mental debate whether that was intentional or not. You did a poor job of displaying intention tho.
Then perhaps next time, instead of trying to embarrass someone for their grammar, you just use that brain energy on the substance? Just curious, did you watch that video I posted a while back with James Baldwin?
On July 10 2016 18:25 NukeD wrote: [quote] Nah no need to be sorry. Im just saying everyone is too eager to dismiss any source posted here that relates to disproportional black crime rates, while not providing any number/factual sources of the contrary.
Sometimes people take for granted that there's a lot of things that are common knowledge among US residents which discuss this stuff which is unknown to folks from outside the US.
We are allowed to challenge the common knowledge and say it does not reside on facts. Because something is common knowledge doesn't mean its true. What did it make common knowledge? Media abuse or facts?
No what I mean is that if you knew anything about how the "stats" are collected, or not collected, or how police who give false reports are treated, or how neighborhoods are actually policed, or how police have never not enforced the law differently based on race, etc... then you would understand how essentially you are coming at this about three years behind the discussion.
Now someone could be kind enough to go back through all of that with you, but you can't really expect to have you're hand held (at least not by me). It's like going to a book club and expecting people to read the book to you. Find a friend, do you're own research, or perhaps some responsible non-black person will pick it up. But the folks expecting to get this all spoon fed to them on protest signs and in soundbites from protesters have a better chance growing a tail. We've been saying it for decades (centuries really), it's on you all (those who still don't understand why the protests are far less criminal than what they are protesting and whose anger is grossly misdirected) to learn at this point.
Whithin your contribution you claim to possess certain inside knowledge while your continuing inability to properly distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' casts severe doubt on your intellectual capability. Maybe next time you write don't be so scarce on information, or perpetuate the notion of being a complete jerk.
or that it's 3 am I'm tired and you're post is childish.
It just keeps getting better and better.
lol. seriously, I guess I should of put it in italics
I was having a serious mental debate whether that was intentional or not. You did a poor job of displaying intention tho.
Then perhaps next time, instead of trying to embarrass someone for their grammar, you just use that brain energy on the substance? Just curious, did you watch that video I posted a while back with James Baldwin?
I'm not the one who tried to embarass you because of grammar, however that was just too much to not comment on (if it was unintentional). :D
Anyway, no, I did not watch the video. I dont think I've seen it in this thread. However I am very open to watching anything on the issue so if you would be so kind to PM me the link, that would be awesome (i wont be able to watch it now tho).
Just kind of taking a moment to reflect on the fact that this thread was locked due to low quality posts and that back and forth posting is probably not considered high quality.
On July 07 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote: Leave moderation to the mods and stop calling out posts that don’t live up to your standards and we will all be fine.
yeah but what do you think about that, plansix?
On July 07 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote: Leave moderation to the mods and stop calling out posts that don’t live up to your standards and we will all be fine.
hmmm, response, plansix?
On July 07 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote: Leave moderation to the mods and stop calling out posts that don’t live up to your standards and we will all be fine.
On July 10 2016 23:08 Mohdoo wrote: Just kind of taking a moment to reflect on the fact that this thread was locked due to low quality posts and that back and forth posting is probably not considered high quality.
When the discussion degenerates into a semantics war it quickly turns to shit. We can be thankful that most of the "start by arguing semantics" posters have stopped posting here.
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/su6001a14f.gif)
