Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:
Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.

Instead of focussing on a single case we could just use the abundance of empirical evidence that exists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.

The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.

The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones.

The counterintuitive results provoked debate after the study was posted on Monday, mostly about the volume of police encounters and the scope of the data. Mr. Fryer emphasizes that the work is not the definitive analysis of police shootings, and that more data would be needed to understand the country as a whole. This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police.

Link to the study




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.

A bunch -again unfortunately.
Just the ones in the big spotlight:

-Freddie Grey: somehow died in police van.
-Walter Scott: shot in back ON CAMERA
-Philando Castile: CHLer shot by overzealous officer while sitting in car

A judge just acquitted a fourth officer in the Freddie Gray case.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-rice-verdict-20160718-story.html

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.

Instead of focussing on a single case we could just use the abundance of empirical evidence that exists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.

The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.

The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones.

The counterintuitive results provoked debate after the study was posted on Monday, mostly about the volume of police encounters and the scope of the data. Mr. Fryer emphasizes that the work is not the definitive analysis of police shootings, and that more data would be needed to understand the country as a whole. This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police.

Link to the study

Of course, wasn't there just a Snopes link a little higher in this thread showing that that study was seriously flawed as far as the killing part? I believe it used the officer saying it was a good shoot to determine if it was a good shoot or not.

 skyth wrote:
Of course, wasn't there just a Snopes link a little higher in this thread showing that that study was seriously flawed as far as the killing part? I believe it used the officer saying it was a good shoot to determine if it was a good shoot or not.

Yes, what that Times article references is not a "study" but a working paper in a non-peer reviewed journal about specializing in economy-based research. It was anonymously funded, the methodology has been called into question by numerous experts, and it was written by an economist with no background in criminal justice.

 Spinner wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?

Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.

Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...

Interesting the way you inflate things. So the NBPP is a hate group, they hate whites, jews, and anyone that isn't black. Just because they don't burn crosses, and haven't lynched anyone that we know of, doesn't make them any less of a detestable entity. If the NBPP was large enough and powerful enough to perform similar acts, like burning crosses and or lynch white people, I believe they would. Just listen to them at their rally's where they talk about "killing crackers" and similar rhetoric.

My statement makes total sense, and I will state it again, the NBPP is the black version of the KKK.

GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?

Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.

Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...

have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.

I never said that BLM was = to KKK....

I think that BLM is inherently racist, but not as bad as the NBPP.

All lives matter, not just black ones.

GG

Saying 'All lives matter' really misses the point of Black live matter and is actually rather insulting.

I know that's the BLM talking point, but it's really not insulting. Of course Black lives matter, but so do white, indian, Asian, and hispanic, etc.etc.

I attend the largest African American church organization in the world. I participated in the "Black Lives Matter Sunday" see link below.

http://www.cogic.org/blog/blacklivesmatter-sunday/

But pastors and bishops of the denomination had no problem stating "All Lives Matter", while supporting the embryonic movement back then (2014).

I doubt they would do another black lives matter day, seeing what BLM has morphed into.

GG

Saying Black Lives Matter is not saying that some lives matter more than others. Nobody is saying that not all lives matter. What people are saying is Black Lives are disproportionately effected by poverty and racial profiling by police.

Saying All Lives Matter means you are either wilfully ignoring these facts or you just do not understand what is going on.

 skyth wrote:
Saying 'All lives matter' really misses the point of Black live matter and is actually rather insulting.

What is Black Lives Matters about though? We see tons of bad press about it, how they seem to push for violence. What is their core message though. Getting the police targetting of unarmed black citizens to stop?

I found this the other day, thought it was incredibly enlightening.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

From what the Washington Post was able gather from media reports from around the country, they have a description of every shoot, name, date, location, and the events leading to it. They also built in filters, so you can break down who was shot, what was happening at the time, etc...

When you break it down to Black Americans, they found 258 cases. Then you can select if they were armed with a deadly weapon, unarmed, etc... If you select unarmed, it brings the number down to 38. Then you can add another filter, where you can select if they were in the process of attacking the police, or someone else, or not. That brings you to 19 instances where police shot someone, who was unarmed and not attacking someone. 3 of those instances where bystanders who were shot while police were engaging another situation. That leaves 16 cases. Of those 258 though, 183 of them took place when the person shot was in the process of committing violence. When people throw out those "disproportionate" numbers, they never address those parts of the numbers. How many of the shootings were actually warranted.

