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 August 25 2016 19:09 Ghostcom wrote: I know you don't understand it and prefer to play the victim, but it's not that "white people" don't care or aren't outraged. It's that people disagree with you on the underlying cause of the shootings largely affecting the african-american community. You think it is due to racism and only racism, whereas others argue that racism is only part of the reason but that a much more important reason is due to socioeconomic factors which lead to increased crime which again lead to officers being more "on edge". I've previously linked you multiple studies showing that the most important predictors of police shootings are NOT race of victim (or cop), but socioeconomics and geographical area. I can only hope one day it'll sink in that people aren't actually against solving the issues, but that they want to solve the actual issues.
Whether or not you think GH's argument about the underlying cause is correct, his conclusion that the police should be held accountable when they act negligently or criminally is spot on. Most departments don't even collect good data, so it's difficult to hold them accountable as a whole, and officers will go to great lengths to cover up for their colleagues. We hear pretty regularly about cases where they attempt to destroy video footage, or their body cams mysteriously malfunction. The bad cops wouldn't be able to get away with this if "good" cops didn't allow it to happen.
Have you seen anyone argue against better data in this thread in the past year? Because I haven't. I've seen people state that we should use the current available data since it's the best we have, and certainly better than anecdotal evidence.
I've also not seen anyone argue that it is OK for "good" cops to cover up for "bad" cops.
But apparently it is appealing to play on the emotions and play the misunderstood insightful genius rather than seek the actual discussion.
On August 25 2016 13:38 ragz_gt wrote: A lot of the medical research is also run at an efficiency that put the laziest government workers to shame.
Problem is that big pharma doesn't do research from scratch, they invest in a smaller companies to do research for them, then they buy up the promising ones at significantly lower amount than it worth to them and refine them and push them from FDA because they have the expertise for all the trials and government regulations and stuff that small companies don't.
What end up is a large number of small research companies that has decent chunk of change in investment but not too good of an odd of success and not a lot of motivation to do so, end up in being party companies more or less.
I have relative that in 10 years worked in 4 small pharma research companies, all headed by same group of people. They take an idea, ask for funding, but after they get it they are doing the bare minimum that won't get them sued, free meal everyday, free alcohol in full stock, a lot of people work 3 days a week and company wine tasting every month. After 3 years with not much to show for it, investor gets fed up, stops funding, company close shop, then 2 month later they take another idea and start the cycle again.
There are definitely many really amazing companies that does wonderful things, but there are also a lot more free loaders taking advantage of the shotgun investment.
That's not a "private industry" issue. Many in academia do the same thing, just doing the bare minimum to match the grant they got just working their way to tenure. Same with government labs. They're paid shit and have no reason to care about anything else apart from getting tenure. So get the grant, slow roll a paper every year, tell people at the conference that you're "almost there" a tenure later and you peace out.
Heck, I've had many academics get upset with me that they would have to work 5 days a week without unlimited vacations to take as will. Sadly, laziness is a human issue and not a policy one.
On August 25 2016 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Aaaannnnd that's why I don't call the cops...
How many more shootings is it going to take?
Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
No you didn't, there's no plural apostrophe.
There shouldn't be one on cops, but "person's race" should have it, to be specific. Victim's should have one as well as there was only one victim. Person in this is referring to any hypothetical person and his/her race, rather than a group of persons. (It really depends on if you were referring to the sole identified cop or not. If that is all you meant, then that was correct, but I didn't see his face identified)
On August 25 2016 19:09 Ghostcom wrote: I know you don't understand it and prefer to play the victim, but it's not that "white people" don't care or aren't outraged. It's that people disagree with you on the underlying cause of the shootings largely affecting the african-american community. You think it is due to racism and only racism, whereas others argue that racism is only part of the reason but that a much more important reason is due to socioeconomic factors which lead to increased crime which again lead to officers being more "on edge". I've previously linked you multiple studies showing that the most important predictors of police shootings are NOT race of victim (or cop), but socioeconomics and geographical area. I can only hope one day it'll sink in that people aren't actually against solving the issues, but that they want to solve the actual issues.
