Author Topic: Absolutely love this guy!  (Read 19560 times)

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1006
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2017, 10:42:12 PM »
Not to mention totally disingenuous. Obviously all murder is bad, but bringing up black-on-black crime to compare it to police brutality is totally absurd. In one of these situations, the authority of the state is being used against the victim.

How some so-called conservatives can't get this, when they supposedly want to LIMIT government overreach and abuse, is pretty confounding.

I don't think its absurd. But then I am looking at the data. If something can go wrong...it eventually will go wrong. Police interactions can go wrong. Most of the time they don't but its a possibility. Therefore the more interactions you have with police the greater the likelihood one of them will end up with you dead.

Blacks have vastly more interactions with police because they commit more crime. The best proxy for crime is the murder rate since its pretty immune to issues like under-reporting. In fact probably the best measure of black crime is the number of black victims of murder. America is pretty racially segregated and criminals tend to commit crime in their own neighbourhoods which means the number of black victims of murder is a good proxy for the number of black murderers. Lets bring out the numbers:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-1.xls
Black victims of murder: 7881
White victims of murder: 6576

Now lets look at police shootings in 2016 (I used a pivot table to filter on 2016 and categorize by race. see attachment).
https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings
Black victims of police:233
White victims of police: 466

This allows us to answer a question, given that a person was murdered, what was the probability the murderer was a cop. Here are the answers:

probability a black murder victim was killed by a cop = 233/7881 = 3%
probability a white murder victim was killed by a cop = 466/6576= 7%

So what explains this data? My explanation is that black people are under-policed relative to their crime rate probably by a factor of 2. To me the black on black crime rate is hugely relevant to putting the number of blacks shot by cops into proper context. Given the huge black crime rate, the number of blacks shot by cops is relatively low.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 11:10:03 PM by rukawa »


LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4881
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2017, 12:25:50 AM »
Complicated issue for sure.

You would also have to factor out police shooting victims who are posing an imminent threat to police. Most people shot by police are posing an immediate threat.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/10/24/on-duty-under-fire/?tid=a_inl)

In 2015, police killings break down like this:

-74% the victim had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands
-16% of the shootings came after incidents that did not involve firearms or active attacks but featured other potentially dangerous threats (mostly knives they refused to drop)
-5% of cases that are often second-guessed include individuals who police said failed to follow their orders, made sudden movements or were accidentally shot.
-4% of cases, The Post was unable to determine the circumstances of the shootings because of limited information or ongoing investigations

When you factor the threat level out, this report (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12269/full) claims that unarmed black people are more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white people.

Here is the breakdown of police killings from 2015:

Variable   White/Black/Other/Total
Armed   463   220   187   870
Unarmed   32   38   23   93
Total    495   258   210   963
Attack   395   183   131   709
Non-attk   83   63   66   212
Undet.   17   12   13   42
Total    495   258   210   963

The results indicated civilians from “other” minority groups were significantly more likely than Whites to have not been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians and that Black civilians were more than twice as likely as White civilians to have been unarmed.



Two other smaller points:

2015 data suggests that violent crime rates in cities are not correlated with police killing rates:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2016/07/mappingpoliceviolence.jpeg&w=1484


Finally, I don't know if this is the case with overall murder statistics, but for police killing statistics, the FBI has previously acknowledged issues with their data reporting:

The FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention log fatal shootings by police, but officials acknowledge that their data is incomplete. In 2015, The Post documented more than two times more fatal shootings by police than had been recorded by the FBI. Last year, the FBI announced plans to overhaul how it tracks fatal police encounters.


« Last Edit: October 01, 2017, 12:52:27 AM by LC »
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

ScottHall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2017, 02:07:12 AM »
Not to mention totally disingenuous. Obviously all murder is bad, but bringing up black-on-black crime to compare it to police brutality is totally absurd. In one of these situations, the authority of the state is being used against the victim.

How some so-called conservatives can't get this, when they supposedly want to LIMIT government overreach and abuse, is pretty confounding.

