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.

 Soladrin wrote:
So, let me get your argument straight, they aren't as bad as the KKK so it's alright?

You'll have to also help me out where I said it was alright. I'm sure it's in here somewhere.

 Soladrin wrote:
So, let me get your argument straight, they aren't as bad as the KKK so it's alright?

That does seem to be his thesis, doesn't it?

No, I just pointed out how incredibly silly and dishonest it is to say that BLM is way, way more violent than the KKK, which has killed thousands of people, is.

The Dallas shooter worked for Jimmy Johns. Was Jimmy Johns responsible for the Dallas attacks? No, that's a stupid argument, you'd say, and you'd be right. Yet there is just as much sanctioning of the Dallas attack from Jimmy Johns as there was from BLM. Even if we assume it was sanctioned, though, which it wasn't, then 6 is still an order of magnitude less that 3,400, so it just was a ridiculous, silly thing to say no matter how you slice it.

 skyth wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Conceivably, the DOJ is there to deal with stuff like Civil Rights era Alabama where the governance and population were perfectly fine with racially discriminatory law enforcement against a minority group. However, when you get to 2015 Baltimore, it gets more complicated as now you are dealing with a largely minority population, but also minority governance (including police officers). It is why BLM and such is off base- there is no national police force and problems must be addressed on a department by department basis. Some departments may have racial issues, others may not.

Regardless, rioting and looting only further victimizes the very communities that such "protestors" claim to represent.

From what I've seen, the rioters and agitators for violence are not the locals, but people from outside looking to have some fun in the chaos at the expense of other people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Black Lives Matter was a necessary protest movement, but it is spreading beyond its bounds.

BLM started off as rioting and calls for violence and continues as such. Yes, there are peaceful outliers that use BLM slogans but they're not actually affiliated with the main BLM organization.

 Orlanth wrote:
...and it is odd that BlackLivesMatter has to go back five years to find a martyr cause to consider a protest over...

Not if you understand that protesting isn't what BLM is really about. BLM is an extension of the black nationalist movement. It is as racist as the Klan and a lot more violent.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you want your police to go about the neighourhood shooting people?

People that have already been involved in shooting someone else and brandishing stolen firearms? Very much yes!

Here's a picture of the "victim's" FB page.



Oh, yea, real class act there. People like this should be nominated for Darwin Awards.

Here Breotan proves that he believes the Nazi propaganda maxim, that if you lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth.

Yep. Looks a well meaning guy....

Ouze, you and I both know that you aren't going to convince someone who links Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh of anything contrary to what they have been told.

He's just too well informed.

 Ouze wrote:
No, I just pointed out how incredibly silly and dishonest it is to say that BLM is way, way more violent than the KKK, which has killed thousands of people, is.

The Dallas shooter worked for Jimmy Johns. Was Jimmy Johns responsible for the Dallas attacks? No, that's a stupid argument, you'd say, and you'd be right. Yet there is just as much sanctioning of the Dallas attack from Jimmy Johns as there was from BLM. Even if we assume it was sanctioned, though, which it wasn't, then 6 is still an order of magnitude less that 3,400, so it just was a ridiculous, silly thing to say no matter how you slice it.

Pretty much this. Although it is rather disturbing to see black power nut-jobs trying to co-opt the movement. And almost as disturbing to see people assume these attempts are whole movment and ignore the actual messages that need to be put across...

 Breotan wrote:

 skyth wrote:
First off, that someone made a website that does not mean that they actually represent Black Lives Matters.

IT'S.THEIR.SITE.

So when called on a lie, you double down on the lie. Continuing to lie about something does not magically make it true.

 skyth wrote:
It was not formed as a violent racist organization despite your continuous attempts to lie about it.

The calls for cops to be killed and repeated rioting tend not to support your argument.

And proof that this came from BLM?

 skyth wrote:
Basically, your whole statement is a big ball of lies created by racists that were feeling threatened by the idea of equality.

White racists didn't put words into the mouths of those BLM supporters caught on video speaking their minds. Racist BLM supporters did that on their own.