Whether or not you think GH's argument about the underlying cause is correct, his conclusion that the police should be held accountable when they act negligently or criminally is spot on. Most departments don't even collect good data, so it's difficult to hold them accountable as a whole, and officers will go to great lengths to cover up for their colleagues. We hear pretty regularly about cases where they attempt to destroy video footage, or their body cams mysteriously malfunction. The bad cops wouldn't be able to get away with this if "good" cops didn't allow it to happen.
Have you seen anyone argue against better data in this thread in the past year? Because I haven't. I've seen people state that we should use the current available data since it's the best we have, and certainly better than anecdotal evidence.
I've also not seen anyone argue that it is OK for "good" cops to cover up for "bad" cops.
But apparently it is appealing to play on the emotions and play the misunderstood insightful genius rather than seek the actual discussion.
In response to LegalLord's question about what should be done about police shootings, GH said "[m]y point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops."
He didn't mention race at all, but you responded by taking issue with his belief that racism is the underlying cause of police disproportionately shooting people of color. I thought it might be more productive to engage on the issues he actually brought up, rather than rehashing the racism argument again.
On a side note, are you really sure that relying on bad/incomplete data is better than no data at all? I would also point out that what data we do have does not uniformly support your conclusion that "the most important predictors of police shootings are NOT race of victim (or cop), but socioeconomics and geographical area."
So Farrages speech was good in your eyes? He said nothing but emotional bullshit. He sold his "victory" over the establishment as if the only reason people did it was because they wanted to beat the establishment. Maybe that has to do with him stepping down the week his petproject was finished. It must have sound great to the typical Trump rally goer though. Like those Britains fought a tough battle against the corrupt elite and won and now they can finally drinkt tea again and eat biscouts, like they used to do before but were forbidden by Europe. It's the Trump campaign in a nutshell, appeal to emotions and leave all the facts out.
I wonder if Trump would resign as president as well once, 2 days after sworn in, he admits he won't build a wall, that was just sarcasm.
"I'm hearing from people inside his campaign that there are times now when he hides in his apartment and doesn't meet with any people...When he campaigns he goes out to a place he has to fly back home to New York. This is a fragile man and a fragile campaign and I'm not quite sure what's going to happen in the days and weeks ahead of him. I'm not sure the [Republican National Committee] can continue to support him given his weakness as a man and as a politician and as a candidate for the presidency."
- Evan McMullin, NeverTrump conservative candidate (aka American hero).
I find it amusing that not one of the posters here correctly spelled Farage. To remind again anyone who doesn't know who Farage is, he's not a politician in the UK, he's someone who would like to be a politician but doesn't have the votes and always loses in the general election. The only institution willing to give him power is the European Parliament, where he rarely shows up and when he does he bitches about how bad it is. He won't work with anyone and therefore can't do anything in the EU Parliament so he takes his paycheck and goes home to whine about how bad the system is to a British population who know better than to even give him a seat in their Parliament.
On August 25 2016 19:09 Ghostcom wrote: I know you don't understand it and prefer to play the victim, but it's not that "white people" don't care or aren't outraged. It's that people disagree with you on the underlying cause of the shootings largely affecting the african-american community. You think it is due to racism and only racism, whereas others argue that racism is only part of the reason but that a much more important reason is due to socioeconomic factors which lead to increased crime which again lead to officers being more "on edge". I've previously linked you multiple studies showing that the most important predictors of police shootings are NOT race of victim (or cop), but socioeconomics and geographical area. I can only hope one day it'll sink in that people aren't actually against solving the issues, but that they want to solve the actual issues.
Whether or not you think GH's argument about the underlying cause is correct, his conclusion that the police should be held accountable when they act negligently or criminally is spot on. Most departments don't even collect good data, so it's difficult to hold them accountable as a whole, and officers will go to great lengths to cover up for their colleagues. We hear pretty regularly about cases where they attempt to destroy video footage, or their body cams mysteriously malfunction. The bad cops wouldn't be able to get away with this if "good" cops didn't allow it to happen.
