Happy now BLM?

[Lewkowski]

123 American police died in 2015. 41 of those were by gunfire. Which is clearly 41 too many. But against the 900,000 serving police officers that isn't that many. It certainly compares favorably with the 1100 plus young black men they managed to shoot in the same period.

I believe that's a ratio of 4.5 deaths per 100,000 officers. Which actually compares favorably with the population of the US as a whole, which experiences nearly 10 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Cops are less likely to be shot than everyone else, not more.

So, yes, 41 US officers killed by guns in 2015 is 41 too many, but the idea that American police need the right to shoot anyone who looks at them funny or looks """"threatening"""" because their job is just that dangerous... no. Rampant fantasy and nothing more.

Many police officers don't have to deal with violent crime on a daily basis in their community. Some police officers aren't on patrol and spend most of their time within the police station itself. The folks who regularly patrol high crime areas have far more reason to be cautious and alert than the 'average' officer.

[Aimless]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...spects-camera/

Good thing we have white people with cameras, a black dude woulda killed within 10 seconds of their arrival.

[Loki]

More isolated incidents, clearly.

Edit: and one more: http://www.newson6.com/story/3313076...shooting-death

[Aimless]

More isolated incidents, clearly.

Edit: and one more: http://www.newson6.com/story/3313076...shooting-death

More details: http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/terenc...ly-photos-car/

Tragic, disgraceful. But in their defense he did look like "a bad dude" and it's plausible that he was in fact raising the roof with the intent of using the roof as a deadly weapon.

[Lewkowski]

More isolated incidents, clearly.

Edit: and one more: http://www.newson6.com/story/3313076...shooting-death

Almost all of these cases it is a male victim. Why don't we have a Male Lives Matter movement?

[GGT]

Almost all of these cases it is a male victim. Why don't we have a Male Lives Matter movement?

In the later years of your life, when you're part of an old white Christian hetero male minority, maybe you'll be glad that groups like BLM fought for your civil rights.

[Lewkowski]

In the later years of your life, when you're part of an old white Christian hetero male minority, maybe you'll be glad that groups like BLM fought for your civil rights.

Well if you want to go down all those descriptors I'm already a minority.

[Aimless]

Almost all of these cases it is a male victim. Why don't we have a Male Lives Matter movement?

Why don't you start one? Oh yeah, because you don't actually care. This is like when you go on about refugees raping Americans when almost every single rapist is a man. You don't actually care about the problem.

Really ironic btw to see someone who approves of the borderline illegal profiling of innocents get his panties in a bunch over people making justified generalizations about cops. And speaking of profiling, you shouldn't have a problem with this stuff at all. This is racial profiling in action.

[Lewkowski]

Why don't you start one? Oh yeah, because you don't actually care. This is like when you go on about refugees raping Americans when almost every single rapist is a man. You don't actually care about the problem.

Really ironic btw to see someone who approves of the borderline illegal profiling of innocents get his panties in a bunch over people making justified generalizations about cops. And speaking of profiling, you shouldn't have a problem with this stuff at all. This is racial profiling in action.

It should be obvious I don't consider the system sexist. I'm waiting for a response as to WHY people here don't find it sexist. The rational that will be used will be interesting.

[GGT]

It should be obvious I don't consider the system sexist. I'm waiting for a response as to WHY people here don't find it sexist. The rational that will be used will be interesting.

You don't consider the system sexist (or racist) because you don't know what the terms mean. When you don't understand the terms, it's much easier to ignore them. For example, it's perfectly accurate to describe you as a southern white male. But if the same attributes were ascribed to women....you'd be the first to say that's crazy.

[Loki]

It should be obvious I don't consider the system sexist. I'm waiting for a response as to WHY people here don't find it sexist. The rational that will be used will be interesting.

The system is sexist. But there's also ample evidence that black men get targeted more than white men, and black women get targeted more than white women.

[Aimless]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/ny...th-police.html

"But what about professor-on-professor crime??"

[GGT]

Then what are you complaining about?

[Lewkowski]

Then what are you complaining about?

