Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

No. The lives of people you think potentially might be criminals, along with all innocent bystanders who are endangered by police or others seeking to apprehend anyone who you think potentially might be a criminal. You have repeatedly explicitly objected to and rejected efforts made by police to protect even the innocent bystanders if such efforts have any chance at all of interfering with the apprehension of someone you think might potentially be a criminal. And that most certainly has specifically included people who are only guilty of drug possession offenses despite your most current protestation. Just like it included someone who hadn't done a damn thing and didn't realize HE was the guy the police were chasing.

---

The end result of treating criminals who flee harshly is that fewer criminals flee making the world safer. I never understand how this is not something that is understood. And ultimately there will always be tragedies in any large enough population. Hell going to the doctor is a good idea but some people pick up bugs while they are at a doctor's office and leave sicker than before, do we say let's avoid doctors now? Of course not.

And by decreasing the number of times people flee (either because people are afraid of fleeing due to harsher criminal penalties or police killing them) it will cause the number of accidents where bystanders get hurt. And while every bystander hurt is a tragedy, keep in mine the people who most often die in criminal pursuits are the scum bag criminals themselves.

Unless fleeing is an emotional response and thus unaffected by incentives. Weird how American cops shoot people regularly, and yet people keep on fleeing from them. It's almost as if people don't want to be apprehended by people who regularly mistreat them or worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

That's ironic considering more white people are shot by police.

---

That's ironic considering you don't seem to understand proportion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

That's ironic considering more white people are shot by police.

---

It's not particularly ironic. The colour-chart is used to determine which innocent people to target and which suspects to subject to disproportionate violence. Black people are still a minority in your country, no matter what that talking anus Carlson would have you believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

That's ironic considering you don't seem to understand proportion.

---

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ender_2013.xls

The rate of black people who commit homicide and white people who commit homicide in total numbers is near equal. Or in other words if you count up just black and white homicides they are about 50/50. So one would expect that when dealing with the worst criminal element (murderers) you would anticipate that the number gunned down by police would be approximately 50/50.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...gs-us-database

266 Black people killed by police.

574 White people killed by police.

Yeah... so the whole narrative completely fails. When a black officer kills a white or black suspect, no media attention. When a white officer kills a white suspect no media attention. But good golly gee, have a white officer kill a black suspect and BOOM headlines for days.

Now I didn't take a super deep dive in the data. That site just shows total dead NOT weather or not it was good that they died! A suspect pulls a gun? A suspect tries to run over a LEO? YES put them down. Either way though the idea that blacks are disproportionately targeted to be shot by police is absolutely false.

Your reasoning makes no sense. Please re-examine your post and the data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Lewk is Javert from Les Misérables.

---

I bet Lewk can sing better than Russell Crowe.

If anyone is still curious about actual studies on the matter, this was published today:
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/do...PH.2018.304559

Results. Police kill, on average, 2.8 men per day. Police were responsible for about 8% of all homicides with adult male victims between 2012 and 2018. Black men’s mortality risk is between 1.9 and 2.4 deaths per 100 000 per year, Latino risk is between 0.8 and 1.2, and White risk is between 0.6 and 0.7.

Conclusions. Police homicide risk is higher than suggested by official data. Black and Latino men are at higher risk for death than are White men, and these disparities vary markedly across place.

Public Health Implications. Homicide reduction efforts should consider interventions to reduce the use of lethal force by police. Efforts to address unequal police violence should target places with high mortality risk.

If you're looking for an older source that focuses more on the number of interactions, abit this study was done before Trump gave the racists the balls to come out of hiding:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/pu...lice-use-force

This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities.

From the Harvard second link I would be curious how reduced from 50% more it becomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Your reasoning makes no sense. Please re-examine your post and the data.

---

Oh what part do you have an issue with? I'll break it down into itty bitty steps.

1. Instead of using population figures we look at the most violent of offenses and the rate in which they occur. Using percentage of population is an absolute stupid way of looking at things because you would then come to the conclusion that the police force is very sexist towards males. Instead of population % you should look at who is doing the crime. Men murder more often than women so it makes sense that men are more likely to be shot by police.

2. Now the data doesn't point to blacks killing more than whites, in fact the data is about 50/50 if you only look at black and white offenders for homicides. So based on that we would expect blacks and white to have similar levels of getting shot by cops if police were fully color blind.

3. Now we look at data that shows the race of the people shot by police.

266 Black people killed by police.
574 White people killed by police.

Conclusion: Based on murder rate, black people are actually shot by police less often than white people. The whole "Police hate blacks and kill them" narrative is bull shit.

Which step do you have an issue with?

This line of reasoning is only informative if police only kill murderers, and really only if they kill murderers in immediate proximity of a murder while in pursuit. This is why you need to be more careful when regurgitating bullshit arguments from racist halfwits on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

This line of reasoning is only informative if police only kill murderers, and really only if they kill murderers in immediate proximity of a murder while in pursuit. This is why you need to be more careful when regurgitating bullshit arguments from racist halfwits on the internet.

---

Number of murders done seems a good proxy for violent criminals. I suppose a more in depth analysis would include other violent crimes like attempted murder, assault and battery etc but that gets more complicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Number of murders done seems a good proxy for violent criminals. I suppose a more in depth analysis would include other violent crimes like attempted murder, assault and battery etc but that gets more complicated.

---

Nonsense. That reasoning is actual nonsense similar to RB's old argument about the reasonableness of police use of lethal force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

This line of reasoning is only informative if police only kill murderers, and really only if they kill murderers in immediate proximity of a murder while in pursuit. This is why you need to be more careful when regurgitating bullshit arguments from racist halfwits on the internet.

---

Well yes they should only be killing those who are a threat.

So if they're only killing those who they believe to be a threat then yes murder rates is a reasonable proxy.

However Lewkowski believes in shooting anyone who runs, whether they're a thief, murderer or simply a jogger with headphones in. If you're shooting people who run then murderers is not a reasonable proxy.

Lewkowski has determined he is OK with non-violent criminals being shot, I am not. Do you Aimless think only violent criminals should be shot as a last resort or are you OK with non-violent offenders being shot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Well yes they should only be killing those who are a threat.

So if they're only killing those who they believe to be a threat then yes murder rates is a reasonable proxy.

However Lewkowski believes in shooting anyone who runs, whether they're a thief, murderer or simply a jogger with headphones in. If you're shooting people who run then murderers is not a reasonable proxy.

Lewkowski has determined he is OK with non-violent criminals being shot, I am not. Do you Aimless think only violent criminals should be shot as a last resort or are you OK with non-violent offenders being shot?

---

Generally speaking my view on justified shootings is more extreme than most police so its still a reasonable proxy.

Right so if the Police did what you want it wouldn't be reasonable but they don't so it is? That's your logic? :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Right so if the Police did what you want it wouldn't be reasonable but they don't so it is? That's your logic? :bulb:

---

The data point wouldn't make sense if they used my logic. They currently don't so the proxy data is good.