So you are fine with painting a minority of extremists as representative of the entire group? Would you be fine with David Duke being representative of the entire Republican party?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Ouze, you and I both know that you aren't going to convince someone who links Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh of anything contrary to what they have been told.

He's just too well informed.

Sure, but a lot of people who hang out in this forum are from overseas, and they may not be familiar with the history of the KKK as the Klan is not as prominent as they once were. They might just assume that the KKK was about the same as BLM since people keep repeating that, unaware that the KKK was responsible for thousands of deaths, countless acts of violence, bombings, intimidation, and were integrated into all levels of power in our government for a long time.

BLM had a protest in Oklahoma City and hugged a bunch of cops.

So the KKK must have given those officers full-body-massages, since they are less violent than BLM.

Or maybe that is just a silly statement.

 skyth wrote:
So when called on a lie, you double down on the lie. Continuing to lie about something does not magically make it true.

You calling someone a lair does not make them a liar, no matter how frequently and repeatedly you do it, even after you godwin the thread in the process.

 skyth wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It was not formed as a violent racist organization despite your continuous attempts to lie about it.

The calls for cops to be killed and repeated rioting tend not to support your argument.

And proof that this came from BLM?

Sure.

 skyth wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Basically, your whole statement is a big ball of lies created by racists that were feeling threatened by the idea of equality.

White racists didn't put words into the mouths of those BLM supporters caught on video speaking their minds. Racist BLM supporters did that on their own.

So you are fine with painting a minority of extremists as representative of the entire group? Would you be fine with David Duke being representative of the entire Republican party?

OMG what is with the strawman arguments on this site? They never end. I swear to God, it's like arguing with a twelve year old.

I completely understand the outrage over *some* of these shootings, but rallying behind every person who is killed by cops, justified or unjustified, simply based on the color of their skin is definitely not helping their credibility.

Strawmen arguments are horrible, and strawmen are more violent than the KKK.

 Breotan wrote:

Spoiler:

Regardless of the arguments, the post that guy has are hilarious in their incoherence and spirituality.

Proof that the movement was inciting violence against cops. Mainstream media is flat out lying, saying that the BLM protesters weren't inciting nationwide violence, in this video the who movement were calling out for the murder of police, that night in New York City shortly after this clip the shooting in Dallas happened, in other words the very founders, supporters are technically dissidents-soon to be indicted savages. On felonious treasonous charges. I wouldn't want to be there founders who are probably being investigated for terrorism and extremism funded by a White Wealthy Elite; GEORGE SOROS, Beyonce knolls & Jay Z's Master at the plantation. Wake up people it's a TRAP? Race baiting by elites to perform a gun grab by passing bills in congress to take away your guns, board a plane and possibly your rights to due process if you're apart of the extremists protesters inciting genocide they can legally kill you in the streets if not execute you by legal means deemed fit by a doctor as your not fit to live in society if your pulling this

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I completely understand the outrage over *some* of these shootings, but rallying behind every person who is killed by cops, justified or unjustified, simply based on the color of their skin is definitely not helping their credibility.

Rallying behind people like Charles Kinsey and Philando Castile is fine and should be encouraged. Rallying behind criminals and thugs hurts their credibility more.

Let's ensure our posts are polite. Calling others twelve year olds, liars and the like is not how to disagree politely. If you can't be polite, maybe just take a breather from posting down here, go hang out in dakka discussions or a 40k subforum.

I said drop the topic I have edited out. I wasn't kidding

 skyth wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It was not formed as a violent racist organization despite your continuous attempts to lie about it.

The calls for cops to be killed and repeated rioting tend not to support your argument.

And proof that this came from BLM?

Sure.

How about some real proof this actually represents BLM

 skyth wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Basically, your whole statement is a big ball of lies created by racists that were feeling threatened by the idea of equality.

White racists didn't put words into the mouths of those BLM supporters caught on video speaking their minds. Racist BLM supporters did that on their own.

So you are fine with painting a minority of extremists as representative of the entire group? Would you be fine with David Duke being representative of the entire Republican party?

OMG what is with the strawman arguments on this site? They never end. I swear to God, it's like arguing with a twelve year old.

So here is where you throw a temper tantrum and resort to personal attacks when someone uses the same 'logic' and 'evidence' you use to condem BLM to condem a group you support...

