Justine Diamond

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

What is also amusing in the race solely lens you view things Loki is that more white guys have been killed than black guys by the police, despite the fact that there are more homicides commuted blacks than those committed by whites. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf And of course an overwhelming number of men have been shot over women (though again the overwhelming number of murderers are men so this makes sense).

---

Wow I did not know that 52.5% of murders are committed by blacks.

Since the Police should only be killing killers, it would make sense if the Police are being objective that 52.5% of those they shoot are black but that's not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Why would anyone be surprised by this? There are many more white people in the US than there are black people. It has no bearing on the reality of institutional racism in law enforcement. Have you literally erased your memory of every single discussion we've had on this subject and decided to start over from the beginning?

---

Who gives a flying fig what proportion of people there are? That would only matter if the Police were shooting entirely at random.

Over 50% of the US population are female yet very few females get shot. Which makes sense since only 10% of murders are committed by females. The Police should be shooting killers in self-defence they should not be shooting at random surely, so it is proportion of killers that matters. If blacks make a majority of killers then they should make a majority of those shot by cops.

The Police must be institutionally biased in favour of blacks.

Or do you deny that the Police should be shooting killers and not at random?
Or do you deny that blacks make a majority of killers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

That presupposes people are less likely to use force to fend of the law when accused of "white collar" felonies which is a suspect assumption. But more importantly,besides noting that your cite doesn't include any support for the data it presents besides how many black men are murdered, it's also clearly referencing convictions for that side of things. It doesn't take much sussing out to notice the marked disparity in treatment of black people in the rest of the criminal justice process either.

---

Why is it a suspect assumption?

The Police are authorised to shoot when it is is self-defence, not whenever they see anyone at random or anyone who is a suspect of a crime regardless of what type of crime it is. White collar suspects should be expected to be less violent than violent crime suspects, which means there is less need for self-defence. It is logical not suspect.

Guess we're moving away from the BLM thread?


http://m.wmctv.com/wmctv/db_401748/c...tguid=AUdiWnEV

Crazy enough (or not), not the first incident like this. Last time it was an old black lady they tried to plant drugs on. According to interviews the police are lying about this one too, surprise surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Reasonable doubt basically means you give the benefit of the doubt to the person who is on trial.

---

Some so-called liberals on this site seem keen to forget this very fundamental fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

In other words you are going to put your fingers in your ear and go 'lalalalalaal' and continue the drum beat of 'white cops murdering black innocents!' despite evidence that the problem is likely larger than simply screaming 'RACISM.' Long before BLM I posted about overuse SWAT like police tactics (for non-violent crime). But nope - liberals gotta make it (and everything else) about race.

---

It's both.

Here's how it works.

1) American police are over militarised, non-trained in deescalation and generally trigger happy
2) White Americans are terrified of black people, especially young black men
3) Therefore, police in America are more likely to view black Americans, especially young black male Americans as a threat when they're no such thing and respond with lethal force. they're still capable of wildly overreacting to something and shooting white people too, but they're even more likely to do so with blacks

It's an issue of police culture, police training which is exasperated by race issues in American.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40718997

Looks like the woman slapped the back of the police car, which is what got her shot. Lewk should be happy. Inappropriate behavior punishable by death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40718997

Looks like the woman slapped the back of the police car, which is what got her shot. Lewk should be happy. Inappropriate behavior punishable by death.

---

That's only counted as resisting arrest when someone of color does it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Who gives a flying fig what proportion of people there are? That would only matter if the Police were shooting entirely at random.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Why would general population % matter at all? Statistically speaking certain races commit far more crime than what their population % would represent.

---

Lewk observed that police killed a greater number of white people, in absolute terms. In a discussion about bias in police shootings, this observation is meaningless without adjusting for relevant demographic variables such as relative population size.

Let's say police kill 1 in 1000 people per year with no regard to race. If you have a country with 1000 000 white people and 1000 000 black people, you'll find that police kill 2 000 people per year: 1 000 white people and 1 000 black people. If you instead look at a country with 1 900 000 white people and 100 000 black people, you'll find that the police still kill 2 000 people per year, but that 1 900 of those people are white and 100 are black. Lewk then asks you if you find that surprising or if you think that police are biased against white people. Do you? Of course not, because you know that, even if the police are completely non-racist in the second scenario, they would still end up killing many more white people than black people. These absolute numbers would be meaningless to a discussion about unjustified bias in police shootings. They would perhaps be more relevant to the question of just how homicidal cops are. So, the question you both should have asked is: who gives a flying fig what the absolute numbers are, in a discussion about bias in police shootings? The answer is: no-one.

