Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Are people honestly suggesting that prison is not a deterrent for people?

Prison is a deterrent for some people. For others, not as much. And for people who are already on their way to prison if caught, the additional small amount of prison time they might get for fleeing is likely not actual a strong enough deterrent to overcome the negatives of getting caught.

Quote:
Then why do we have longer prison sentences for more sever crimes?

Largely because we want to punish people more for crimes we feel are more severe.

Quote:
So let them flee, they will be punished for it, by a court.

The court can only punish them if you catch them. If you consistently let them flee, not only does the court not have a chance to punish them, but they also have greater opportunity to commit further crimes.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
trail wrote:
mattbk wrote:
That all arrests should be a pleasant experience for all parties involved?


No, but, again not speaking about this case specifically....cops should generally engineer confrontations so they're in complete control of the situation. If they're not in complete control or are losing control *and* the suspect is probably not an imminent threat to the public, then it could be argued that could let them go and do better to control the situation next time.

I do admit this should be rare, though, as you don't want to incentivize trying to create chaos during an arrest attempt.

But there's probably a line somewhere, as in the high-speed chase.

My initial feeling is this case doesn't meet that line.

Simply being non-compliant is an additional crime, which comes with additional penalties. Let alone fleeing. So let them flee, they will be punished for it, by a court.

So people saying that if the police don't violently assault people they are arresting, then everyone is fleeing, are talking nonsense. They are basically saying, "the majority of people don't see prison as a sufficient deterrent to committing a crime." Which if they truly believed that, well they should have some serious problems with the criminal justice system as a whole.

Are people honestly suggesting that prison is not a deterrent for people? Then why do we have longer prison sentences for more sever crimes?

How many times do we “let them flee?” What if the person is a violent offender? Every day they are not in custody the public is at risk. Assault, robbery, drunk driving, rape, murder, etc...those are all back on the table if we just “let them flee.” What evidence is there that they will at some point come quietly? We rely on the honor system?

At some point we weigh the risks. The person of attention has presumably made the choices that led to the attempted arrest. Theyve weighed the risks, and chose violence.

So by letting them flee, we prioritize the risk to the criminal over the safety of the public. And compound that with notions that we shouldn’t have guns in households. We are very cavalier with the public’s best interest.

What happens when someone is murdered or raped by a suspect who should have been apprehended? Police dept is sued. “Should have pursued.” “Where was the training?” Etc,

I dont see the benefits of a “let them flee” approach.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [Klaus Daimler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Klaus Daimler wrote:
So the reduction from ~800 to 17 is not a massive amount of progress in policing and can instead be explained by increased sophistication of police cover up? Keep in mind that every shooting victim ends up in the hospital or the morgue. It would be virtually impossible to cover up an officer involved shooting.

Also, your argument actually works against you since it was far easier to cover up shootings in 1971 than 2018. The 800 number is certainly underestimated and possibly by a large amount. Whereas it is unlikely that the 17 is understated. That means the reduction is greater than reported, not less than reported.

I just cannot understand the unwillingness to admit any progress on many of these issues. And in this case, it is dramatic. Everything is "yes, but...." Race and social justice issues are exactly the same. It is almost as if many of the actors involved do not want progress.

I guess I was not clear.

First, I have no "argument", I am just sharing what is clearly known.

And, of course not, not every crime or every record of a crime in NYC is a "cover up". For example, when there is a dead body, it is kinda hard to massage that number away. But some crimes can easily be massaged away. And that is what is happening in a non-trivial number of very serious crimes in NYC (and in other US cities). Current NYC COMPStat crime numbers for many crimes (but not ALL crimes) are built on lies. And very reliable career NYC cops back this up.

The reason I mention this is not because I support (or not support) the COMPStat system. Only that this faulty and profoundly unreliable crime stat system has some very, very perverse incentives that cause some truly worse than shit police work (with innocent people getting cited and harassed, and serious serial criminals having an unfettered crime spree). Again, not my random opinion. The opinions of law enforcement experts and career NYC cops. If you don't believe me, no worries, let me know if you want hear from the cops themselves.


Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...Direct-mount & ZeroSlip-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com....Reviews....Instagram....Facebook

--
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [Yeeper] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeeper wrote:
Its odd, I (and others) have no problem admitting officers fucked up or need better training, but there often seems to be a reluctance for some people to recognize just how much gasoline is thrown on the embers by the poor choices of the suspect.