The sexist police state we live in. Do you know how many more men are incarcerated than woman? What about how many more men are shot by police? Hell more men are accused for crimes than women! Tell me right now how you could possibly have such skewed statistical representation of men in prison compared to women if we didn't have a horribly sexist system? I'll be waiting.

[GGT]

It's all because we're being too "politically correct", right?

[Lewkowski]

It's all because we're being too "politically correct", right?

What are you talking about? I'm still waiting for you to declare our prison system sexist or explain why there are more men in prison than women.

[GGT]

What are you talking about? I'm still waiting for you to declare our prison system sexist or explain why there are more men in prison than women.

And I'm asking why you're surprised that a system devised by white men would look any different?

[Aimless]

*shrug* "The system" is sexist, based on multiple lines of evidence. That sexism interacts strongly with racism. I know that you have a hierarchy of preferences where your enjoyment of racism is marginally greater than your enjoyment of sexism but both are in reality major problems about which you remain clueless.

[Lewkowski]

*shrug* "The system" is sexist, based on multiple lines of evidence. That sexism interacts strongly with racism. I know that you have a hierarchy of preferences where your enjoyment of racism is marginally greater than your enjoyment of sexism but both are in reality major problems about which you remain clueless.

For the most part the system isn't sexist. I would agree that in terms of our system of laws we have had some latent bias in favor of women when it comes to custody hearings and a few other examples but by and large there is a specific reason that more men are incarcerated than women.

[Loki]

For the most part the system isn't sexist. I would agree that in terms of our system of laws we have had some latent bias in favor of women when it comes to custody hearings and a few other examples but by and large there is a specific reason that more men are incarcerated than women.

Men charged with the same crimes as women face substantially longer jail sentences. Men are substantially more likely to face the death penalty for capital murder (as percentage of people who get convicted of it).

[Lewkowski]

Men charged with the same crimes as women face substantially longer jail sentences. Men are substantially more likely to face the death penalty for capital murder (as percentage of people who get convicted of it).

I've never had a problem with people going to prison longer. But to bring clarity to the discussion... Loki do you think more men are incarcerated primarily because the system is sexist or do you think there is another reason why men are more likely to be in prison than women?

[Aimless]

It's true even for comparable crimes and comparable degree of severity. Possible confounding by socioeconomic status influencing likelihood of making bail and getting a decent lawyer but even then. It's also true when you look at how innocent black people are treated wrt likelihood of being subjected to unwarranted unjustifiable stops, searches, use of force etc. You don't have a leg to stand on. You never did.

[Lewkowski]

It's true even for comparable crimes and comparable degree of severity. Possible confounding by socioeconomic status influencing likelihood of making bail and getting a decent lawyer but even then. It's also true when you look at how innocent males are treated wrt likelihood of being subjected to unwarranted unjustifiable stops, searches, use of force etc. You don't have a leg to stand on. You never did.

Fixed that for you. I'm still waiting to get clarity on your position on males being so unjustly treated? Is it solely due to the sexist justice system or is there something else going on?

[Aimless]

No, it's true also of innocent black women. Black women are more likely to be subjected to excessive unjustifiable force than white women. So you're not being as clever as you think.

[RandBlade]

OK I don't know the answer to this but there seems a simple way to end this argument - who is more likely to be subjected to excessive force: an innocent black woman, or an innocent white man?

[Aimless]

OK I don't know the answer to this but there seems a simple way to end this argument - who is more likely to be subjected to excessive force: an innocent black woman, or an innocent white man?

Innocent black woman, because they're much more likely to be hysterical and dangerous.

In reality the answer is difficult to ascertain. This study suggests that black women who're stopped by cops were almost as likely as white men to be subjected to any force at least in NYC but it's not the primary focus of the study so results for the whole dataset aren't available and gender is not discussed further in the text:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf

The usefulness of the findings can be questioned due to several important limitations but all those limitations are likely to underestimate the mistreatment of black people (based on other studies) so that doesn't really change anything. Overall, cops use force in a very small number of encounters, but in those encounters they're much more likely to use force if it involves a black person.




That said, I think you're in error about your question being a good way to settle the matter. You're changing two variables--race and gender--both of which are known to influence the behavior of police.