Now let's say police kill 1 in 1 000 white people and 1 in 100 black people per year. If you have a country with 1000 000 white people and 1000 000 black people, you'll find that police kill 11 000 people per year: roughly 1000 white people and 10 000 black people. It would be clear that black people were being killed at a higher rate and you'd have to investigate different explanations, such as bias against black people, differences in crime rates, the homicidal tendencies of police, etc. If you instead had a country with 1 900 000 white people and 100 000 black people, you'd find that police kill 2 900 people: roughly 1 900 white people and only 1 000 black people. If you were to look at this second country through Lewk's eyes, focusing on absolute numbers, you'd be forced to conclude that police are racially biased against white people, or that white people are more likely to be violent criminals, and that cops aren't all that homicidal after all. This would lead us to focus on the wrong explanations and underestimate either the problem of racial bias against black people or criminality among black people--or both.

Quote:

---

Since the Police should only be killing killers, it would make sense if the Police are being objective that 52.5% of those they shoot are black but that's not true.

Over 50% of the US population are female yet very few females get shot. Which makes sense since only 10% of murders are committed by females. The Police should be shooting killers in self-defence they should not be shooting at random surely, so it is proportion of killers that matters. If blacks make a majority of killers then they should make a majority of those shot by cops.

[...]

Or do you deny that blacks make a majority of killers?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Statistically speaking certain races commit far more crime than what their population % would represent.

---

We know for a fact that police don't only kill murderers or even criminals. We also know--for a fact--that police are implicitly and explicitly biased against black people. We know this from experiments. We know this from interview studies. We have corroborated this with circumstantial evidence that shows bias in the occurrence of unjustified stops, unjustified searches, unjustified arrests, unjustified use of excessive--even lethal--force and unjustified charges. In every respect, black people in America are unfavorably treated by police, even when you account for relevant variables of specific encounters (nullifying the greater part of your arguments about differential crime rates which were already shaky due to other studies that have attempted to adjust for criminality).

You guys are acting like no-one studied this issue before you came along and decided to pull opinions out of your behinds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

"In other words, black men were roughly “nine times more likely” to be murdered than white men, and the overwhelming majority of those murders were committed by other black men."

---

Even without racial bias, most black murder victims would be killed by other black people, just as most white murder victims (over 80%) are killed by other white people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

In other words you are going to put your fingers in your ear and go 'lalalalalaal' and continue the drum beat of 'white cops murdering black innocents!' despite evidence that the problem is likely larger than simply screaming 'RACISM.'

---

I'd take this more seriously if you hadn't made it abundantly clear that you do not believe that racial bias against black people is a significant problem, a view that is thoroughly repudiated by all available evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Reasonable doubt basically means you give the benefit of the doubt to the person who is on trial.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Some so-called liberals on this site seem keen to forget this very fundamental fact.

---

In reality, as has been shown many times by scholars, "reasonable doubt" means a wide range of standards, standards that appear to be differentially applied based on defendants' race, socioeconomic status, occupation etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Lewk observed that police killed a greater number of white people, in absolute terms. In a discussion about bias in police shootings, this observation is meaningless without adjusting for relevant demographic variables such as relative population size.

---

Yes he did while specifically contrasting that with crime stats and looking at the relevant population: criminal killers ... blacks make up a majority.

The rest of your post is redundant as you looked at general population rather than the murderous population. If we are to look at general population then racism is absolutely nothing compared to sexism. If we merely look at general population injustices we should be saying Male Lives Matter.

Perhaps you should reread the post focusing on the part that addresses that objection so that no one has to repeat themselves.

You haven't addressed it. You've just said that other people are shot too. Yes mistakes happen but the Police are supposed to shoot in self defence against violent attackers who endanger themselves, their colleagues or the public. If the officer shoots someone who was genuinely endangering one of those then that is a good shoot that was meant to happen, if the person shot was not then it is a bad shoot.

Therefore the population that matters is not the generic population where a female yoga instructor is as big a threat as an armed male gangbanger. The population that matters is the suspected violent offenders who endanger the public, the officers colleagues or the officer themselves. Most especially murderers.

Waving this away doesn't address it nor does ranting about generic population numbers or biases in general.