Because the reasonable thing to do is blame the cop. You have two parties one is some random individual, the other is a supposedly well trained individual that represents us and is given extraordinary power. The cop has the overwhelming responsibility and supposedly training to behave correctly in that situation. So of course the criticism should focus on the cop.

We give the police literally extraordinary powers. Just think about it, you and I can't just randomly pick up people and detain them for hours, that is called kidnapping when you or I do that, but cops have the power to do that. Or even pull over another car. Let alone be given guns. That means that they should be held to an extraordinary standard. They have such a responsibility to use those powers properly, since misuse of those powers is worse than behavior done by someone that is not an arm of the state.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [Yeeper] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeeper wrote:
chaparral wrote:
trail wrote:
mattbk wrote:
That all arrests should be a pleasant experience for all parties involved?


No, but, again not speaking about this case specifically....cops should generally engineer confrontations so they're in complete control of the situation. If they're not in complete control or are losing control *and* the suspect is probably not an imminent threat to the public, then it could be argued that could let them go and do better to control the situation next time.

I do admit this should be rare, though, as you don't want to incentivize trying to create chaos during an arrest attempt.

But there's probably a line somewhere, as in the high-speed chase.

My initial feeling is this case doesn't meet that line.


Simply being non-compliant is an additional crime, which comes with additional penalties. Let alone fleeing. So let them flee, they will be punished for it, by a court.

So people saying that if the police don't violently assault people they are arresting, then everyone is fleeing, are talking nonsense. They are basically saying, "the majority of people don't see prison as a sufficient deterrent to committing a crime." Which if they truly believed that, well they should have some serious problems with the criminal justice system as a whole.

Are people honestly suggesting that prison is not a deterrent for people? Then why do we have longer prison sentences for more sever crimes?


How many times do we “let them flee?” What if the person is a violent offender? Every day they are not in custody the public is at risk. Assault, robbery, drunk driving, rape, murder, etc...those are all back on the table if we just “let them flee.” What evidence is there that they will at some point come quietly? We rely on the honor system?

At some point we weigh the risks. The person of attention has presumably made the choices that led to the attempted arrest. Theyve weighed the risks, and chose violence.

So by letting them flee, we prioritize the risk to the criminal over the safety of the public. And compound that with notions that we shouldn’t have guns in households. We are very cavalier with the public’s best interest.

What happens when someone is murdered or raped by a suspect who should have been apprehended? Police dept is sued. “Should have pursued.” “Where was the training?” Etc,

I dont see the benefits of a “let them flee” approach.

If the person is an imminent threat to others, than obviously violence is justified.

Just look at this incident, a non violent offender, they were willing to use violence to keep him from fleeing. There was no reason to suspect that he was suddenly going to be violent. Unless you are under the assumption that anyone could commit further crimes, but then that logic just results in violence, so it is absurd.

Or look at Derek Chauvin, he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back on the ground. What the fuck were they accomplishing by sitting on him? Preventing him from running away slowly? How far is he getting like that. Once again this violence results in a person dead.

We are protected from the police using violence by the 4th amendment. Not like all rights, there are limits and times where the state can put limits on your 4th amendment rights, just like all rights including the 2nd amendment. But that is a big step and should not be taken lightly, like you are doing. We all have those rights and when a cop uses violence, it should not be taken lightly. For it is the state putting limits on your basic rights. That is not prioritizing criminals over public safety, that is prioritizing our rights under the constitution and about public safety. Because the due process that a cop uses when resorting to violence is very very thin, I don't think our rights should be constrained with that little due process. It is one person, with very little oversight in this country, taking actions to limit your rights and with possible life long consequences for you. Not just death, but also injury. That is an extraordinary power you are giving the police, so should be looked at with extraordinary scrutiny and be extraordinary rare. The constraints on the police to use that power should also be extraordinary.

If the person flees, then it is up to court, which is a much more robust due process, to put limits on your 4th amendment rights.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:

If the person is an imminent threat to others, than obviously violence is justified.

.

If the person flees, then it is up to court, which is a much more robust due process, to put limits on your 4th amendment rights.


I dont believe Im taking it lightly at all.

But given your above, I think we’re in agreement mostly. Thats an important distinction.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
If you acknowledge the above as true (or at least somewhat true), does it mean you that black people are far more likely to encounter actively racist police?

Assuming police are in the same proportion as the population? Sure. Though just as a math problem, not sure this has any connection to reality.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
Yeeper wrote:
Its odd, I (and others) have no problem admitting officers fucked up or need better training, but there often seems to be a reluctance for some people to recognize just how much gasoline is thrown on the embers by the poor choices of the suspect.