I don't think its absurd. But then I am looking at the data. If something can go wrong...it eventually will go wrong. Police interactions can go wrong. Most of the time they don't but its a possibility. Therefore the more interactions you have with police the greater the likelihood one of them will end up with you dead.

Blacks have vastly more interactions with police because they commit more crime. The best proxy for crime is the murder rate since its pretty immune to issues like under-reporting. In fact probably the best measure of black crime is the number of black victims of murder. America is pretty racially segregated and criminals tend to commit crime in their own neighbourhoods which means the number of black victims of murder is a good proxy for the number of black murderers. Lets bring out the numbers:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-1.xls
Black victims of murder: 7881
White victims of murder: 6576

Now lets look at police shootings in 2016 (I used a pivot table to filter on 2016 and categorize by race. see attachment).
https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings
Black victims of police:233
White victims of police: 466

This allows us to answer a question, given that a person was murdered, what was the probability the murderer was a cop. Here are the answers:

probability a black murder victim was killed by a cop = 233/7881 = 3%
probability a white murder victim was killed by a cop = 466/6576= 7%

So what explains this data? My explanation is that black people are under-policed relative to their crime rate probably by a factor of 2. To me the black on black crime rate is hugely relevant to putting the number of blacks shot by cops into proper context. Given the huge black crime rate, the number of blacks shot by cops is relatively low.

I see a lot of conflation and elision here, and a lot of your own assumptions.

According to the criminology journal LC linked, 38 unarmed black people were killed but only 32 unarmed white people were. Despite the fact that white people made up 62.3% of the U.S. population in 2015, while black people were just 12.3% of the population. In other words, 18.75% more unarmed black people were killed by police than unarmed white people, despite white people being represented in the population at a rate >5x that of black people.

Americans killing other Americans does not justify police - with the authority of the state, and often without consequence - killing innocent people. No matter their skin color. Police brutality is police brutality, and all communities impacted have a right to speak out against it. Doesn't matter the race. So I support it when black athletes do it. I'd support it if white athletes did it, or latino, or asian.

I would have hoped that conservatives and libertarians could agree on this, given the general "small government" stance, but I guess violence must be okay if directed from a place of authority. If only there was a famous psychological study on how people respond to those in positions of authority doing immoral things, or encouraging others to...

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk <-- population data
« Last Edit: October 01, 2017, 02:12:22 AM by ScottHall »

Paarslaars

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2017, 04:48:15 AM »
This thread and Parslaars responses in particular remind me of that old joke:

In America I'm and alcoholic, in Canada I drink, in England in normal, and in Ireland I'm a pussy.

I guess in America I'm a socialist liberal, in Canada I'm a centrist, and in Belgium I'm a right wing conservative.

Love Belgium by the way, would love to live there for a while.... too bad my French really sucks.

Offtopic but the northern part (+/- 60% of the country) has Dutch as a native language. For the Dutch speaking part, most are fluent or at least adequate in English.
I do not think you would face many language issues, if that were your only obstacle.

MikeTheCannon

  • Guest
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2017, 06:22:50 AM »
It doesn't really bother me what these guys do; I don't take them seriously to begin with. They get paid millions of dollars to play with a ball! Spare me the oppression nonsense. We have much larger issues to deal with than a bunch of self entitled athletes, most barely competent even on a basic high school level education wise. Almost all of these guys have been coddled their entire lives.

But for shit's sake, lets consider the following. If we want to whine about the hardships of our ancestors, I think it's clear both Jews and Native Americans have much more to gripe about than blacks. If we want to whine about modern day hardships, South Americans, Mexicans, a lot of Asians, Jews, and even women, should probably be the loudest complainers as they all have to deal with a ton of discrimination and societal injustices that largely get ignored. The only thing I'll give a lot of these athletes credit for, along with the guys like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and a lot of the Democrats, is that they've mastered the art of monetizing the struggles of their ancestors.

At first the knee thing screamed attention seeking. Just so happened to be after Kapernick's play declined tremendously and he was rumored to be cut. Now it's just about being defiant. They want to take a stand? Why not get their asses in order first.