 Breotan wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I completely understand the outrage over *some* of these shootings, but rallying behind every person who is killed by cops, justified or unjustified, simply based on the color of their skin is definitely not helping their credibility.

Rallying behind people like Charles Kinsey and Philando Castile is fine and should be encouraged. Rallying behind criminals and thugs hurts their credibility more.

There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:





While looking for the above video I found this, which is now somewhat relevant to the thread.


I take comparing the KKK to BLM but in the video and on this thread is a metaphor not a literal comment.

 Orlanth wrote:
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:

Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.

But I'm wary of any argument that comes from anecdotal experience rather than actual numbers. There's 1.1 million people employed with law enforcement in the USA, I'm sure you can cherry pick specific anecdotal evidence to support any view point you like, there'd have to be on the order of millions of interactions between police and civilians each week in the US.

The statistics that still strike home with me (and I'm open to new information if there's some available), according to the FBI stats black persons are responsible for around 43 to 44% of murders in the USA, represent 12% of the community and make up roughly 30% of the people shot by police (and those numbers aren't concrete, but it seems in the ballpark from various sources).

So that to me says police aren't automatically more likely to shoot and kill a black person than a white person, if anything white people manage to get shot and killed by police more often relative to the number of people murdered by whites, but obviously I don't think there's discrimination against whites rather that there's likely other factors to consider.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I completely understand the outrage over *some* of these shootings, but rallying behind every person who is killed by cops, justified or unjustified, simply based on the color of their skin is definitely not helping their credibility.

Rallying behind people like Charles Kinsey and Philando Castile is fine and should be encouraged. Rallying behind criminals and thugs hurts their credibility more.

There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I very much support media efforts to bring this disparity to light. I believe that in cases where legitimate discrimination is found the police department should receive a metaphoric enema. I would like to see City Council and Mayors receive the same treatment. Anyone that cares to go back through my history (especially the Philando Castile thread) will find that I am solidly in favor of a deescalation approach to policing and very vocal against the militarization of law enforcement. I've also called for an end to SWAT teams going out on calls as first responders instead of having a regular LEO checking it out first (remember swatting?). Far fewer people will be killed if police departments adopt and incorporate deescalation policies. It frustrates me to no end when a police officer is involved in an unwarranted shooting and is acquitted. Reform is absolutely needed and it needs to be implemented quickly.

The girl in that second video might be one of the worst people I have ever had the horror of listening to. I have had to endure a few of her videos before and I have yet to find a redeeming quality in any of them.

Also, this thread is going well. /popcorn

 Ouze wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Ouze, you and I both know that you aren't going to convince someone who links Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh of anything contrary to what they have been told.

He's just too well informed.

Sure, but a lot of people who hang out in this forum are from overseas, and they may not be familiar with the history of the KKK as the Klan is not as prominent as they once were. They might just assume that the KKK was about the same as BLM since people keep repeating that, unaware that the KKK was responsible for thousands of deaths, countless acts of violence, bombings, intimidation, and were integrated into all levels of power in our government for a long time.

I'm going to agree with you that in the history of the KKK they are significantly worse than BLM. Thankfully the KKK is in a pretty steady decline and are mostly viewed with scorn these days. They have no where near the power or influence they used to.


And here is where Breotan may have accidently found a little truth. He said BLM is as bad has the KKK "is", not "was". Since BLM formed 4 years ago how many deaths, riots, or political influence can be attributed to the KKK? (Not defending them in the slightest here). I'm just saying that BLM during its current upswing is somewhat comparable to the current, nearly dying KKK. That being said, everyone in the KKK is pretty much an ignorant POS racist, while I am sure there are BLM members that are in it for all the right reasons.

Any group can quickly go to crap when the most radical, violent members are the ones in charge. Even the KKK itself started as a secret social fraternity (although still admittedly racist) before quickly turning into a paramilitary organization bent on intimidation and violence.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:

Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.

But I'm wary of any argument that comes from anecdotal experience rather than actual numbers. There's 1.1 million people employed with law enforcement in the USA, I'm sure you can cherry pick specific anecdotal evidence to support any view point you like, there'd have to be on the order of millions of interactions between police and civilians each week in the US.

