No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

[Loren Pechtel]

Beginning in infancy, black children are regarded as being stronger, more impervious to pain, less vulnerable compared with their white peers. From toddlerhood/preschool onward, daycare and teachers are more likely to be punished and punished more harshly than their white peers for exactly the same behavior. This pattern only escalates as the children grow older, throughout their school years and beyond. They are regarded as less intelligent, which in schools these days means less compliant and any small offense is seen as a larger offense than with a white child.

Reality: Back before the insane zero tolerance days history mattered. Yes, blacks often got punished more--because they had more of a record of wrongdoing. I'm thinking of the one time I got sent to the principal's office (I had been defending myself against an attack by some bullies.) The principal took one look at me, said "I haven't seen you before, you can go." "Same" action (fighting), very different outcome--because the principal applied some common sense and realized I was the victim. That's your "discrimination".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plenty of stats on disparities with disparities on perceptions of blacks vs whites from infancy onward. Plenty of stars on the disparities in convictions and sentences received for similar offenses between black and white.

Plenty of studies that carefully ignore confounding factors. The vast majority of "discrimination" is socioeconomic, not racial. Dig into racial discrimination and you almost always find socioeconomic issues. That doesn't get you the grant money, though, so we see eternal studies carefully avoiding the elephant.

 

[Toni]

Plenty of stats on disparities with disparities on perceptions of blacks vs whites from infancy onward. Plenty of stars on the disparities in convictions and sentences received for similar offenses between black and white.

Plenty of studies that carefully ignore confounding factors. The vast majority of "discrimination" is socioeconomic, not racial. Dig into racial discrimination and you almost always find socioeconomic issues. That doesn't get you the grant money, though, so we see eternal studies carefully avoiding the elephant.

Keep telling yourself that, Loren.

Heck I grew up without much abs for a good part of my childhood, we really didn’t have money. I remember when all of my grandparents ts got indoor plumbing. I remember when we lived in a 3 room house with no indoor toilet.

I’ve never, ever been made to feel I don’t belong somewhere. I’ve never been treated like a criminal nor was anyone in my family.

So stuff it about it being socioeconomic, Loren.

 

[bilby]

Not his violence. It is very very very hard to call it self defend when it involves shooting someone in the back of the head at point blank range when you are on top of him, and he’s face down and unarmed.

You're being deliberately blind here--the taser. You can't say "unarmed".

Whose taser was it?

You don't get to supply weapons to suspects, and then kill them 'because they are armed'.

A police officer who cannot prevent a suspect from taking his weapons shouldn't have those weapons.

Continuing to make an unreasonable assertion doesn't make it true. In the real world it's impossible to avoid all disarms at close range.

Of course it fucking is. Don't routinely carry a gun, and you cannot have it taken from you. Don't carry a taser, and guess what?

You Americans are crazy.

 

[Toni]

Not his violence. It is very very very hard to call it self defend when it involves shooting someone in the back of the head at point blank range when you are on top of him, and he’s face down and unarmed.

You're being deliberately blind here--the taser. You can't say "unarmed".

Whose taser was it?

You don't get to supply weapons to suspects, and then kill them 'because they are armed'.

A police officer who cannot prevent a suspect from taking his weapons shouldn't have those weapons.

Continuing to make an unreasonable assertion doesn't make it true. In the real world it's impossible to avoid all disarms at close range.

Of course it fucking is. Don't routinely carry a gun, and you cannot have it taken from you. Don't carry a taser, and guess what?

You Americans are crazy.

Only some of us.

 

[Toni]

Beginning in infancy, black children are regarded as being stronger, more impervious to pain, less vulnerable compared with their white peers. From toddlerhood/preschool onward, daycare and teachers are more likely to be punished and punished more harshly than their white peers for exactly the same behavior. This pattern only escalates as the children grow older, throughout their school years and beyond. They are regarded as less intelligent, which in schools these days means less compliant and any small offense is seen as a larger offense than with a white child.

Reality: Back before the insane zero tolerance days history mattered. Yes, blacks often got punished more--because they had more of a record of wrongdoing. I'm thinking of the one time I got sent to the principal's office (I had been defending myself against an attack by some bullies.) The principal took one look at me, said "I haven't seen you before, you can go." "Same" action (fighting), very different outcome--because the principal applied some common sense and realized I was the victim. That's your "discrimination".

Loren you maybe ought to think a bit harder before you post this sort of thing. Someone might get the idea that you hold some pretty ingrained racial prejudices.