Have you seen anyone argue against better data in this thread in the past year? Because I haven't. I've seen people state that we should use the current available data since it's the best we have, and certainly better than anecdotal evidence.
I've also not seen anyone argue that it is OK for "good" cops to cover up for "bad" cops.
But apparently it is appealing to play on the emotions and play the misunderstood insightful genius rather than seek the actual discussion.
In response to LegalLord's question about what should be done about police shootings, GH said "[m]y point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops."
He didn't mention race at all, but you responded by taking issue with his belief that racism is the underlying cause of police disproportionately shooting people of color. I thought it might be more productive to engage on the issues he actually brought up, rather than rehashing the racism argument again.
On a side note, are you really sure that relying on bad/incomplete data is better than no data at all? I would also point out that what data we do have does not uniformly support your conclusion that "the most important predictors of police shootings are NOT race of victim (or cop), but socioeconomics and geographical area."
If you want to do a summary you should at least do it honestly... In the post to which I responded GH also wrote:
On August 25 2016 18:30 GreenHorizons wrote: Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
The only reason why "white" people get offended is because of the insistence on racism being the primary cause for police shootings and the insistence on some sort of shared responsibility for actions they neither approve of or commit. Say like Muslims get offended when idiots demand Muslims should take responsibility for terrorism conducted by other Muslims.
As a side note: please link a study which shows that the strongest predictor of police shootings are race which also include socioeconomic factors and geographical factors in their model. I'll look forward to reading it and expand my horizon (but please don't come with the Google-survey study GH tried to pass off as valid data earlier).
While I acknowledge incomplete data is problematic, it is still by far superior to anecdotal evidence. And if the data is truly of atrocious character such that absolutely nothing can be gained from it then it is better to refrain from drawing any conclusions than it is to conclude what you "feel" is right.
EDIT: Related to the discussion about academics slacking off, I'll slack off from here as I'm actually working on a grant proposal.
On August 25 2016 13:38 ragz_gt wrote: A lot of the medical research is also run at an efficiency that put the laziest government workers to shame.
Problem is that big pharma doesn't do research from scratch, they invest in a smaller companies to do research for them, then they buy up the promising ones at significantly lower amount than it worth to them and refine them and push them from FDA because they have the expertise for all the trials and government regulations and stuff that small companies don't.
What end up is a large number of small research companies that has decent chunk of change in investment but not too good of an odd of success and not a lot of motivation to do so, end up in being party companies more or less.
I have relative that in 10 years worked in 4 small pharma research companies, all headed by same group of people. They take an idea, ask for funding, but after they get it they are doing the bare minimum that won't get them sued, free meal everyday, free alcohol in full stock, a lot of people work 3 days a week and company wine tasting every month. After 3 years with not much to show for it, investor gets fed up, stops funding, company close shop, then 2 month later they take another idea and start the cycle again.
There are definitely many really amazing companies that does wonderful things, but there are also a lot more free loaders taking advantage of the shotgun investment.
That's not a "private industry" issue. Many in academia do the same thing, just doing the bare minimum to match the grant they got just working their way to tenure. Same with government labs. They're paid shit and have no reason to care about anything else apart from getting tenure. So get the grant, slow roll a paper every year, tell people at the conference that you're "almost there" a tenure later and you peace out.
Heck, I've had many academics get upset with me that they would have to work 5 days a week without unlimited vacations to take as will. Sadly, laziness is a human issue and not a policy one.
Dunno what institution/department you worked with but my experience has been completely different. Most of the professors I knew worked at minimum 5 days a week, with quite a few working on weekends doing research/writing grant proposals/papers. Getting denied tenure happened a few times to professors who weren't productive enough. Not sure where this fabled land of ez grant money and tenure is cause I'm sure the bajillion post-docs who haven't been able to advance their careers would fight tooth and nail for a position there.
On August 25 2016 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Aaaannnnd that's why I don't call the cops...
How many more shootings is it going to take?
Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
Leaving it blank probably wouldn't change much, as people would just make presumptions based on their prejudices (you can usually tell from the language describing folks too). Can't remember ever hearing about a white guy who calls the cops for help only to be shot by them though. My point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops.