Now I'm not saying this list is authoritative. Other media agencies have different numbers(such as total killed), but none that I've found made the effort to describe the situation involved with each one. Even acknowledging some variance in the numbers, I find it really hard to believe that such a small number of unarmed black people being shot by police when they were not posing a threat to anyone, to be worth everything we are going through.

This does not mean I am giving the police a pass, or anything of the like. A bad shoot is a bad shoot, and should always be punished appropriately. We're talking though, riots, murders, etc... for what, maybe two dozen instances of these bad shoots? If BLM wants to fix something, they need to do like the Dallas Chief said, and start in their own damn communities. When you are doing triage, you don't ignore the severed limb, to take care of a small laceration. Complain all you want about how many Black Americans are killed by police. The fact is, Black American's disproportionately kill more people then any other racial category in the country, way beyond anything else. This simple fact means there are going to be more Black Americans on the receiving end of police fire. That is why the numbers are scewed more then anything else, and until that issue gets ACKNOWLEDGED and fixed, nothing is going to change, for the better at least.

Anything dealing with raw numbers is misleading and a bit dishonest. You have to deal with numbers adjusted for percentage of the total population.

The core tenets of BLM is that Blacks are disproportionately targeted by police, are more likely to be convicted and are subject to harsher penalties than whites for the same crime. This is an issue and needs to stop.

I'm just going to make that my catch-all reply for everything and anything.

- Do something about 22 veteran suicides a day? No, all lives matter.
- Raising money for childhood cancer? No, all lives matter.
- Earthquake somewhere? All lives matter.
- Waste time and money on a memorial for some cops that got killed? All lives matter.
- Military doesn't get paid enough and has to use food stamps? All lives matter.

I just found this, breaks things down as well. They claim to be the best at this. Their breakdown isn't as good as WaPo's, but still decent.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Saying Black Lives Matter is not saying that some lives matter more than others. Nobody is saying that not all lives matter. What people are saying is Black Lives are disproportionately effected by poverty and racial profiling by police.

Saying All Lives Matter means you are either wilfully ignoring these facts or you just do not understand what is going on.

Please don't try to educate me on what BLM means. Did you not even read my post from above? It started out fine, but it has morphed into something else than what it started as.

I supported it at first, but I can't support it now.

It would be better if the slogan was "Black Lives Matter TOO"

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Saying Black Lives Matter is not saying that some lives matter more than others. Nobody is saying that not all lives matter. What people are saying is Black Lives are disproportionately effected by poverty and racial profiling by police.

Saying All Lives Matter means you are either wilfully ignoring these facts or you just do not understand what is going on.

Please don't try to educate me on what BLM means. Did you not even read my post from above? It started out fine, but it has morphed into something else than what it started as.

I supported it at first, but I can't support it now.

It would be better if the slogan was "Black Lives Matter TOO"

GG

You posted it while I was writing and posting mine. Either way, you are still wrong because you are paying attention to the people at the fringe of the movement instead of the core. All of these terrible things that have happened have all been denounced because they have been carried out by extremists.

You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?

Second amendment/gun owners.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?

Second amendment/gun owners.

Yes, that is it. Those persecuted second amendment/gun owners.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?

Second amendment/gun owners.

Yes, that is it. Those persecuted second amendment/gun owners.....

Blaming the whole because of the few, damn right. Just like BLM is getting flak because of a few nutjobs and just like Muslims are gak on because of radicals. I get lumped in with psychos just because of an object I own.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?

Second amendment/gun owners.

Yes, that is it. Those persecuted second amendment/gun owners.....

Blaming the whole because of the few, damn right. Just like BLM is getting flak because of a few nutjobs and just like Muslims are gak on because of radicals. I get lumped in with psychos just because of an object I own.