NFL players have been arrested 855 times since 2000. That includes 215 DUI charges, 99 drug charges, 96 domestic violence cases and 71 assaults. It even includes two murders!

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/sport/nfl-arrest-rates/

"What we found—and if you’re following headlines (say it ain’t so, AP), it’s not going to come as a surprise—is that the NBA and NFL lead arrest rates compared with the MLB and NHL. From 2010 to present, the NFL had an average arrest rate (for a population of 100,000) of approximately 2,466, followed by the NBA’s 2,157. Comparatively, professional baseball and hockey players clocked average arrest rates of 553 and 175, respectively, over the same period."

Why is it that NHL and MLB(which has a huge number of minorities from poverty stricken countries) has little problem behaving but NFLers and NBAers must conduct themselves like savages?

And if we want to go a step further, and worry about police on black crime? How about black on black crime? The numbers in regards to black on black crime are staggering.

And no Tim Tebow was not openly praised for being so flamboyantly religious. He was largely mocked by main stream media.

You sure seem to have a lot problems with black people.

LOL Seriously? This is why political discussions never go anywhere. Because people can't handle things and take the lazy way out with cries of racism, bigotry, fascism, etc.

Anyone who knows me knows this couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. What I have issues with are people exploiting the hardships of others and being massive hypocrites. The Kaepernick thing was a PR stunt that essentially kept him from being cut last year. Now it's about defiance.

Look no further than this Seahawks dude who cried police brutality and made this huge public stink. And then, oops. They release the tapes and he was the one who was out of line. It's crazy to me how bad the NFL and NBA are with basic issues substance abuse and domestic violence. As a country we have issues far bigger than the distractions of a bunch of spot light seeking spoiled brats who want to make a stink during the national anthem. The single issue they have chosen to highlight, is one they do themselves no favor in avoiding, as the statistics show.

You want to make a difference? As an athlete you have a tremendous ability to do this. What Reggie Bush did in NO after Katrina was heroic. JJ Watt for Houston. Some of the stuff Victor Cruz has done around NJ is pretty awesome. But these geniuses want to do something attention seeking that whether right or wrong, will alienate and divide and piss a lot of people off; in kneeling for the anthem. Which is ultra ironic given that the average NFL team has two players arrested per season when the entire NHL may have one arrest league wide.

And if we're really that keen on the larger social issue, equality for women is still in the stone ages. Mexicans are treated like trash. A lot of these loud mouth athletes and politicians(who happen to be black) are hugely popular, wealthy, and coddled so excuse me if their cries of oppression fall on deaf ears.


If you want to have a serious discussion about this topic I would be happy to have it, but I get the feeling you're not approaching this topic with honest intentions. For example, the idea that you can dismiss someone because they make a large amount of money instead of on the merits of their arguments seems disingenuous. You quickly follow this up by saying that NFL players are stupid.... and I'm not sure why. To me is seems like an attempt to discredit their arguments by making personal attacks instead of making fair and honest critiques of their arguments. This, to me, is the real "lazy way out" and the reason why political discussions never go anywhere. It's also my basis for not taking your post seriously.

The suggestion that black people should stay quiet until Native Americans, South Americans, Mexicans, women, Asians, and Jews all have their gripes resolved is a weird arguments. It suggests that we can only solve one problem at a time: Group #3 can't complain until we solve the problems of Group #2... and those people can't complain until we solve the problems of Group #1. Surely we can solve multiple problems at the same time. If you don't think we can solve multiple problems at the same time I would love to know who currently gets to complain without the "other people have it worse" argument being levied at them? How do you currently rank Native Americans, South Americans, Mexicans, women, Asians, Jews, black people and white people (feel free to add any group we've missed).