Because the reasonable thing to do is blame the cop. You have two parties one is some random individual, the other is a supposedly well trained individual that represents us and is given extraordinary power. The cop has the overwhelming responsibility and supposedly training to behave correctly in that situation. So of course the criticism should focus on the cop.

We give the police literally extraordinary powers. Just think about it, you and I can't just randomly pick up people and detain them for hours, that is called kidnapping when you or I do that, but cops have the power to do that. Or even pull over another car. Let alone be given guns. That means that they should be held to an extraordinary standard. They have such a responsibility to use those powers properly, since misuse of those powers is worse than behavior done by someone that is not an arm of the state.

No argument from me. They should absolutely be held to higher standards. We need to train them better.

Even with the above statement it is possible to
place some blame on a suspect resisting. When you make the job of the officer that much harder and willingly make yourself a threat of unknown proportions then, yes you caused that escalation and presented a host of other dilemmas and decisions that have to be made. And as Slowguy has pointed out, chain of events lead to these circumstances, and no situation is ever completely in control. Least of which when a suspect is violently fighting back.

Hard for me to say that person holds no blame. Blame is not mutually exclusive to one party. If the response is excessive (current case) then the officer should be held accountable. But its not (shouldn’t be) up for discussion what events led to the escalation.

If he hadnt fought back and tried to run from a justified stop (which there is both a legal and moral obligation to do so) would the taser (gun) even have been necessary?

That does not mean I absolve the officer from her grave offense. But he had an obligation to comply. We all do. We elect to live in this society under a set of rules. Its not up to us to choose whether we can jay walk or resist arrest. We follow all rules. And if they’re unjust then we work to fix it. We have a system for that.

But yes, we can actually detain a person. This goes back to Ahmaud Arbery. Citizens are not (legally) tasked eith with but can make an arrest in certain circumstances.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [drew_235] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There's another thread on here saying that now the police officer has been charged with 2nd degree manslaughter. The thread title says "Brooklyn Heights", but I think it is actually this one.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
If you acknowledge the above as true (or at least somewhat true), does it mean you that black people are far more likely to encounter actively racist police?

Assuming police are in the same proportion as the population? Sure. Though just as a math problem, not sure this has any connection to reality.

Explain how this has no connection to reality? It is a simple sociological conclusion that explains what is a reasonable phenomenon: Because some people will always be actively racist minority populations are more likely to experience active racism.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:


Explain how this has no connection to reality?


Because I think you just made up the numbers and some very simplistic assumptions of uniformity, etc? It's a neat thought experiment, but real sociology is hard (just like real epidemiology, as we've learned the hard way the past year).
Last edited by: trail: Apr 14, 21 12:32
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
Yeeper wrote:

Its odd, I (and others) have no problem admitting officers fucked up or need better training, but there often seems to be a reluctance for some people to recognize just how much gasoline is thrown on the embers by the poor choices of the suspect.


Because the reasonable thing to do is blame the cop. You have two parties one is some random individual, the other is a supposedly well trained individual that represents us and is given extraordinary power. The cop has the overwhelming responsibility and supposedly training to behave correctly in that situation. So of course the criticism should focus on the cop.

We give the police literally extraordinary powers. Just think about it, you and I can't just randomly pick up people and detain them for hours, that is called kidnapping when you or I do that, but cops have the power to do that. Or even pull over another car. Let alone be given guns. That means that they should be held to an extraordinary standard. They have such a responsibility to use those powers properly, since misuse of those powers is worse than behavior done by someone that is not an arm of the state.
Except blame can be shared. Certainly when things go sideways it's vitally important for the officer to have the training and the wherewithall to deal with a non-compliant person and detain and/or subdue them without killing them. But as Yeeper said in response to this post, it makes that task monumentally more difficult. People underestimate how difficult it is to detain a grown man, and how dangerous the situation becomes when it results in hands-on conflict because it doesn't take much for the suspect to grab a gun if that's what they're after, or to grab their own weapon if they have one hidden.

So while I agree with you that the ultimate responsibility lies with law enforcement and they should be held accountable in these situations, there is also responsibility on the part of the suspect to comply with the officers. If they DON'T, then there's a chance that they're tussling with an officer who 1. is racist, or 2. doesn't have proper hands-on training, or 3. is at a considerable size disadvantage, or 4. is in a bad mood...when things go sideways, human police officers will sometimes do human things like make mistakes or lash out in anger. After the fact they may or may not be held accountable, but in the moment you, the suspect, has put yourself in a situation where a human law enforcement officer is partly responsible for determining whether you live or die. So don't put yourself in that situation.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
ajthomas wrote:


Explain how this has no connection to reality?