But... police officers don't just shoot violent offenders. That's the entire point. If they did, we'd not be having this thread.

I am not following this line of reasoning at all.

It's really not rocket science. If an officer thinks they're shooting a violent offender but they're not then they still shot at a perceived violent offender rather than entirely at random.

So we need to contrast the proportions shot with the proportions who are violent offenders to see whether the shoots are representative of violent offenders or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

It's really not rocket science. If an officer thinks they're shooting a violent offender but they're not then they still shot at a perceived violent offender rather than entirely at random.

So we need to contrast the proportions shot with the proportions who are violent offenders to see whether the shoots are representative of violent offenders or not.

---

So what you're saying is that the police looks at aggregate data about violent crimes and uses it to shoot unarmed black people. Seems legit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

It's really not rocket science. If an officer thinks they're shooting a violent offender but they're not then they still shot at a perceived violent offender rather than entirely at random.

So we need to contrast the proportions shot with the proportions who are violent offenders to see whether the shoots are representative of violent offenders or not.

---

Or maybe cops shouldn't shoot people just because they *think* they're violent.

Crazy, but it just might work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So what you're saying is that the police looks at aggregate data about violent crimes and uses it to shoot unarmed black people. Seems legit.

---

No what I'm saying is they go on empirical evidence. If they're in a confrontation with an armed black gangbanger, or if they're not even near a white retired grandma - then which one is more likely to get shot? It's not simply the Police's fault they need to deal with more violent black criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Or maybe cops shouldn't shoot people just because they *think* they're violent.

Crazy, but it just might work.

---

Yes it is crazy. What do you propose, wait until they're killed themselves before opening fire?

The very fact that you think those are the only two options tells me you have nothing of value to contribute to the topic.

Also, stop pretending all black men getting into confrontations with police are "armed gangbangers".

Those are two very realistic options. Tragically if they don't pull the trigger when they *think* they are endangered then they will only be able to when they *know* that they are - by which point it could well be too late. Police officers are already by a high factor more likely to be killed on the job than random black people are to be killed in return. How many more do you think should die before they act?

I never suggested that 'all black men getting into confrontations with police are "armed gangbangers"'. Many are. Using overall population figures is dishonest as it doesn't take them into account. You stop pretending that no black men getting into confrontations with police are "armed gangbangers".

The facts show that race is not the only contributing factor to likelihood to get shot. Age, gender and criminality are bigger differentials than race. Which is why comparisons designed to show that blacks more likely to get shot ignored these other differentials by comparing young black men to young white men etc - yet it is only one of the differentials getting discussed. We don't have Male Lives Matter or Young Lives Matter or Criminals Lives Matter.

Which is more likely to get shot by Police: A retired, black, law-abiding grandmother - or a young, white, male, skinhead gangster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Those are two very realistic options. Tragically if they don't pull the trigger when they *think* they are endangered then they will only be able to when they *know* that they are - by which point it could well be too late.

---

I am fascinated by how quickly you seem to think it's possible for a potentially violent suspect to produce a weapon, aim and fire it. Apparently, so quickly an officer with a weapon already drawn and pointed at the suspect can't risk taking the trouble to visually confirm the suspect is actually armed before pulling the trigger.

Quote:

---

Police officers are already by a high factor more likely to be killed on the job than random black people are to be killed in return.

---

They aren't.

Quote:

---

I never suggested that 'all black men getting into confrontations with police are "armed gangbangers"'. Many are. Using overall population figures is dishonest as it doesn't take them into account. You stop pretending that no black men getting into confrontations with police are "armed gangbangers".

---

Statistical analysis is not an acceptable basis for a decision to use lethal force.

Quote:

---

The facts show that race is not the only contributing factor to likelihood to get shot. Age, gender and criminality are bigger differentials than race. Which is why comparisons designed to show that blacks more likely to get shot ignored these other differentials by comparing young black men to young white men etc - yet it is only one of the differentials getting discussed. We don't have Male Lives Matter or Young Lives Matter or Criminals Lives Matter.

Which is more likely to get shot by Police: A retired, black, law-abiding grandmother - or a young, white, male, skinhead gangster?

---

None of the examples cited in this thread are young, skinheads or criminals. Just examples of the flaws of the U.S cops reconnaissance by fire approach, exasperated by ingrained racism in the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I am fascinated by how quickly you seem to think it's possible for a potentially violent suspect to produce a weapon, aim and fire it. Apparently, so quickly an officer with a weapon already drawn and pointed at the suspect can't risk taking the trouble to visually confirm the suspect is actually armed before pulling the trigger.