Colin Kapernick may have been seeking attention. I'll admit, that's a possibility. But I've always approached these things with a charitable mentality: people are genuine until proven otherwise. I've seen nothing that suggests Kapernick isn't sincere about what he's saying. But let's suspend that for now and focus on his argument: Agents of the state are oppressing and  killing too many black people. Whether or not Kapernick is sincere doesn't change the fact that his argument might be valid (especially since this thing has grown bigger than Kapernick). This is the argument that you should be focusing on. Personally, I think Kapernick has a valid argument supported by serious evidence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/police-are-searching-black-drivers-more-often-but-finding-more-illegal-stuff-with-white-drivers-2/?utm_term=.4107e950b047

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/20/health/black-men-killed-by-police/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html?mcubz=0&_r=0

You make an argument that the NFL has a disproportionate number of arrests and thus they should be quiet. For the record, arrests doesn't equal conviction (and you can't be convicted without being arrested, so presumably the conviction numbers are lower), but let's presume they do for a moment. Even if you believe that having a criminal conviction inhibits your ability to make a valid argument (and I don't), you cannot levy those numbers at Kapernick as he hasn't been arrested (let alone convicted)... plus there are a large number of other people who haven't been convicted that are supporting Kapernicks' argument. More importantly, your line of argument suggests that you can lose your right to complain/protest if you are identified with a specific group even if you have done nothing wrong yourself. It also opens up a situation where you can silence people by changing the group: NHL players would lose their voices if you started identifying them as "pro athletes" and Kapernick would magically get his back if you identified him with the group of people "with college degrees" or "haven't been arrested" or any number of ways you could cut it. Basically I reject this whole line of arguing based on it's premise and I think you should too.

Your second last paragraph included the phrase: "And if we want to go a step further, and worry about police on black crime?" <-- This isn't "a step further" this is the crux of the whole situation. Its why the whole thing started. As for the "How about black on black crime? The numbers in regards to black on black crime are staggering." this is just another example of you dismissing a valid argument because another problem exists. I'm not even sure what the black-on-black crime numbers are (pro tip: don't focus on this line in your response), but even if they are staggering it doesn't take away any merit from the argument that the state is killing too many people. Two problems can exist simultaneously and two problems can be addressed simultaneously.

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2017, 08:08:16 AM »
It doesn't really bother me what these guys do; I don't take them seriously to begin with. They get paid millions of dollars to play with a ball! Spare me the oppression nonsense. We have much larger issues to deal with than a bunch of self entitled athletes, most barely competent even on a basic high school level education wise. Almost all of these guys have been coddled their entire lives.

But for shit's sake, lets consider the following. If we want to whine about the hardships of our ancestors, I think it's clear both Jews and Native Americans have much more to gripe about than blacks. If we want to whine about modern day hardships, South Americans, Mexicans, a lot of Asians, Jews, and even women, should probably be the loudest complainers as they all have to deal with a ton of discrimination and societal injustices that largely get ignored. The only thing I'll give a lot of these athletes credit for, along with the guys like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and a lot of the Democrats, is that they've mastered the art of monetizing the struggles of their ancestors.

At first the knee thing screamed attention seeking. Just so happened to be after Kapernick's play declined tremendously and he was rumored to be cut. Now it's just about being defiant. They want to take a stand? Why not get their asses in order first.

NFL players have been arrested 855 times since 2000. That includes 215 DUI charges, 99 drug charges, 96 domestic violence cases and 71 assaults. It even includes two murders!

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/sport/nfl-arrest-rates/

"What we found—and if you’re following headlines (say it ain’t so, AP), it’s not going to come as a surprise—is that the NBA and NFL lead arrest rates compared with the MLB and NHL. From 2010 to present, the NFL had an average arrest rate (for a population of 100,000) of approximately 2,466, followed by the NBA’s 2,157. Comparatively, professional baseball and hockey players clocked average arrest rates of 553 and 175, respectively, over the same period."

Why is it that NHL and MLB(which has a huge number of minorities from poverty stricken countries) has little problem behaving but NFLers and NBAers must conduct themselves like savages?

And if we want to go a step further, and worry about police on black crime? How about black on black crime? The numbers in regards to black on black crime are staggering.

And no Tim Tebow was not openly praised for being so flamboyantly religious. He was largely mocked by main stream media.

You sure seem to have a lot problems with black people.

LOL Seriously? This is why political discussions never go anywhere. Because people can't handle things and take the lazy way out with cries of racism, bigotry, fascism, etc.