Because I think you just made up the numbers and some very simplistic assumptions of uniformity, etc? It's a neat thought experiment, but real sociology is hard (just like real epidemiology, as we've learned the hard way the past year).

got it. Yes, I wasn't suggesting the numbers had any importance. The theory of structural racism, however, is very connected to reality.

An interesting example of it: Starting in 2000 I-10 expanded to 22 lanes from Katy Texas into downtown Houston. The project took 7 years and has been a huge success. Where I live, south of I-10 (primarily white people), real estate prices have grown by 400% since 2000. North of I-10 (predominantly non-whites) prices have gone up too, but more like 100-150%.

The explanation for the disparity in the increase in real estate values complicated, but some aspects are straight forward: The highway was expanded by as much as 200 yards (WIDE!). The state had to use imminent domain to buy all the land along the highway to make room for the expansion. 95% of the highway expansion was on the north side of the freeway. Road diversions were north of the freeway. The expanded road noise all went north. The neighborhoods north of the freeway have concrete sound barriers because they are now right against the freeway. They weren't designed that way, the expansion made it that way. The neighborhoods south of the freeway still have restaurants, buildings and space to block the noise.

The decision to build the freeway up against the neighborhoods on the north side was pretty easy. The land was cheaper (there was also a rail easement in place). There was no man in a white hood choosing to unfairly impact non-white communities. But the structure in place certainly did.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
The theory of structural racism, however, is very connected to reality.

I completely agree there. And I'd suspect that the general trend you suggest in your example is certainly plausible.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
Yeeper wrote:
I figured I'd start a new post. The long ones make my head spin, sorry.


We have to be genuine with out statistical inference. How else can we decide on actual measures to reduce the risk?


Thats how I ended the previous reply. So with regard to reducing the risk, I'll circle back to you introducing socioeconomic issues.

Thats great, I agree that is a factor. But now we have to look at who is responsible for that. Is it the police? I think not. The police patrol the area, I don't believe its the police who are responsible for the economic opportunities that exist for the population.


I don't think it is the polices fault either

However I do want to point out a math fact. Note: the fact is MATH, not the inputs of the math:

60% of population is white, 20% black. 5% of people are - regardless of race - "actively racists." This would mean the following: out of 100 people 60 are white, and 3 of those white are actively racist and out of 100 people 20 are black of which 1 is actively racist. This means that there is 1 actively racist black person for every 20 white people and actively racist white person for every 6.6 black people.

If you acknowledge the above as true (or at least somewhat true), does it mean you that black people are far more likely to encounter actively racist police?

I'm sorry, but I really don't know what point you're trying to make here. And no, it doesn't mean that. You're throwing a low of variables into a very specific pot you're trying to make.

I believe its entirely disingenuous to ignore (multiple times) the "inputs" of these statistics. The entire purpose behind this type of research is to find causation, not correlation. Correlation is crap. It means nothing without context and evidence to support the claim.

In you're reply here you're pointing out basic math percentages and then drawing a conclusion about what that means for a black man to encounter a racist individual.

Ok, so using your own reasoning and basic math: we know that black people are responsible for 50+% of violent crimes. That means they are equally as likely to engage in risky behavior and encounter police in a heightened response. But if thats the case, and they represent only 13% of the population, then based on their behavior, and your logic, they are or should be equally likely to be met with a violent response. Yet somehow their death rate at the hands of cops is half of that of whites.

So seems like using population percentage alone doesn't pain the entire picture.

Also, what the heck does "actively racist" mean and where did you get those numbers?
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [Yeeper] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RE: Black people are more responsible for crime. Until 2010 crack cocaine and powder cocaine carried different sentences. It has been estimated that an individual caught with one gram of crack would receive 20 times the prison sentence than someone caught with one gram of powder cocaine. That is structural racism. Add on the fact that we have a justice system that produces different results for people with money (do you need proof of that, I assume not?) and you have a pretty compelling model of why blacks are more likely to commit violent crime. I do not think that the black race is inherently more violent. Do you? Is that what you are arguing?

And before you go there: I also don’t believe the black race devalues two parent households. The causation for the epidemic of black children growing up without their fathers starts with what was explained above.