The statistics that still strike home with me (and I'm open to new information if there's some available), according to the FBI stats black persons are responsible for around 43 to 44% of murders in the USA, represent 12% of the community and make up roughly 30% of the people shot by police (and those numbers aren't concrete, but it seems in the ballpark from various sources).

So that to me says police aren't automatically more likely to shoot and kill a black person than a white person, if anything white people manage to get shot and killed by police more often relative to the number of people murdered by whites, but obviously I don't think there's discrimination against whites rather that there's likely other factors to consider.

You are conflating separate issues. The rise of BLM is a response to police shootings of black people in situations like traffic stops, not murders. (The police aren't supposed to shoot murderers anyway.)

You need to compare the rate at which the police shoot white people in traffic stops.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:

Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.

Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But I'm wary of any argument that comes from anecdotal experience rather than actual numbers. There's 1.1 million people employed with law enforcement in the USA, I'm sure you can cherry pick specific anecdotal evidence to support any view point you like, there'd have to be on the order of millions of interactions between police and civilians each week in the US.

It's not anecdotal if it is fairly witnessed, as these videos are.
I see your point though, videos show individual cases. But then Philandro Castile was an individual case, it was not disregarded.

Also with video witness you will have to cherry pick to some extent, you can't just load up the entirity of YouTube or security camera evidence for a holistic view. Also it isn't the point. The events happen, and more importantly they are noticed in the press, aired by the press commented on by the press. That is the relevant point.
It is actually less relevant what crime statistics read, not only because statistical evidence can be cherry picked also, and often is. But more the the point if the percentages show there isn't really a problem, but the press have hold of a video and say the opposite. Which is going to be more influential in public opinion?
Government isn't science, there is no hard statistical border to determine whether levels of crime are 'acceptible', everything is opinion based, and the largest influences on opinion matter the most.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

The statistics that still strike home with me (and I'm open to new information if there's some available), according to the FBI stats black persons are responsible for around 43 to 44% of murders in the USA, represent 12% of the community and make up roughly 30% of the people shot by police (and those numbers aren't concrete, but it seems in the ballpark from various sources).

I can believe that. Stats in the UK are broadly similar, I don't know the umbers but I can say that ethnic minorities cause a disproportionately high number of crimes. This is the reason (and not racism) s to why 'stop and search' mostly targets ethnic minorities.
However you try telling that to a black community.

Taking 'stop and search' in the UK as an example, blacks do get pulled over more per capita. That is fact and police statistics have to record that fact as part of mandatory monitoring.
Police however stop and search known criminals, particularly those who might have evidence in their car, drug dealers primarily. Drug gangs tend not to be equal opportunity employers, and while eastern Europeans are also big in the drugs trade, black gangs are also very dominant, far beyond the point in which one would expect as a percentage of the population.
Therefore more blacks will be stopped. There is good logic and motive to this, but to an agitator the only relevant point is that blacks get pulled over more, and that must be because of police racism.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:

Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.

But I'm wary of any argument that comes from anecdotal experience rather than actual numbers. There's 1.1 million people employed with law enforcement in the USA, I'm sure you can cherry pick specific anecdotal evidence to support any view point you like, there'd have to be on the order of millions of interactions between police and civilians each week in the US.

The statistics that still strike home with me (and I'm open to new information if there's some available), according to the FBI stats black persons are responsible for around 43 to 44% of murders in the USA, represent 12% of the community and make up roughly 30% of the people shot by police (and those numbers aren't concrete, but it seems in the ballpark from various sources).

So that to me says police aren't automatically more likely to shoot and kill a black person than a white person, if anything white people manage to get shot and killed by police more often relative to the number of people murdered by whites, but obviously I don't think there's discrimination against whites rather that there's likely other factors to consider.

You are conflating separate issues. The rise of BLM is a response to police shootings of black people in situations like traffic stops, not murders. (The police aren't supposed to shoot murderers anyway.)

You need to compare the rate at which the police shoot white people in traffic stops.