Anyone who knows me knows this couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. What I have issues with are people exploiting the hardships of others and being massive hypocrites. The Kaepernick thing was a PR stunt that essentially kept him from being cut last year. Now it's about defiance.

Look no further than this Seahawks dude who cried police brutality and made this huge public stink. And then, oops. They release the tapes and he was the one who was out of line. It's crazy to me how bad the NFL and NBA are with basic issues substance abuse and domestic violence. As a country we have issues far bigger than the distractions of a bunch of spot light seeking spoiled brats who want to make a stink during the national anthem. The single issue they have chosen to highlight, is one they do themselves no favor in avoiding, as the statistics show.

You want to make a difference? As an athlete you have a tremendous ability to do this. What Reggie Bush did in NO after Katrina was heroic. JJ Watt for Houston. Some of the stuff Victor Cruz has done around NJ is pretty awesome. But these geniuses want to do something attention seeking that whether right or wrong, will alienate and divide and piss a lot of people off; in kneeling for the anthem. Which is ultra ironic given that the average NFL team has two players arrested per season when the entire NHL may have one arrest league wide.

And if we're really that keen on the larger social issue, equality for women is still in the stone ages. Mexicans are treated like trash. A lot of these loud mouth athletes and politicians(who happen to be black) are hugely popular, wealthy, and coddled so excuse me if their cries of oppression fall on deaf ears.


If you want to have a serious discussion about this topic I would be happy to have it, but I get the feeling you're not approaching this topic with honest intentions. For example, the idea that you can dismiss someone because they make a large amount of money instead of on the merits of their arguments seems disingenuous. You quickly follow this up by saying that NFL players are stupid.... and I'm not sure why. To me is seems like an attempt to discredit their arguments by making personal attacks instead of making fair and honest critiques of their arguments. This, to me, is the real "lazy way out" and the reason why political discussions never go anywhere. It's also my basis for not taking your post seriously.

The suggestion that black people should stay quiet until Native Americans, South Americans, Mexicans, women, Asians, and Jews all have their gripes resolved is a weird arguments. It suggests that we can only solve one problem at a time: Group #3 can't complain until we solve the problems of Group #2... and those people can't complain until we solve the problems of Group #1. Surely we can solve multiple problems at the same time. If you don't think we can solve multiple problems at the same time I would love to know who currently gets to complain without the "other people have it worse" argument being levied at them? How do you currently rank Native Americans, South Americans, Mexicans, women, Asians, Jews, black people and white people (feel free to add any group we've missed).

Colin Kapernick may have been seeking attention. I'll admit, that's a possibility. But I've always approached these things with a charitable mentality: people are genuine until proven otherwise. I've seen nothing that suggests Kapernick isn't sincere about what he's saying. But let's suspend that for now and focus on his argument: Agents of the state are oppressing and  killing too many black people. Whether or not Kapernick is sincere doesn't change the fact that his argument might be valid (especially since this thing has grown bigger than Kapernick). This is the argument that you should be focusing on. Personally, I think Kapernick has a valid argument supported by serious evidence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/police-are-searching-black-drivers-more-often-but-finding-more-illegal-stuff-with-white-drivers-2/?utm_term=.4107e950b047

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/20/health/black-men-killed-by-police/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html?mcubz=0&_r=0

You make an argument that the NFL has a disproportionate number of arrests and thus they should be quiet. For the record, arrests doesn't equal conviction (and you can't be convicted without being arrested, so presumably the conviction numbers are lower), but let's presume they do for a moment. Even if you believe that having a criminal conviction inhibits your ability to make a valid argument (and I don't), you cannot levy those numbers at Kapernick as he hasn't been arrested (let alone convicted)... plus there are a large number of other people who haven't been convicted that are supporting Kapernicks' argument. More importantly, your line of argument suggests that you can lose your right to complain/protest if you are identified with a specific group even if you have done nothing wrong yourself. It also opens up a situation where you can silence people by changing the group: NHL players would lose their voices if you started identifying them as "pro athletes" and Kapernick would magically get his back if you identified him with the group of people "with college degrees" or "haven't been arrested" or any number of ways you could cut it. Basically I reject this whole line of arguing based on it's premise and I think you should too.