---

I really don't think this is a valid argument. If a suspect is fleeing and they make a motion that makes it appear to the officer that they are producing a weapon, then they turn suddenly, there may not be a lot of time to make that decision, and there is every incentive to react as quickly as possible. Additionally, the suspects movements may be obscured leading to further confusion or doubt by the officer. While it is a good idea for officers to exercise restraint, it is also a good idea to recognize that police aren't infallible, that reality is mostly messy and imperfect, and hindsight is 20/20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I really don't think this is a valid argument. If a suspect is fleeing and they make a motion that makes it appear to the officer that they are producing a weapon, then they turn suddenly, there may not be a lot of time to make that decision, and there is every incentive is to react as quickly as possible. Additionally, the suspects movements may be obscured leading to further confusion or doubt by the officer. While it is a good idea for officers to exercise restraint, it is also a good idea to recognize that police aren't infallible, that reality is mostly messy and imperfect, and hindsight is 20/20.

---

And yet police in every other Western country somehow manage to not kill 1000 people (adjusted for population) each year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And yet police in every other Western country somehow manage to not kill 1000 people (adjusted for population) each year.

---

Is the insinuation here somehow that 1000 people every year are improperly killed by police? You realize that the vast number of police shootings are justifiable, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Is the insinuation here somehow that 1000 people every year are improperly killed by police? You realize that the vast number of police shootings are justifiable, right?

---

Just saying, but justifiable doesn't mean unavoidable. And with the current balance so heavily in favour of the police, it's not surprising people doubt the police's own investigation's outcome. I'm all in favour of giving police the benefit of the doubt, but that only works if people tryst the police.

One thing that bugs me: police are supposed to be trained and better at assessing threat level, but it appears they are not particularly good at that. If police are routinely feeling they are under threat when they're not, maybe you should look at your threat assessment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Is the insinuation here somehow that 1000 people every year are improperly killed by police? You realize that the vast number of police shootings are justifiable, right?

---

No, they're not. The police rarely tries to diffuse the situation. In 400 cases a year, the person killed didn't have a gun. If you have multiple police officers confronting a single suspect, you should be able to take them down without killing them. Even when the suspect has a gun, the police should try much harder to get the person to put that gun down. You know, what police in every other Western country manage to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I really don't think this is a valid argument. If a suspect is fleeing and they make a motion that makes it appear to the officer that they are producing a weapon, then they turn suddenly, there may not be a lot of time to make that decision, and there is every incentive is to react as quickly as possible. Additionally, the suspects movements may be obscured leading to further confusion or doubt by the officer. While it is a good idea for officers to exercise restraint, it is also a good idea to recognize that police aren't infallible, that reality is mostly messy and imperfect, and hindsight is 20/20.

---

Yes, there may be particular circumstances where a snap decision is necessary, but those are exceptions not the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Just saying, but justifiable doesn't mean unavoidable. And with the current balance so heavily in favour of the police, it's not surprising people doubt the police's own investigation's outcome. I'm all in favour of giving police the benefit of the doubt, but that only works if people tryst the police.

One thing that bugs me: police are supposed to be trained and better at assessing threat level, but it appears they are not particularly good at that. If police are routinely feeling they are under threat when they're not, maybe you should look at your threat assessment.

---

I don't disagree with anything you posted, particularly, though I will note that while it is easy to point to instances of police misconduct, (I do with some regularity) it's also easy to fall into a trap of believing these anecdotal incidents are more widely representative then they really are. I don't believe most police officers who need to fire their weapon in the line of duty are not doing so indiscriminately, and without cause, and I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to support that claim either.

That being said, I can and do understand why many do have trouble placing their trust in the police, and how that trust can be easily lost.

Quote:

---

No, they're not. The police rarely tries to diffuse the situation. In 400 cases a year, the person killed didn't have a gun. If you have multiple police officers confronting a single suspect, you should be able to take them down without killing them. Even when the suspect has a gun, the police should try much harder to get the person to put that gun down. You know, what police in every other Western country manage to do.