People keep getting lost in thinking about the way people present their argument, just stop and think for a moment how seemingly average people react to the wrongful notion that their 1st amendment is being threatened on a forum, then imagine that not only are the protesters living under crushing poverty (the kind people who complain on forums rarely know) they are also ACTUALLY having their constitutional rights denied
Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
Just wondering, but you are aware that more white people are killed by cops than black people are, and that more black people are killed by other black (non police) people, than they are by cops, right? Why aren't those being protested?
I'm all for cops not shooting innocent people, or being able to abuse their power to act like dicks. But in this case, the guy came out with a gun. Yes, he (most likely) legally owned it, and yes it was his own house. But given how many cops have been killed recently, and mostly by black people too, do you not think they would have reason to be alarmed at a black person with a gun coming at them? Especially given that not long ago a black person made a call claiming his car was being robbed, only to ambush and shoot the responding officer?
Do you not think that perhaps all of the blacklives matter people calling for police blood and the killing of cops, would make it more likely that a black person with a gun is seen as a threat by the police?
On August 25 2016 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Aaaannnnd that's why I don't call the cops...
How many more shootings is it going to take?
Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
Leaving it blank probably wouldn't change much, as people would just make presumptions based on their prejudices (you can usually tell from the language describing folks too). Can't remember ever hearing about a white guy who calls the cops for help only to be shot by them though. My point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops.
People keep getting lost in thinking about the way people present their argument, just stop and think for a moment how seemingly average people react to the wrongful notion that their 1st amendment is being threatened on a forum, then imagine that not only are the protesters living under crushing poverty (the kind people who complain on forums rarely know) they are also ACTUALLY having their constitutional rights denied
Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
Just wondering, but you are aware that more white people are killed by cops than black people are, and that more black people are killed by other black (non police) people, than they are by cops, right? Why aren't those being protested?
Why are their communities not protesting the shootings? If they are, why isn’t the media covering it? I don’t think GH is responsible to answer for communities and demographics he is not part of.
On August 25 2016 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Aaaannnnd that's why I don't call the cops...
How many more shootings is it going to take?
Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
Leaving it blank probably wouldn't change much, as people would just make presumptions based on their prejudices (you can usually tell from the language describing folks too). Can't remember ever hearing about a white guy who calls the cops for help only to be shot by them though. My point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops.
People keep getting lost in thinking about the way people present their argument, just stop and think for a moment how seemingly average people react to the wrongful notion that their 1st amendment is being threatened on a forum, then imagine that not only are the protesters living under crushing poverty (the kind people who complain on forums rarely know) they are also ACTUALLY having their constitutional rights denied
Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
Just wondering, but you are aware that more white people are killed by cops than black people are, and that more black people are killed by other black (non police) people, than they are by cops, right? Why aren't those being protested?
I'm all for cops not shooting innocent people, or being able to abuse their power to act like dicks. But in this case, the guy came out with a gun. Yes, he (most likely) legally owned it, and yes it was his own house. But given how many cops have been killed recently, and mostly by black people too, do you not think they would have reason to be alarmed at a black person with a gun coming at them? Especially given that not long ago a black person made a call claiming his car was being robbed, only to ambush and shoot the responding officer?
Do you not think that perhaps all of the blacklives matter people calling for police blood and the killing of cops, would make it more likely that a black person with a gun is seen as a threat by the police?
Your numbers have been debunked a million times before. Raw numbers ("more whites killed than blacks") don't mean anything because, proportionally, black people are arrested, shot, pulled over, convicted, and sentenced to jail time far, far, far more often than they should be. "black on black crime" is also a lazy argument because anyone of any race is overwhelmingly likely to be killed by a person of their own race; "white on white" crime numbers are the same as "black on black" crime numbers. Also, "black on black" crime isn't being perpetrated by the government.
And no, there is no justification for the cops shooting a man that is legally armed in his own home. If you have the legal authority to execute someone in certain situations, your actions should be held to incredibly high standards. You need to be better at your job under pressure.