Not really. Guns =/= Gun Owners. Blaming guns for something is not blaming gun owners. Asking for heavier restrictions on the purchasing of firearms is not the same as either of those things. So not even remotely the same. Either way, this is not the thread for that, so lets stop that now.

 djones520 wrote:
Now I'm not saying this list is authoritative. Other media agencies have different numbers(such as total killed), but none that I've found made the effort to describe the situation involved with each one. Even acknowledging some variance in the numbers, I find it really hard to believe that such a small number of unarmed black people being shot by police when they were not posing a threat to anyone, to be worth everything we are going through.

Shootings by police certainly cause the issue to spark, but it isn't just about shootings, but about being pulled over more often, being searched more often and so on.

If I'd been stopped seven times in a single year, and most of those times were just because I was driving a nicer car than people assume my skin colour should have, then I'd be annoyed enough to march, whether it was 1, 16 or 1,600 people that got pointlessly shot. And by the way, that story of being stopped seven times comes from the personal experience of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican.

Tim Scott admits the first time was for a busted head light (I've been pulled over for that too) and other times were for speeding. He claims (can't find anything to substantiate it) other times were for 'being in the wrong neighborhood'.

Honestly, I trust his story as much as I trust other congress critters (not much at all). Maybe it is true,maybe it is embellished and part true.

I have a brother who is a cop in poor areas of Houston. He, and any cop will tell you some vehicles don't generally belong in some neighborhoods and the vehicle WILL attract attention. At night it is almost impossible to tell the race of a driver with windows up until you pull them over.

 skyth wrote:
Saying 'All lives matter' really misses the point of Black live matter and is actually rather insulting.

#CatLoversLivesDontMatter

So...no shootings or signs of violence from anyone so far, correct?

 kronk wrote:
So...no shootings or signs of violence from anyone so far, correct?

You mean besides diehard conservatives watching Trump last night and offing themselves?

""I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
-Ghost Nixon.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?

Second amendment/gun owners.

Yes, that is it. Those persecuted second amendment/gun owners.....

When you have newspapers publishing names and addresses of gun owners, yes it does amount to persecution and putting a target on gun owners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Tim Scott admits the first time was for a busted head light (I've been pulled over for that too) and other times were for speeding. He claims (can't find anything to substantiate it) other times were for 'being in the wrong neighborhood'.

Honestly, I trust his story as much as I trust other congress critters (not much at all). Maybe it is true,maybe it is embellished and part true.

I have a brother who is a cop in poor areas of Houston. He, and any cop will tell you some vehicles don't generally belong in some neighborhoods and the vehicle WILL attract attention. At night it is almost impossible to tell the race of a driver with windows up until you pull them over.

I have often thought it was crazy to have lone cops pull over vehicles at night for minor infractions. Do they do that in Houston?

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Tim Scott admits the first time was for a busted head light (I've been pulled over for that too) and other times were for speeding. He claims (can't find anything to substantiate it) other times were for 'being in the wrong neighborhood'.

Honestly, I trust his story as much as I trust other congress critters (not much at all). Maybe it is true,maybe it is embellished and part true.

I have a brother who is a cop in poor areas of Houston. He, and any cop will tell you some vehicles don't generally belong in some neighborhoods and the vehicle WILL attract attention. At night it is almost impossible to tell the race of a driver with windows up until you pull them over.

I have often thought it was crazy to have lone cops pull over vehicles at night for minor infractions. Do they do that in Houston?

Really depends. From my conversations with my brother and Son2 (criminal science major who did like a year patrolling with county and municipal cops in the Dahlonega, GA area) and buddies who are on various LEAs, is that the cops tend to know what fits in and does not fit in at certain times and places. When something does not fit in, they look hard, and if they find the minor infraction make the stop. The stop is made really to see what is actually going on. If nothing, usually a warning is given. If something, they take what ever the appropriate action is. Proactive policing. Race tends to not have anything to do with it (again, at night it is almost impossible to tell race until the stop is made).

The thing I always worried about in the lone cop scenario is someone getting pulled over and attempting an ambush.
I got pulled over, for a bad light, on a deserted road at about 2 am by a lone cop and immediately turned on my inside light and had my hands on the wheel.
I couldn't help but think the balls of steel it took to handle a job like that on a nightly basis.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Now I'm not saying this list is authoritative. Other media agencies have different numbers(such as total killed), but none that I've found made the effort to describe the situation involved with each one. Even acknowledging some variance in the numbers, I find it really hard to believe that such a small number of unarmed black people being shot by police when they were not posing a threat to anyone, to be worth everything we are going through.