I'm not conflating anything because I wasn't talking about traffic stops at all. I would be surprised if the number of people shot by police in traffic stops is a meaningful proportion of the total number of people shot by police, I was talking more generally.

But since you brought it up, do you have any stats relating specifically to traffic stops where people got shot after being pulled over for speeding, running a red light, etc?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
It is actually less relevant what crime statistics read, not only because statistical evidence can be cherry picked also, and often is. But more the the point if the percentages show there isn't really a problem, but the press have hold of a video and say the opposite. Which is going to be more influential in public opinion?

That's exactly my point, IMO the press need to be scrutinised for what they say based on the reality of what actually happens.

Are black people actually oppressed, or do they just feel they are oppressed because they are constantly told they are oppressed? It's an important distinction and key to improving the situation instead of just inciting idiots to burn down their local neighbourhoods and start shooting cops.

We need to talk more about reality rather than media-driven fantasy if we want to fix problems. The media is happy over stating gak so it sounds worse if it means more people watching them, more newspapers sold, etc.

It'll be a real problem if police get scared in to not helping specific crime ridden communities because those communities are primarily black. I don't have a huge number of African American friends, but I'm encouraged that the few I do are often posting/sharing "support our police" and "all lives matter" messages on facebook rather than the inciteful crap that seems to come across mainstream media. Regardless of whether there is or isn't a racism problem in the police force it's still encouraging that some people are trying to ease tensions rather than raise them.

Mainstream media is so crap that I get people all the way over in Australia telling me misrepresentations about some story in the US they saw on the news, I can't imagine American media is going to be better than the Australian media.

 Orlanth wrote:
It's not anecdotal if it is fairly witnessed, as these videos are.

I'm using the definition of anecdotal which means data based off non-scientific observation, so a video of an individual situation is anecdotal in the sense it doesn't encompass real meaningful data.

Government isn't science, there is no hard statistical border to determine whether levels of crime are 'acceptible', everything is opinion based, and the largest influences on opinion matter the most.

I don't think any crime is acceptable, my point is entirely "where is the root of the problem and how should we be addressing it?" Arrest statistics I think are very hard to draw useful information from, I specifically used murder stats because I think they paint a better picture, you are less likely to have unreported and unattributable murders than you are to have unreported robbery, rape, assault, vandalism, etc. and murder rates unlike arrest rates are less likely to be skewed by overpolicing of particular communities resulting in more arrests per crime committed.

Therefore more blacks will be stopped. There is good logic and motive to this, but to an agitator the only relevant point is that blacks get pulled over more, and that must be because of police racism.

I'm not a fan of unwarranted stop and search to begin with, it sounds rather unconstitutional

 Ouze wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
So, let me get your argument straight, they aren't as bad as the KKK so it's alright?

You'll have to also help me out where I said it was alright. I'm sure it's in here somewhere.

Have you not learnt by now? In the OT, saying that X isn't anywhere near as bad as Y means that you must be a supporter of X! (See: Hillary vs Trump, Romney vs Obama, this, among others)

 Orlanth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:

Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.

Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.

That segment is rather terrible and an example of bad "journalism." Under the guise of supporting his gross generalization that cops everywhere are racist and treat white criminals better than black criminals Cenk shows videos of different police officers in different departments in different states de-escalating situations involving armed white men. He then compares those responses to the Philando Castile shooting in Minnesota, which involved a third different group of officers in a different department in a different state. That isn't evidence of his claim of racial discrimination by cops at all. If Cenk wanted to prove that cops were treating white criminals different than black criminals committing the same crimes then he needs to show the same officers in the same departments responding to similar crimes with different races of suspect and treating the different races of suspects differently. The idea that the cops in a town in Ohio responding to an armed white criminal differently than cops in a small town in Minnesota responded to a situation involved an armed black man doesn't show racism at all, it's two completely different sets of cops.

The article linked in the youtube posting of that video does the same thing, it contrasts different responses from different departments in different states, that's incredibly dishonest and biased. If you think cops in a police department are racist then you should be able to show incidences of cops in that department treating situations differently when dealing with people of different races. That article claims that the fact that two white guys screwing around with a BB gun in a Walmart in Idaho didn't get shot by cops but a black man fiddling with a BB gun in a Walmart in Ohio did get shot by cops is evidence that cops are racist which completely ignores logic and reasoning.