Your second last paragraph included the phrase: "And if we want to go a step further, and worry about police on black crime?" <-- This isn't "a step further" this is the crux of the whole situation. Its why the whole thing started. As for the "How about black on black crime? The numbers in regards to black on black crime are staggering." this is just another example of you dismissing a valid argument because another problem exists. I'm not even sure what the black-on-black crime numbers are (pro tip: don't focus on this line in your response), but even if they are staggering it doesn't take away any merit from the argument that the state is killing too many people. Two problems can exist simultaneously and two problems can be addressed simultaneously.

These guys are attention seeking brats. They by and large are not educated. So I find it amusing, and do not take it seriously when they show complete disrespect for the flag and apparently aren't even aware of the disrespect for our soldiers. Football has become all about me, me, me. The end zone celebrations, jersey popping and dancing after every play. This is just another not so thinly veiled extension of that.

There was never a suggestion that black people should stay quiet until...It's that the rest of these groups of people have had/still have it just as bad if not worse, yet they seem to find a way to go about their lives without creating these circuses. Without getting locked up so frequently. Without disrespecting the country. Which was where I question the intentions of a lot of it. It seems to me like a lot of this type of behavior is instead more about monetizing the struggle of others.

I don't doubt for a second that there are bad police officers. Or that police brutality exists. Or that minorities probably get a harder time from authorities than polo and khaki wearing white people. But I also think these people grossly exaggerate and almost at times use these things as excuses. Case in point is one of the more prominent knee benders, Michael Bennett. Which even there, I do sympathize with part of what Bennett went through. As an innocent man, being investigated could have at the least been annoying, and probably down right scary. But just like a lot of these other folks, he couldn't let it go right there, and had to make it all about me, me, me and attention. Never once did he attempt to realize that the responding police officers also had a job to do. That they are trained and have protocol for dealing with such potentially dangerous situations, or anything like that. Yet for the following few weeks, all we heard from him was running his mouth about police brutality. Politicizing it. Monetizing it.

Many problems can simultaneously exist. Many can be dealt with at once. It's just odd that one, these guys can't find a more appropriate way to make their point. Two, all the people who falsely believe this is a first amendment issue. And three, that if they were serious about making social changes, they couldn't find bigger issues to be proactive about. Whether one cares to admit it or not, a large part of inner city African American culture over the past 30 years has been this "f*ck the police" mentality. Which definitely contributes to the tensions, but also I think is part of where this protest comes from. You want to make a difference? Look at what Chance the Rapper(I feel silly for even knowing that name) is doing with youth outreach in Chicago. You want to protest, go to a rally. If you want to take a knee, you can do it on your front lawn.

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1006
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #46 on: October 01, 2017, 06:42:14 PM »
Quote
I see a lot of conflation and elision here, and a lot of your own assumptions.

It would be helpful if you pointed out which assumptions you disagree with and find unreasonable.

Quote
According to the criminology journal LC linked, 38 unarmed black people were killed but only 32 unarmed white people were. Despite the fact that white people made up 62.3% of the U.S. population in 2015, while black people were just 12.3% of the population. In other words, 18.75% more unarmed black people were killed by police than unarmed white people, despite white people being represented in the population at a rate >5x that of black people.

The number of people in the population is not relevant. Because if it were your real complaint should be the vast disparity between the number of women shot vs men shot:
923 men vs 40 women.

The real ultimate question is the number of interactions with police. And I'm saying that crime is what determines that. Black commit crimes vastly more crimes than whites relative to their population. And similarly with men. And young people.

Quote
Americans killing other Americans does not justify police - with the authority of the state, and often without consequence - killing innocent people. No matter their skin color. Police brutality is police brutality, and all communities impacted have a right to speak out against it. Doesn't matter the race. So I support it when black athletes do it. I'd support it if white athletes did it, or latino, or asian.

Its not a justification of killing. Its a matter of understanding the number. Your claim is that black on black crime is completely irrelevant to police shootings. I'm saying its not irrelevant. Its hugely relevant. Its like saying that miles traveled is irrelevant to vehicle fatalities.