Shootings by police certainly cause the issue to spark, but it isn't just about shootings, but about being pulled over more often, being searched more often and so on.

If I'd been stopped seven times in a single year, and most of those times were just because I was driving a nicer car than people assume my skin colour should have, then I'd be annoyed enough to march, whether it was 1, 16 or 1,600 people that got pointlessly shot. And by the way, that story of being stopped seven times comes from the personal experience of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican.

And it is wrong... but how do we combat that? It's a lot deeper of an issue then "he's black, so we've gotta be dicks, because white power." Even if it was just that, stomping out racism... just doesn't work. A society can change the norms over time regarding it, but it is not an overnight fix, and acting in a manner which draws negative attention to yourself isn't going to help the slow fix.

Without attention the message is 'everything is fine. Nothing needs to change'.

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Now I'm not saying this list is authoritative. Other media agencies have different numbers(such as total killed), but none that I've found made the effort to describe the situation involved with each one. Even acknowledging some variance in the numbers, I find it really hard to believe that such a small number of unarmed black people being shot by police when they were not posing a threat to anyone, to be worth everything we are going through.

Shootings by police certainly cause the issue to spark, but it isn't just about shootings, but about being pulled over more often, being searched more often and so on.

If I'd been stopped seven times in a single year, and most of those times were just because I was driving a nicer car than people assume my skin colour should have, then I'd be annoyed enough to march, whether it was 1, 16 or 1,600 people that got pointlessly shot. And by the way, that story of being stopped seven times comes from the personal experience of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican.

And it is wrong... but how do we combat that? It's a lot deeper of an issue then "he's black, so we've gotta be dicks, because white power." Even if it was just that, stomping out racism... just doesn't work. A society can change the norms over time regarding it, but it is not an overnight fix, and acting in a manner which draws negative attention to yourself isn't going to help the slow fix.

We can examine what expectations and responsibilities we put on police departments, how we train police officers and what kind of policing we put into practice. I the current system of policing is creating injustices and social unrest then we should probably figure out a way to do it better. If nobody protests enough to make the issue important enough to be dealt with in a practical and responsible manner then it doesn't get fixed.

Protest movements are always vulnerable to radicalization and to providing cover for people to be unruly in irresponsible and counter productive ways. Look at the G8 summits, sure there's plenty of greivances that could be alleviated if the most powerful heads of state viewed those issues as important enough to work to resolve but that has no connection to masked protestors smashing windows for no reason but somehow the two go hand in hand.

I think it's great that members/supporters of BLM want to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of assembly in the pursuit of positive social and political change. I don't hold the actions of lone criminals against the majority of people who aren't criminals. BLM leadership can't stop individuals from using the movement as an excuse to commit crimes like murder and vandalism. I do think BLM leadership needs to do everything that it can in a constant and consistent vigilant effort to make sure their protests are done in a peaceful, civil manner because they have the greatest incentive to protect their movement from criminals because criminal behavior done in their name is the surest way to get their greivances dismissed/ignored and for greater measures of injustice to be meted out in response.

One thing to think about here is that all of those guns on the street and no massive battle breaking out should strengthen the stand of the pro gun side.

 CptJake wrote:
Maybe it is true,maybe it is embellished and part true.

Yeah, maybe his story is embellished. But to dismiss all such claims, to claim that the experiences of many millions of black people that they are targeted because of their race... well that's another thing entirely. I don't think you or anyone else saying that all those stories are embellished. As such the problem has to be recognised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
And it is wrong... but how do we combat that? It's a lot deeper of an issue then "he's black, so we've gotta be dicks, because white power." Even if it was just that, stomping out racism... just doesn't work. A society can change the norms over time regarding it, but it is not an overnight fix, and acting in a manner which draws negative attention to yourself isn't going to help the slow fix.

Yeah, I think that's fair. I think we've talked before about the combative stance of BLM probably hurts more than it helps. What's needed is outreach.

Perhaps a few years ago there was a general ignoring of the issue, and so the attention seeking and aggressive approach of BLM worked. But now everyone is recognising the problem, so maybe it's time for BLM to change its approach.