On August 25 2016 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Aaaannnnd that's why I don't call the cops...
How many more shootings is it going to take?
Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
Leaving it blank probably wouldn't change much, as people would just make presumptions based on their prejudices (you can usually tell from the language describing folks too). Can't remember ever hearing about a white guy who calls the cops for help only to be shot by them though. My point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops.
People keep getting lost in thinking about the way people present their argument, just stop and think for a moment how seemingly average people react to the wrongful notion that their 1st amendment is being threatened on a forum, then imagine that not only are the protesters living under crushing poverty (the kind people who complain on forums rarely know) they are also ACTUALLY having their constitutional rights denied
Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
Just wondering, but you are aware that more white people are killed by cops than black people are, and that more black people are killed by other black (non police) people, than they are by cops, right? Why aren't those being protested?
I'm all for cops not shooting innocent people, or being able to abuse their power to act like dicks. But in this case, the guy came out with a gun. Yes, he (most likely) legally owned it, and yes it was his own house. But given how many cops have been killed recently, and mostly by black people too, do you not think they would have reason to be alarmed at a black person with a gun coming at them? Especially given that not long ago a black person made a call claiming his car was being robbed, only to ambush and shoot the responding officer?
Do you not think that perhaps all of the blacklives matter people calling for police blood and the killing of cops, would make it more likely that a black person with a gun is seen as a threat by the police?
Your numbers have been debunked a million times before. Raw numbers ("more whites killed than blacks") don't mean anything because, proportionally, black people are arrested, shot, pulled over, convicted, and sentenced to jail time far, far, far more often than they should be. "black on black crime" is also a lazy argument because anyone of any race is overwhelmingly likely to be killed by a person of their own race; "white on white" crime numbers are the same as "black on black" crime numbers.
And no, there is no justification for the cops shooting a man that is legally armed in his own home. If you have the legal authority to execute someone in certain situations, your actions should be held to incredibly high standards. You need to be better at your job under pressure.
If he was in his own home, how did the cops that were outside shoot him?
On August 25 2016 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Aaaannnnd that's why I don't call the cops...
How many more shootings is it going to take?
Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
Leaving it blank probably wouldn't change much, as people would just make presumptions based on their prejudices (you can usually tell from the language describing folks too). Can't remember ever hearing about a white guy who calls the cops for help only to be shot by them though. My point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops.
People keep getting lost in thinking about the way people present their argument, just stop and think for a moment how seemingly average people react to the wrongful notion that their 1st amendment is being threatened on a forum, then imagine that not only are the protesters living under crushing poverty (the kind people who complain on forums rarely know) they are also ACTUALLY having their constitutional rights denied
Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
Just wondering, but you are aware that more white people are killed by cops than black people are, and that more black people are killed by other black (non police) people, than they are by cops, right? Why aren't those being protested?
I'm all for cops not shooting innocent people, or being able to abuse their power to act like dicks. But in this case, the guy came out with a gun. Yes, he (most likely) legally owned it, and yes it was his own house. But given how many cops have been killed recently, and mostly by black people too, do you not think they would have reason to be alarmed at a black person with a gun coming at them? Especially given that not long ago a black person made a call claiming his car was being robbed, only to ambush and shoot the responding officer?
Do you not think that perhaps all of the blacklives matter people calling for police blood and the killing of cops, would make it more likely that a black person with a gun is seen as a threat by the police?
1) Black/African-Americans make up roughly 13.3% of the population. In 2015, 25.3% of those shot and killed by police were black. Yes, in absolute values more whites are shot and killed by police but that's a stupid statistic to use. It's so stupid that I have to wonder if you're being intentionally obtuse to make your point.
2) Not sure why you mention the number of black people killed by black people. We call that murder and people who are caught are prosecuted and put in prison. Police officers who shoot and kill unarmed black people seem to have a good track record of evading any sort of punishment.
On August 25 2016 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Aaaannnnd that's why I don't call the cops...
How many more shootings is it going to take?
Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
Leaving it blank probably wouldn't change much, as people would just make presumptions based on their prejudices (you can usually tell from the language describing folks too). Can't remember ever hearing about a white guy who calls the cops for help only to be shot by them though. My point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops.
People keep getting lost in thinking about the way people present their argument, just stop and think for a moment how seemingly average people react to the wrongful notion that their 1st amendment is being threatened on a forum, then imagine that not only are the protesters living under crushing poverty (the kind people who complain on forums rarely know) they are also ACTUALLY having their constitutional rights denied
Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
more black people are killed by other black (non police) people, than they are by cops, right? Why aren't those being protested?
I really don't understand how someone can use this argument with a straight face.
Firstly, nobody thinks black on black killings are okay. Murder is bad. We're all agreed murder is bad. Nobody is defending murder. This is just whataboutism to distract from the issue. Let me know when you start advocating separate responses to deal with both issues, right now you're just advocating that attention be drawn away from one because of the existence of the other.
Secondly, because nobody thinks black on black killings are okay there is no real need for a big public discussion about it. The public discussion goes "shit's fucked up" and then everybody agrees and we start talking about how to fix that. And while we still argue about how to fix it we are at least all on the same side and there is no reason to protest people who fundamentally agree with you. This is a completely different situation to police on black crime which is has a huge base of apologists, deniers and even defenders who will claim that the victim did something to deserve it, often by virtue of factors outside their control like race or geographic area. The two issues couldn't be less comparable in terms of how the public perceives them and going "but what about black on black crime" is either stupidity or intellectual dishonesty, pick the one that you'd rather be I guess.
Thirdly, the police are a key part of the social contract, they are the most visible branch of the enforcement of the rules we collectively agree to abide by. That is an incredibly important duty and one that if neglected undermines the entire social contract. A murderer murdering someone is shitty but it's also basically how it's supposed to work, the social contract isn't damaged when a murderer murders someone, that's what they do. You catch them and you try them and then you sentence them. The system endures. A policeman murdering someone is not how it's supposed to work and when the rest of the organs of the social contract (other police officers, police oversight and accountability organizations, prosecutors, judges etc) don't step in to immediately show that this is an error and not reflective of systemic problems with the social contract as a whole, well, that breaks it. Criminal behavior within the organs of the social contract does not just damage the victims, it damages society as a whole by undermining the assumptions that all civilization is based on. In short, a crime is far, far worse if it is done by a police officer acting in his official capacity.
People do protest black on black crime. Obama has spoken about it repeatedly, sharpton and Jacksonhave led peaceful demonstrations against black on black crime in Chicago and baltimore Just because you arnt aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Actually that phrase could sum up most of the civil rights history between white and blacks for the last century
Even if your assumption was correct though, and no one in the black community was aware of or talked about black on black crime, you'd still be wrong because one failure does not excuse another.
On August 25 2016 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Aaaannnnd that's why I don't call the cops...
How many more shootings is it going to take?
Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
Leaving it blank probably wouldn't change much, as people would just make presumptions based on their prejudices (you can usually tell from the language describing folks too). Can't remember ever hearing about a white guy who calls the cops for help only to be shot by them though. My point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops.
People keep getting lost in thinking about the way people present their argument, just stop and think for a moment how seemingly average people react to the wrongful notion that their 1st amendment is being threatened on a forum, then imagine that not only are the protesters living under crushing poverty (the kind people who complain on forums rarely know) they are also ACTUALLY having their constitutional rights denied
Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
Just wondering, but you are aware that more white people are killed by cops than black people are, and that more black people are killed by other black (non police) people, than they are by cops, right? Why aren't those being protested?
I'm all for cops not shooting innocent people, or being able to abuse their power to act like dicks. But in this case, the guy came out with a gun. Yes, he (most likely) legally owned it, and yes it was his own house. But given how many cops have been killed recently, and mostly by black people too, do you not think they would have reason to be alarmed at a black person with a gun coming at them? Especially given that not long ago a black person made a call claiming his car was being robbed, only to ambush and shoot the responding officer?