And I agree with you....this isn't a racial issue. That is kind of my point.

ScottHall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #47 on: October 01, 2017, 07:51:36 PM »
Quote
I see a lot of conflation and elision here, and a lot of your own assumptions.

It would be helpful if you pointed out which assumptions you disagree with and find unreasonable.

Quote
According to the criminology journal LC linked, 38 unarmed black people were killed but only 32 unarmed white people were. Despite the fact that white people made up 62.3% of the U.S. population in 2015, while black people were just 12.3% of the population. In other words, 18.75% more unarmed black people were killed by police than unarmed white people, despite white people being represented in the population at a rate >5x that of black people.

The number of people in the population is not relevant. Because if it were your real complaint should be the vast disparity between the number of women shot vs men shot:
923 men vs 40 women.

The real ultimate question is the number of interactions with police. And I'm saying that crime is what determines that. Black commit crimes vastly more crimes than whites relative to their population. And similarly with men. And young people.

Quote
Americans killing other Americans does not justify police - with the authority of the state, and often without consequence - killing innocent people. No matter their skin color. Police brutality is police brutality, and all communities impacted have a right to speak out against it. Doesn't matter the race. So I support it when black athletes do it. I'd support it if white athletes did it, or latino, or asian.

Its not a justification of killing. Its a matter of understanding the number. Your claim is that black on black crime is completely irrelevant to police shootings. I'm saying its not irrelevant. Its hugely relevant. Its like saying that miles traveled is irrelevant to vehicle fatalities.

And I agree with you....this isn't a racial issue. That is kind of my point.

Well, you can conveniently ignore the criminology paper if you want. But it seems pretty clear from reading LC's data that your assumptions are incorrect. LC already pointed out specific examples of your analysis being contradicted by seemingly reputable data sources, including the fact that violent crime rates in cities do not correlate with police brutality.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2016/07/mappingpoliceviolence.jpeg&w=1484

But ignoring the meat of an argument and making assumptions about what I should think the issue to be is more along your line of reasoning, I guess.

I literally just said I don't care who protests about police brutality; if white men want to do it, fine. If women want to do it, fine. You're dismissing the very real pain that people suffer at the hands of police who, quite literally, are getting away with murder. So forgive me if your thing about what "my real issue should be" rings a little hollow. It's perfectly possible for more than one group of people to suffer at the same time, and more than one group suffering does not invalidate another group's suffering.

If you're saying that black-on-black crime is to blame for this, you're assuming police have no agency. It's their responsibility as actors of the state not to abuse their power; if they do, they should be punished appropriately. They have agency and personal responsibility, just like everyone else. Maybe instead of blaming black people, we should look for ways to reform the system so this stuff happens less often?

I don't find your vehicle comparison apt; you don't have to drive, but you do have to deal with the police if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. Driving a vehicle is a risk people choose to assume; getting shot by the police, with the backing of the state? Not necessarily.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2017, 10:02:51 PM by ScottHall »

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1006
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #48 on: October 01, 2017, 10:05:22 PM »
Quote
Well, you can conveniently ignore the criminology paper if you want. But it seems pretty clear from reading LC's data that your assumptions are incorrect. LC already pointed out specific examples of your analysis being contradicted by seemingly reputable data sources, including the fact that violent crime rates in cities do not correlate with police brutality.https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2016/07/mappingpoliceviolence.jpeg&w=1484

So your argument is that a violent criminal is as likely to get shot by cops as a random person. Do you really believe that?

Your statistic has different interpretations. For instance, consider two cities: city A and city B. In city A the police are very active and the crime rate is low (think NY). In city B, the police are overwhelmed by crime and have essentially given up (think Detroit). They just sit at their desks and play solitaire. In city B the "police brutality" statistic of cop killings/people murdered would be very low but this would not be because police were less brutal. It would be because cops were doing nothing and the criminals were extremely active. However inside both city A and city B it would still overwhelmingly be the case that violent criminals were more likely to get shot by orders of magnitude than random people. This interpretation agrees with the data LC provided.