Asking the question of, Would a black man in the same situation by treated the same way by the cops? is a worthless hypothetical. There's no way to know if the cops would have treated a black man in the same situation differently. Has there been an incident with the same cops or same PD responding to a similar call that involved a black man? No? Then don't waste time insulting your audience by claiming that the response to a similar incident involving a black man by a completely different PD somehow makes the cops in another state that weren't involved in the incident in any way racist.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 Orlanth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:

Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.

Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.

That segment is rather terrible and an example of bad "journalism." Under the guise of supporting his gross generalization that cops everywhere are racist and treat white criminals better than black criminals Cenk shows videos of different police officers in different departments in different states de-escalating situations involving armed white men. He then compares those responses to the Philando Castile shooting in Minnesota, which involved a third different group of officers in a different department in a different state. That isn't evidence of his claim of racial discrimination by cops at all. If Cenk wanted to prove that cops were treating white criminals different than black criminals committing the same crimes then he needs to show the same officers in the same departments responding to similar crimes with different races of suspect and treating the different races of suspects differently. The idea that the cops in a town in Ohio responding to an armed white criminal differently than cops in a small town in Minnesota responded to a situation involved an armed black man doesn't show racism at all, it's two completely different sets of cops.

The article linked in the youtube posting of that video does the same thing, it contrasts different responses from different departments in different states, that's incredibly dishonest and biased. If you think cops in a police department are racist then you should be able to show incidences of cops in that department treating situations differently when dealing with people of different races. That article claims that the fact that two white guys screwing around with a BB gun in a Walmart in Idaho didn't get shot by cops but a black man fiddling with a BB gun in a Walmart in Ohio did get shot by cops is evidence that cops are racist which completely ignores logic and reasoning.

Asking the question of, Would a black man in the same situation by treated the same way by the cops? is a worthless hypothetical. There's no way to know if the cops would have treated a black man in the same situation differently. Has there been an incident with the same cops or same PD responding to a similar call that involved a black man? No? Then don't waste time insulting your audience by claiming that the response to a similar incident involving a black man by a completely different PD somehow makes the cops in another state that weren't involved in the incident in any way racist.

I haven't watched a lot of The Young Turks, but that's primarily because what I have watched of them has been stupidly biased, agenda before the facts and often illogical crap, from your description this sounds much the same.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 Orlanth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:

Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.

Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.

That segment is rather terrible and an example of bad "journalism." Under the guise of supporting his gross generalization that cops everywhere are racist and treat white criminals better than black criminals Cenk shows videos of different police officers in different departments in different states de-escalating situations involving armed white men. He then compares those responses to the Philando Castile shooting in Minnesota, which involved a third different group of officers in a different department in a different state. That isn't evidence of his claim of racial discrimination by cops at all. If Cenk wanted to prove that cops were treating white criminals different than black criminals committing the same crimes then he needs to show the same officers in the same departments responding to similar crimes with different races of suspect and treating the different races of suspects differently. The idea that the cops in a town in Ohio responding to an armed white criminal differently than cops in a small town in Minnesota responded to a situation involved an armed black man doesn't show racism at all, it's two completely different sets of cops.

The article linked in the youtube posting of that video does the same thing, it contrasts different responses from different departments in different states, that's incredibly dishonest and biased. If you think cops in a police department are racist then you should be able to show incidences of cops in that department treating situations differently when dealing with people of different races. That article claims that the fact that two white guys screwing around with a BB gun in a Walmart in Idaho didn't get shot by cops but a black man fiddling with a BB gun in a Walmart in Ohio did get shot by cops is evidence that cops are racist which completely ignores logic and reasoning.

Asking the question of, Would a black man in the same situation by treated the same way by the cops? is a worthless hypothetical. There's no way to know if the cops would have treated a black man in the same situation differently. Has there been an incident with the same cops or same PD responding to a similar call that involved a black man? No? Then don't waste time insulting your audience by claiming that the response to a similar incident involving a black man by a completely different PD somehow makes the cops in another state that weren't involved in the incident in any way racist.