 

[Toni]

Not his violence. It is very very very hard to call it self defend when it involves shooting someone in the back of the head at point blank range when you are on top of him, and he’s face down and unarmed.

You're being deliberately blind here--the taser. You can't say "unarmed".

The police officer, whose body camera was somehow turned off, said he had or was trying to grab the taser. That may be true. There is no actual evidence Loyoya had a taser when he was shot, aside from the officer saying so on audio just before he shot him point blank in the back of the head.

I would MUCH prefer to believe that it was a justified shooting. I truly would.

Unfortunately there are too many cases of police officers lying to justify their actions.

There is no question there was a struggle over the taser. At one point it's clearly not in the officer's control--probably not in Lyoya's control either but it was not in a position where the officer could see that. Lost control of the taser = substantial risk it will be used to take his gun and kill him. And you have been constantly fishing for reasons it's unjustified--that doesn't sound like you want to believe it's justified.

It sounds like you have been fishing very hard to find reasons to justify a police officer shooting someone he has face down on the ground in the back of the head at point blank range. That’s what you sound like.

 

[Gospel]

Some very bad choices were made by Mr Lyoya that ended tragically. In my opinion, Mr Lyoya bears some responsibility for the outcome as does the officer of course but Mr Lyoya is not blameless in this tragic incident.

Lyoya is to blame for DUI & resisting /evading arrest. The officer is responsible for responding to that with deadly force because he perceived Lyoya as a threat to his life. The investigation will determine if his fears were justified.

Edit: I'm simplifying. Yes, there is the nuance of the status of the taser & shooting someone in the back of the fucking head.

 

[Toni]

Killing of Philando Castile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The officer panicked about the fact he was armed. This isn't just about being pulled over.

The police officer panicked when Castille told the officers that he had a legal, licensed weapon in his vehicle. They pulled him over for vry specious cause in the first place, executed him for no good reason and very nearly ended the life of a small child in the back seat of his vehicle.

THAT is what happened.

 

[TomC]

You seem to get it. So you understand why this guy

I try to get it.
I remain a fallible human.

Do you understand why I don't find anecdotal evidence all that important?

Especially not in the modern media world, where heavily edited emotional stories sell a lot better than accurate and complete reportage? Where Nicholas Sandmann was pilloried, to the point of death threats and demonstrations at his home and school. While George Floyd got sainted?

Do you understand why I don't trust snippets of media?
Tom

 

[TomC]

Thanks TC.
So … two in the last twenty-something years that come to mind. I had forgotten about that IL case.

Two, off the top of my head, that I know enough about to have a confident opinion. Just the first two, Castile and more are also there. But I didn't spend all day posting multiple answers to your question.

But I bet I could find twenty white guys unjustly shot by cops in the same period or less.

Could you, really, without googling or anything? I didn't have to google, I already knew about them.

So it’s basically not a problem involving racism whatsoever. It’s just that it’s hard being a cop and people make mistakes.

And here's where your strawman comes in. I only gave you two point blank answers, so you respond with "not a problem involving racism whatsoever." as though I said anything like that.

That, to me, is Woke.

Tom

 

[Gospel]

anecdotal evidence

What's anecdotal about the evidence I provided and my statement in relation to that evidence? It makes sense to disagree with my argument and explain how it's not supported by the evidence. But to call it anecdotal is strange. If that's the case then all arguments presented with evidence are personal accounts. It's either you agree with my argument based on the evidence or you don't. Calling it a personal account is a new thing that needs explaining in and of itself.

Maybe you didn't take a moment to absorb what I was trying to say, which is normal. I'm used to that.

 

[TomC]

What's anecdotal about the evidence I provided and my statement in relation to that evidence?

Everything.
You ignored what I said about the big problem, posted an anecdote, then said

If that's the case then all arguments presented with evidence are personal accounts.

Which is totally untrue.

If I present evidence from the FBI website concerning the rates of violent crimes, broken down by age race and sex, that isn't a personal account. If I base an argument on those statistics, it isn't me me making an argument based on personal accounts.

Maybe the only arguments you care about are based on personal accounts. It's a common feature of American culture. But not all of us do things that way.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

? Ooook.

 

[Gospel]

Who disputes that Lyoya was killed because the officer thought his life was in danger?
Who disputes that Philando was killed because the officer thought his life was in danger?

Speak up.

Edit: Hint my argument is not what you think. It's about there never being enough a black person can do to not justify an officer killing them as long as the officer thinks that their life is in danger.

 

[Elixir]

And here's where your strawman comes in. I only gave you two point blank answers, so you respond with "not a problem involving racism whatsoever." as though I said anything like that.