Finally you are delusional if you think nonwhites don’t actively experience racism more often than whites. I wouldn’t even know where to begin a conversation with someone who denies that reality. So if that is you, fine, let’s just stop now and depart as friends.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:

Finally you are delusional if you think nonwhites don’t actively experience racism more often than whites. I wouldn’t even know where to begin a conversation with someone who denies that reality. So if that is you, fine, let’s just stop now and depart as friends.

I'm not addressing the first part of your post because we're going in circles. I'm not discussing drugs or households. The socioeconomic issues have nothing to do with the police, which is what we are talking about. The issue is how violent criminals are treated by police. And what the numbers show us.

I'm not, nor have I ever claimed racism doesn't exist, or that cops aren't racist. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the killings are racially motivated. And the numbers just do not support that.

I don't care how many racist cops exist, or how many times a racist cop engages a black individual. We're discussing killings. The paramount issue is whether those racist cops ACT on their underlying demons and kill a black person. And the numbers just do not support that.

A fraction of a fraction of a percent of police encounters get deadly against blacks, and it is still HALF of that of whites. This is all for the SAME amount of violent crime.

I don't care what the reason for the crime is. The bottom line is blacks account for the SAME amount or more violent crime than whites, yet they are killed at about half the numbers of whites for the same activity.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [Yeeper] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeeper wrote:
ajthomas wrote:


Finally you are delusional if you think nonwhites don’t actively experience racism more often than whites. I wouldn’t even know where to begin a conversation with someone who denies that reality. So if that is you, fine, let’s just stop now and depart as friends.


I'm not addressing the first part of your post because we're going in circles. I'm not discussing drugs or households. The socioeconomic issues have nothing to do with the police, which is what we are talking about. The issue is how violent criminals are treated by police. And what the numbers show us.

I'm not, nor have I ever claimed racism doesn't exist, or that cops aren't racist. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the killings are racially motivated. And the numbers just do not support that.

I said I don't blame the police. I think I used those exact words. I was discussing structural racism because I hold it is that - not racist cops - which leads to blacks having more encounters with police. And it stands to reason that more encounters = more violent outcomes with the police. You didn't "get me," by making that point, that was my very point. That is precisely what I meant when I said there is no man in a pointed hood. The racist boogey man cop killing blacks is a distraction from the very real racisms that actually exists.

I don't even think we disagree on the premise that using nothing more than population we can deduce that a few racist police *probably* do more damage to black communities than white. While logical, that is not particularly instructive beyond weed out (the very few) bad cops. Uh, how very controversial of me. Are there structures in place that protect these bad cops? Maybe? I might even say probably?

So what exactly is your beef?
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
trail wrote:
ajthomas wrote:


Explain how this has no connection to reality?


Because I think you just made up the numbers and some very simplistic assumptions of uniformity, etc? It's a neat thought experiment, but real sociology is hard (just like real epidemiology, as we've learned the hard way the past year).


got it. Yes, I wasn't suggesting the numbers had any importance. The theory of structural racism, however, is very connected to reality.

An interesting example of it: Starting in 2000 I-10 expanded to 22 lanes from Katy Texas into downtown Houston. The project took 7 years and has been a huge success. Where I live, south of I-10 (primarily white people), real estate prices have grown by 400% since 2000. North of I-10 (predominantly non-whites) prices have gone up too, but more like 100-150%.

The explanation for the disparity in the increase in real estate values complicated, but some aspects are straight forward: The highway was expanded by as much as 200 yards (WIDE!). The state had to use imminent domain to buy all the land along the highway to make room for the expansion. 95% of the highway expansion was on the north side of the freeway. Road diversions were north of the freeway. The expanded road noise all went north. The neighborhoods north of the freeway have concrete sound barriers because they are now right against the freeway. They weren't designed that way, the expansion made it that way. The neighborhoods south of the freeway still have restaurants, buildings and space to block the noise.

The decision to build the freeway up against the neighborhoods on the north side was pretty easy. The land was cheaper (there was also a rail easement in place). There was no man in a white hood choosing to unfairly impact non-white communities. But the structure in place certainly did.

I'm trying to get my head around your world view. Granted these are stylized examples, but near as I can tell, for you, the fact that NBA basketball in its present form favors outsized participation of black players over all other races of americans means that the NBA is structurally racist. Our elite Universities favoring kids from Asian decent makes them structurally racist as well. Granted there are many other areas in life where the structural racism favors whites or, doesn't favor blacks, but my goal here is to understand if there are any mitigating principles to this view. I figure these "other side" examples I used might be the best at bringing those principles out.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, you aren’t trying at all. Your examples
of racism aren’t racist and they are stupid. And you aren’t stupid.