---

And this assessment is based on what again? If someone comes at a police officer with a knife, is that justifiable? If an unarmed person is grappling with a police officer and they go for their gun, is that justifiable? This is a ridiculous claim to make, and I'd love to see evidence supporting that the majority of police involved shootings are unjustified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I don't disagree with anything you posted, particularly, though I will note that while it is easy to point to instances of police misconduct, (I do with some regularity) it's also easy to fall into a trap of believing these anecdotal incidents are more widely representative then they really are. I don't believe most police officers who need to fire their weapon in the line of duty are doing so indiscriminately, and without cause, and I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to support that claim either.

---

The only statistic I need to know is that American police officers kill 1000 people per year, while comparable countries in Europe kill 1 (excluding terrorists).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The only statistic I need to know is that American police officers kill 1000 people per year, while comparable countries in Europe kill 1 (excluding terrorists).

---

And you are a professor at a university?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

And you are a professor at a university?

---

And you're a libertarian unconcerned with the state killing 1000 people a year, literally the most oppressive thing a government can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And you're a libertarian unconcerned with the state killing 1000 people a year, literally the most oppressive thing a government can do.

---

Seeing as how I have been both very critical of police and police protocol, as well as concerned with both the number and types of shootings that seems like an inaccurate portrayal of my position.

And it may shock you, but libertarians also recognize the need for the use of force, especially in self-defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Seeing as how I have been both very critical of police and police protocol, as well as concerned with both the number and types of shootings that seems like an inaccurate portrayal of my position.

And it may shock you, but libertarians also recognize the need for the use of force, especially in self-defense.

---

The problem I have is that how much this might be true

Quote:

---

most police officers who need to fire their weapon in the line of duty are (not) doing so indiscriminately, and without cause,

---

the number who are, at least when confronting certain population, are high that the people who need the right to use force in self-defense are the ones being shot by the cops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

the number who are, at least when confronting certain population, are high that the people who need the right to use force in self-defense are the ones being shot by the cops.

---

Provide some analytical evidence for that claim.

There is a disturbing trend in this thread for people to dismiss such things as evidence, and statistics etc and to just go on gut feelings. Its like arguing with climate change deniers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The only statistic I need to know is that American police officers kill 1000 people per year, while comparable countries in Europe kill 1 (excluding terrorists).

---

That's all you need to know?

How many American police officers get killed per year compared to comparable countries in Europe? :rolleyes: Deal with that, the rest will follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's all you need to know?

How many American police officers get killed per year compared to comparable countries in Europe? :rolleyes: Deal with that, the rest will follow.

---

We went over this before. Your position is stupid and borderline racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No, they're not. The police rarely tries to diffuse the situation. In 400 cases a year, the person killed didn't have a gun. If you have multiple police officers confronting a single suspect, you should be able to take them down without killing them. Even when the suspect has a gun, the police should try much harder to get the person to put that gun down. You know, what police in every other Western country manage to do.

---

Holy shit do you know how fast you can get shot? If someone has a gun and you don't shoot and they decide to do it you have dead people. Any sort of non-compliance by someone with a gun needs to be dealt with immediately.

And in several cases you have folks armed with something other than a gun attacking the police, knives for example. I want the police to shoot and kill the crazy knife wielder. That's totally appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Holy shit do you know how fast you can get shot? If someone has a gun and you don't shoot and they decide to do it you have dead people. Any sort of non-compliance by someone with a gun needs to be dealt with immediately.

And in several cases you have folks armed with something other than a gun attacking the police, knives for example. I want the police to shoot and kill the crazy knife wielder. That's totally appropriate.

---

This is because you don't believe in the sanctity of life, Lewk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

This is because you don't believe in the sanctity of life, Lewk.

---

Do you believe all life is equally valuable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

We went over this before. Your position is stupid and borderline racist.

---

Bullshit.

The issue is your cops operate in a stupidly violent nation encouraged by your second amendment. I don't see how believing the second amendment should be repealed is borderline racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No, they're not. The police rarely tries to diffuse the situation. In 400 cases a year, the person killed didn't have a gun. If you have multiple police officers confronting a single suspect, you should be able to take them down without killing them. Even when the suspect has a gun, the police should try much harder to get the person to put that gun down. You know, what police in every other Western country manage to do.

---

That's because they simply are not trained for non-lethal means. The training of US cops is atrocious. From what I remember, it's 6 months at the most. German training takes at least 2 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-u...-t-be-too-nice

Trump addressing an audience of police in NY non-too subtly suggests officers 'rough up' suspects, to cheers and laughter from police audience.

Almost like it's more than a few bad apples or something.