That’s called “facetious” - my mistake.
To clarify, it’s a request to explain what in your representations differs from other means of deflection from the simple fact of violent racism in police practices.

 

[Toni]

Who disputes that Lyoya was killed because the officer thought his life was in danger?
Who disputes that Philando was killed because the officer thought his life was in danger?

Speak up.

Edit: Hint my argument is not what you think. It's about there never being enough a black person can do to not justify an officer killing them as long as the officer thinks that their life is in danger.

There are no appropriate emojis or symbols to indicate that I acknowledge, respect and deeply regret from the bottom of my heart the veracity of your words.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Beginning in infancy, black children are regarded as being stronger, more impervious to pain, less vulnerable compared with their white peers. From toddlerhood/preschool onward, daycare and teachers are more likely to be punished and punished more harshly than their white peers for exactly the same behavior. This pattern only escalates as the children grow older, throughout their school years and beyond. They are regarded as less intelligent, which in schools these days means less compliant and any small offense is seen as a larger offense than with a white child.

Reality: Back before the insane zero tolerance days history mattered. Yes, blacks often got punished more--because they had more of a record of wrongdoing. I'm thinking of the one time I got sent to the principal's office (I had been defending myself against an attack by some bullies.) The principal took one look at me, said "I haven't seen you before, you can go." "Same" action (fighting), very different outcome--because the principal applied some common sense and realized I was the victim. That's your "discrimination".

Loren you maybe ought to think a bit harder before you post this sort of thing. Someone might get the idea that you hold some pretty ingrained racial prejudices.

Nobody involved was black. One was Hispanic.

 

[Toni]

Beginning in infancy, black children are regarded as being stronger, more impervious to pain, less vulnerable compared with their white peers. From toddlerhood/preschool onward, daycare and teachers are more likely to be punished and punished more harshly than their white peers for exactly the same behavior. This pattern only escalates as the children grow older, throughout their school years and beyond. They are regarded as less intelligent, which in schools these days means less compliant and any small offense is seen as a larger offense than with a white child.

Reality: Back before the insane zero tolerance days history mattered. Yes, blacks often got punished more--because they had more of a record of wrongdoing. I'm thinking of the one time I got sent to the principal's office (I had been defending myself against an attack by some bullies.) The principal took one look at me, said "I haven't seen you before, you can go." "Same" action (fighting), very different outcome--because the principal applied some common sense and realized I was the victim. That's your "discrimination".

Loren you maybe ought to think a bit harder before you post this sort of thing. Someone might get the idea that you hold some pretty ingrained racial prejudices.

Nobody involved was black. One was Hispanic.

Cool.

We’re all aware that children’s guilt or innocence is often determined by the perceptions of whatever authority is making the decision. That’s rather the point. It is so very easy for a child to be thought guilty of something —or truly to have been guilty and then so judged from them on. As school children.

I know you won’t see this but you’ve made my case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Beginning in infancy, black children are regarded as being stronger, more impervious to pain, less vulnerable compared with their white peers. From toddlerhood/preschool onward, daycare and teachers are more likely to be punished and punished more harshly than their white peers for exactly the same behavior. This pattern only escalates as the children grow older, throughout their school years and beyond. They are regarded as less intelligent, which in schools these days means less compliant and any small offense is seen as a larger offense than with a white child.

Reality: Back before the insane zero tolerance days history mattered. Yes, blacks often got punished more--because they had more of a record of wrongdoing. I'm thinking of the one time I got sent to the principal's office (I had been defending myself against an attack by some bullies.) The principal took one look at me, said "I haven't seen you before, you can go." "Same" action (fighting), very different outcome--because the principal applied some common sense and realized I was the victim. That's your "discrimination".

Loren you maybe ought to think a bit harder before you post this sort of thing. Someone might get the idea that you hold some pretty ingrained racial prejudices.

Nobody involved was black. One was Hispanic.

Cool.

We’re all aware that children’s guilt or innocence is often determined by the perceptions of whatever authority is making the decision. That’s rather the point. It is so very easy for a child to be thought guilty of something —or truly to have been guilty and then so judged from them on. As school children.

I know you won’t see this but you’ve made my case.

The point is he judged innocence by the fact that I had zero prior history--a quite reasonable conclusion. However, it was the sort of thing that results in black kids being treated "worse". Virtually all research that shows "racism" fails to include obvious controls. Note your claim: "exactly the same behavior". At the time we walked into the room the apparent behavior was exactly identical. I didn't get treated differently for being white, I got treated differently based on history.