If you want to use the NBA as an example I guess we would say that if the population of refs is consistent with the population at large, and there are a few racist refs equally distributed among the races of the refs, that white player - as an under represented group - would experience more bad calls.

Edit to add: this post comes across as unnecessarily hostile. Sorry about that.
Last edited by: ajthomas: Apr 16, 21 9:44
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey slowguy, I liked your phrase so much I turned into a meme for you.


Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:

So what exactly is your beef?

I'm not sure at the moment. The fact that you wrote this makes me wonder if I didn't misinterpret something you were saying. I'm at work and will re-read some of our exchanges later on and respond.

Sorry!
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
Yeeper wrote:
ajthomas wrote:


Finally you are delusional if you think nonwhites don’t actively experience racism more often than whites. I wouldn’t even know where to begin a conversation with someone who denies that reality. So if that is you, fine, let’s just stop now and depart as friends.


I'm not addressing the first part of your post because we're going in circles. I'm not discussing drugs or households. The socioeconomic issues have nothing to do with the police, which is what we are talking about. The issue is how violent criminals are treated by police. And what the numbers show us.

I'm not, nor have I ever claimed racism doesn't exist, or that cops aren't racist. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the killings are racially motivated. And the numbers just do not support that.


I said I don't blame the police. I think I used those exact words. I was discussing structural racism because I hold it is that - not racist cops - which leads to blacks having more encounters with police. And it stands to reason that more encounters = more violent outcomes with the police. You didn't "get me," by making that point, that was my very point. That is precisely what I meant when I said there is no man in a pointed hood. The racist boogey man cop killing blacks is a distraction from the very real racisms that actually exists.

I don't even think we disagree on the premise that using nothing more than population we can deduce that a few racist police *probably* do more damage to black communities than white. While logical, that is not particularly instructive beyond weed out (the very few) bad cops. Uh, how very controversial of me. Are there structures in place that protect these bad cops? Maybe? I might even say probably?

So what exactly is your beef?

Sorry, long weekend.

Going back and re-reading through things, I do stick with my original responses (mostly). I disagree with how much the structural racism contributes or even exists.

We have plenty of studies now, even one as recent as 2019 that shows race of an officer had no bearing on the person shot. So black officers were just as likely to shoot black individuals as white officers. So I can't even place a lot of value in the sentiments of a few racists cops causing the majority of the issues. I think the racist cops are the ones given the air time (circle back to Sphere's thread).

I understand what you're saying about the socioeconomic issues leading to blacks committing more violence. And I agree. But I don't think that needs to be included in the discussion of how they are policed. I think its an entirely different issue. The fact is they commit violence at rates far more than whites which leads to the violent encounters. Their socioeconomic issues are not a fault of the police.

We definitely agree more than we disagree. Even regarding the systems in place that make it difficult for bad cops to be addressed properly. The same as with bad teachers. Tenure is the biggest load of bullshit. And this is a major flaw of modern day unions IMO. But I will say we do disagree on the structural racism part.

Thanks for the replies.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [Yeeper] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
okay. thanks. I do not think (either), and there is no evidence, that in the "heat of the moment" cops are happy trigger with blacks.
Quote Reply
Re: "Holy $h!t, I just shot him...." [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

I'm trying to get my head around your world view.


No, you are willfully ignoring all evidence of gross inequities which are blazingly obvious. Segregation never ended. The most overt mandates were removed, but segregation remained in place and any number of economic trends and specific policies (schooling/zoning/housing) have made the problems of segregation worse for large populations that have been left behind. Your reliance on the NBA as a single counter-example when weighed against such major areas as prisons/k-12 education/housing appreciation/social mobility/healthcare is embarassing. You aren't trying to addresss these disparities in any honest way, and you have no desire to. BTW, you could rack up many of these issues to poverty, and admit that our past history of overt racism has made poverty disproportionately cut along racial lines. Fine, but you endlessly oppose addresssing socio-economic inequalities that have existed for many decades, and are exacerbated by government policy. Here, read this article:

https://www.today.com/tmrw/what-systemic-racism-t207878


Last edited by: oldandslow: Apr 21, 21 9:32
Quote Reply

Prev Next