Do you not think that perhaps all of the blacklives matter people calling for police blood and the killing of cops, would make it more likely that a black person with a gun is seen as a threat by the police?
Your numbers have been debunked a million times before. Raw numbers ("more whites killed than blacks") don't mean anything because, proportionally, black people are arrested, shot, pulled over, convicted, and sentenced to jail time far, far, far more often than they should be. "black on black crime" is also a lazy argument because anyone of any race is overwhelmingly likely to be killed by a person of their own race; "white on white" crime numbers are the same as "black on black" crime numbers.
And no, there is no justification for the cops shooting a man that is legally armed in his own home. If you have the legal authority to execute someone in certain situations, your actions should be held to incredibly high standards. You need to be better at your job under pressure.
If he was in his own home, how did the cops that were outside shoot him?
He was standing in his garage and opened the garage door. This 1) in his home and 2) even if you want to argue useless semantics, still on his property.
It speaks volumes that instead of addressing the numerous points that I debunked, you have to ask a totally irrelevant question.
I also think it's sad that, predictably, the NRA won't say shit about defending this man's right to own and handle a gun on his property against tyrannical government when they will routinely do that for any white man that gets accidentally shot by a cop while using a gun.
On August 25 2016 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Aaaannnnd that's why I don't call the cops...
How many more shootings is it going to take?
Black Indianapolis man shot by cops after calling police to report robbery
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
Leaving it blank probably wouldn't change much, as people would just make presumptions based on their prejudices (you can usually tell from the language describing folks too). Can't remember ever hearing about a white guy who calls the cops for help only to be shot by them though. My point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops.
People keep getting lost in thinking about the way people present their argument, just stop and think for a moment how seemingly average people react to the wrongful notion that their 1st amendment is being threatened on a forum, then imagine that not only are the protesters living under crushing poverty (the kind people who complain on forums rarely know) they are also ACTUALLY having their constitutional rights denied
Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
Just wondering, but you are aware that more white people are killed by cops than black people are, and that more black people are killed by other black (non police) people, than they are by cops, right? Why aren't those being protested?
I'm all for cops not shooting innocent people, or being able to abuse their power to act like dicks. But in this case, the guy came out with a gun. Yes, he (most likely) legally owned it, and yes it was his own house. But given how many cops have been killed recently, and mostly by black people too, do you not think they would have reason to be alarmed at a black person with a gun coming at them? Especially given that not long ago a black person made a call claiming his car was being robbed, only to ambush and shoot the responding officer?
Do you not think that perhaps all of the blacklives matter people calling for police blood and the killing of cops, would make it more likely that a black person with a gun is seen as a threat by the police?
Your numbers have been debunked a million times before. Raw numbers ("more whites killed than blacks") don't mean anything because, proportionally, black people are arrested, shot, pulled over, convicted, and sentenced to jail time far, far, far more often than they should be. "black on black crime" is also a lazy argument because anyone of any race is overwhelmingly likely to be killed by a person of their own race; "white on white" crime numbers are the same as "black on black" crime numbers.
And no, there is no justification for the cops shooting a man that is legally armed in his own home. If you have the legal authority to execute someone in certain situations, your actions should be held to incredibly high standards. You need to be better at your job under pressure.
If he was in his own home, how did the cops that were outside shoot him?
He was standing in his garage and opened the garage door. This 1) in his home and 2) even if you want to argue useless semantics, still on his property.
It speaks volumes that instead of addressing the numerous points that I debunked, you have to ask a totally irrelevant question.
I also think it's sad that, predictably, the NRA won't say shit about defending this man's right to own and handle a gun on his property against tyrannical government when they will routinely do that for any white man that gets accidentally shot by a cop while using a gun.
Meh.
Normally I would be outraged by this, because cops really need to not be so trigger happy, and need to be held accountable when they are. But with all of the BLM spouting about killing white people and killing cops, and the actual cases of blacks calling the cops and reporting a false crime just to ambush and shoot the cops, I think this guy was just collateral damage caused by the BLM's racist rhetoric which is putting cops in danger, and will make them much more defensive around black people.
EPT