[RandBlade]

"Almost as likely" is an interesting way of phrasing "less likely"

No it seems a perfect way to settle the issue. You are tolerating the sexism despite the fact it is a bigger predictor than the racism. Why is that?

[LittleFuzzy]

"Almost as likely" is an interesting way of phrasing "less likely"

Not when the expected statistic ought to be "radically less likely" as it is when comparing black women to black men, or white women to white men.

No it seems a perfect way to settle the issue. You are tolerating the sexism despite the fact it is a bigger predictor than the racism. Why is that?

Is it a bigger predictor, in light of the comparable numbers from racially homogenous samples? We aren't talking about rates of stoppage here, after all, but how likely force was to be used once a stop was made.

[Aimless]

"Almost as likely" is an interesting way of phrasing "less likely"

I'm not sure why you're laughing because they were indeed almost as likely to be subjected to force than white men, and far more likely than white women were. Both are astonishing. If we expect men to be far more likely to be subjected to force, then black women shouldn't be nearly as likely to be subjected to force than white men. If we expect race to be a non-issue, then black women shouldn't be significantly more likely to be subjected to force than white women. By laughing you're just making yourself look dumb.

It's also stupid of you to laugh at that after it has been pointed out to you that the data is of limited value when it comes to answering your question, which is itself of limited value. Not only are there limitations inherent to the data used in the study, and to the methods used, but the specific portion I referenced describes only a small portion of the sample, namely one describing NYC's fucked up stop-and-frisk programme--a portion that consisted of around 90% men compared to around 50% for the total sample. The study is focused on race and not on gender. Gender was not analyzed in such a way that it can accurately answer your question. Afaict there are no good recent studies that specifically discuss your question. So perhaps I should be laughing at you for asking a question so dumb that no-one's bothered to look into it.

No it seems a perfect way to settle the issue. You are tolerating the sexism despite the fact it is a bigger predictor than the racism. Why is that?

The racism of American cops is both more flagrant and less defensible than what you're portraying as their sexism. You're having difficulties understanding this because you're not very well informed about how much we actually know about racism in the justice system--as well as in every other domain of society--and seem to believe that research in criminology is conducted by uninformed people who don't know how to address obvious problems and objections. However, the disparities between how police treat black people and how they treat white people are to a very large extent indefensible to anyone who isn't a complete idiot. This is not as obviously the case wrt those aspects of crime that are rooted in sexism and/or gender differences. Those problems occur far upstream from the encounter with police and police are responsible for only a small portion of it, with other members of society playing greater roles. As such those problems are less interesting in a discussion about how American cops conduct themselves. It would be interesting to see if men stopped and searched or mistreated by cops are more likely to be innocent than women, similar to the situation with black and hispanic people in the US.

Your question absolutely does not settle the issue and it is based on your severely limited understanding of the problems being discussed. Perhaps you have, in your fantasy world, had only two mutually exclusive explanations to choose between. In the real world however there are several important factors that interact with each other. One of those interactions is the one between gender and race.

[RandBlade]

I'm not sure why you're laughing because they were indeed almost as likely to be subjected to force than white men, and far more likely than white women were. Both are astonishing. If we expect men to be far more likely to be subjected to force, then black women shouldn't be nearly as likely to be subjected to force than white men. If we expect race to be a non-issue, then black women shouldn't be significantly more likely to be subjected to force than white women. By laughing you're just making yourself look dumb.

I've never said race should be expected to be a non-issue, nor have I suggested sex should be expected to be a non-issue. In an ideal world they would be non-issues but we're not in an ideal world.

It was never my hypothesis that we should expect them to be non-issues. It was my hypothesis that we should expect them to be issues. That it is not remotely astonishing if you've thought it through. The question we need to ask is why?

My hypothesis is that men are more likely than women to be criminals so are targetted more; just as blacks are more likely than women to be criminals so are targetted more. The profiling may be ethically wrong but - and I appreciate this is controversial - it is rational. As men are more likely to be criminals than women to a greater extent than blacks are than whites, if the police are acting rationally then white males will be at bigger risk of profiling than black females.

It's also stupid of you to laugh at that after it has been pointed out to you that the data is of limited value when it comes to answering your question, which is itself of limited value.

Limited value data that matched expectations completely.