I haven't watched a lot of The Young Turks, but that's primarily because what I have watched of them has been stupidly biased, agenda before the facts and often illogical crap, from your description this sounds much the same.

It's frustrating because I agree with the principle that we have to constantly vigilant with government oversight, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Police have a lot of authority and power over people and it's very important for society that our elected leaders make sure that police departments are run properly. We know that departments can have problems with corruption, racism and counter productive policies but we need to remember that it occurs in a localized fashion. Every municipal, state and federal LEA is different and there's nothing to be gained by making sweeping generalizations and then trying to support them with intellectually dishonest "evidence."

Prestor Jon wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 Orlanth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is more to this. Even if the shot suspects are genuine criminals there is often a discrepancy as to how they are handled.
The made has caught onto this and made it important.

I saw this video at the time, interesting coverage:

Perhaps you can summarise your thoughts instead of linking a video, I can't (and don't want to) sit down and watch a 13 minute video.

Basically as stated, handling of armed people on the street is different, and differences due to ethnicity can be noticed. TYT is worth watching, but your time is yours to spend.

That segment is rather terrible and an example of bad "journalism." Under the guise of supporting his gross generalization that cops everywhere are racist and treat white criminals better than black criminals Cenk shows videos of different police officers in different departments in different states de-escalating situations involving armed white men. He then compares those responses to the Philando Castile shooting in Minnesota, which involved a third different group of officers in a different department in a different state. That isn't evidence of his claim of racial discrimination by cops at all. If Cenk wanted to prove that cops were treating white criminals different than black criminals committing the same crimes then he needs to show the same officers in the same departments responding to similar crimes with different races of suspect and treating the different races of suspects differently. The idea that the cops in a town in Ohio responding to an armed white criminal differently than cops in a small town in Minnesota responded to a situation involved an armed black man doesn't show racism at all, it's two completely different sets of cops.

The article linked in the youtube posting of that video does the same thing, it contrasts different responses from different departments in different states, that's incredibly dishonest and biased. If you think cops in a police department are racist then you should be able to show incidences of cops in that department treating situations differently when dealing with people of different races. That article claims that the fact that two white guys screwing around with a BB gun in a Walmart in Idaho didn't get shot by cops but a black man fiddling with a BB gun in a Walmart in Ohio did get shot by cops is evidence that cops are racist which completely ignores logic and reasoning.

Asking the question of, Would a black man in the same situation by treated the same way by the cops? is a worthless hypothetical. There's no way to know if the cops would have treated a black man in the same situation differently. Has there been an incident with the same cops or same PD responding to a similar call that involved a black man? No? Then don't waste time insulting your audience by claiming that the response to a similar incident involving a black man by a completely different PD somehow makes the cops in another state that weren't involved in the incident in any way racist.

I haven't watched a lot of The Young Turks, but that's primarily because what I have watched of them has been stupidly biased, agenda before the facts and often illogical crap, from your description this sounds much the same.

It's frustrating because I agree with the principle that we have to constantly vigilant with government oversight, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Police have a lot of authority and power over people and it's very important for society that our elected leaders make sure that police departments are run properly. We know that departments can have problems with corruption, racism and counter productive policies but we need to remember that it occurs in a localized fashion. Every municipal, state and federal LEA is different and there's nothing to be gained by making sweeping generalizations and then trying to support them with intellectually dishonest "evidence."

I can definitely agree with that.

I'm all for limiting police power and keeping them on a short leash to ensure they are there *for* the community and not *against* the community but I want to see realistic goals based on reality rather than sensationalism.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
...

You are conflating separate issues. The rise of BLM is a response to police shootings of black people in situations like traffic stops, not murders. (The police aren't supposed to shoot murderers anyway.)

You need to compare the rate at which the police shoot white people in traffic stops.

I'm not conflating anything because I wasn't talking about traffic stops at all. I would be surprised if the number of people shot by police in traffic stops is a meaningful proportion of the total number of people shot by police, I was talking more generally.

But since you brought it up, do you have any stats relating specifically to traffic stops where people got shot after being pulled over for speeding, running a red light, etc?

...