For instance, Detroit is a city where supposedly police are not brutal according to the graph. Possibly or maybe Detroit is a city where police don't have the budget to do their jobs and crime has sky-rocketed.

On the other hand, the data on who gets killed by cops pretty much correlates with who commits crimes. More men than women. More younger people than older people. If you are correct that violent crime does not correlate with police brutality why is this the case. Why aren't more women shot? And why aren't you outraged at our societies misandry?

Quote
I don't find your vehicle comparison apt; you don't have to drive, but you do have to deal with the police if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. Driving a vehicle is a risk people choose to assume; getting shot by the police, with the backing of the state? Not necessarily.

My comparison is apt. Police brutality is in part a consequence of having police and interacting with them. We can choose not to drive. There is a cost to that. We can choose to have less police and there is a cost to that to. The question is: are you willing to pay the cost. My view is the costs are higher crime and violence. Personally I would never want to live in Detroit, I don't care how nice their cops are when I get pulled over.

ScottHall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
Re: Absolutely love this guy!
« Reply #49 on: October 01, 2017, 10:25:45 PM »
Quote
Well, you can conveniently ignore the criminology paper if you want. But it seems pretty clear from reading LC's data that your assumptions are incorrect. LC already pointed out specific examples of your analysis being contradicted by seemingly reputable data sources, including the fact that violent crime rates in cities do not correlate with police brutality.https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2016/07/mappingpoliceviolence.jpeg&w=1484

So your argument is that a violent criminal is as likely to get shot by cops as a random person. Do you really believe that?

Your statistic has different interpretations. For instance, consider two cities: city A and city B. In city A the police are very active and the crime rate is low (think NY). In city B, the police are overwhelmed by crime and have essentially given up (think Detroit). They just sit at their desks and play solitaire. In city B the "police brutality" statistic of cop killings/people murdered would be very low but this would not be because police were less brutal. It would be because cops were doing nothing and the criminals were extremely active. However inside both city A and city B it would still overwhelmingly be the case that violent criminals were more likely to get shot by orders of magnitude than random people. This interpretation agrees with the data LC provided.

For instance, Detroit is a city where supposedly police are not brutal according to the graph. Possibly or maybe Detroit is a city where police don't have the budget to do their jobs and crime has sky-rocketed.

On the other hand, the data on who gets killed by cops pretty much correlates with who commits crimes. More men than women. More younger people than older people. If you are correct that violent crime does not correlate with police brutality why is this the case. Why aren't more women shot? And why aren't you outraged at our societies misandry?

Quote
I don't find your vehicle comparison apt; you don't have to drive, but you do have to deal with the police if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. Driving a vehicle is a risk people choose to assume; getting shot by the police, with the backing of the state? Not necessarily.

My comparison is apt. Police brutality is in part a consequence of having police and interacting with them. We can choose not to drive. There is a cost to that. We can choose to have less police and there is a cost to that to. The question is: are you willing to pay the cost. My view is the costs are higher crime and violence. Personally I would never want to live in Detroit, I don't care how nice their cops are when I get pulled over.

I dunno, Rukawa, you were pretty happy to use a Washington Post link as a source the other day and now you're telling me that the Washington Post isn't a reliable source. That seems pretty fishy to me, and I think the truth that I'm starting to see here is that you're either trolling (in which case, have fun) OR your brain has cabbaged up so much that you won't accept any data contrary to what you already believe, even if it comes from a source that you yourself used just a few posts ago. For the record, I have never defended violent crime on here and have specifically in my choice of data only used UNARMED victims of any given race.

You're the one who keeps bringing up violent crime and criminals, not me. Please stop projecting.

You have provided no evidence, only anecdotes, for your theories about why the data from the Post is unacceptable. With the inconsistency of your acceptance of sources - namely, that the same source is okay if you use it but not if someone else does - it's pretty clear that we're not going to get anywhere here because you will continue to move the goalposts no matter what data is presented, from what source.

Now lets look at police shootings in 2016 (I used a pivot table to filter on 2016 and categorize by race. see attachment).
https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings
Black victims of police:233
White victims of police: 466