Another St. Louis area shooting

[Loren Pechtel]

Saying he has a gun is a very different situation than actually aiming a gun. Of course the police reacted differently!

They knew he had a gun. He had it in his hand as he ran for the door. Nice try, but no cookie.

Even if they know he has a gun that doesn't change the fact that he's not aiming it, he can't aim it because he can't see them. Standoff, not shootout.

It's amazing how your side stretches the facts to try to pretend the cases are comparable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How can you possibly live in this country and need a citation for that?

And what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

This looks like another version of the statistical-differences-prove-discrimination argument that is almost always bogus because a diagnosis of exclusion (and that's what this amounts to--it must be discrimination because it isn't anything else) requires excluding everything else--something that the discrimination-is-rampant crowd never does. (Yeah, you can't check everything, that would be prohibitive. You can check the obvious stuff, though--when you're dealing with things you know are related to socioeconomic status it's a travesty of science not to see if that's the explanation.)


Showing a higher use of deadly force against blacks does not show discrimination because it doesn't consider the possibility they are more likely to have provoked it. Where's the honest research that shows this?? (The amount of flap doesn't prove anything--time and time again we get people claiming patently obviously justified shootings are racially motivated. For example the local case where everyone agrees the teen pointed a realistic replica gun at the cop.)

- - - Updated - - -

Did you actually read the link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics? I ask because you accuse Derec of being lazy, but that report seems to have no relevance to the proposition you are advancing. If there is a specific part of that report you feel aids your cause, let us know.

It seems to me that that link is proof he's using the raw numbers as "proof", never mind that they are nothing of the kind.

 

[repoman]

Shit is getting real for sure now. Cops are paranoid for their lives and for their careers -- making errors of over and under reaction. Young black men are also paranoid and out for revenge.

Granted, the shooting in Brooklyn and the apparent brandished gun is Missouri are from men who have serious records of violence -- so how that translates to law abiding young black men is unknown.

Instead of having the jails full of petty drug users these two dead men should be been there.

If the OP is correct:

Belmar declined to release his name at the news conference but said he had a criminal record, with charges including three assaults, armed robbery, armed criminal action and multiple uses of weapons since he was 17.

and not in jail?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the OP is correct:

Belmar declined to release his name at the news conference but said he had a criminal record, with charges including three assaults, armed robbery, armed criminal action and multiple uses of weapons since he was 17.

and not in jail?

Juvenile offenses usually don't keep you in jail past some cutoff.

Also, note that it says "charges"--he might not yet have been convicted of anything as an adult.

 

[RavenSky]

They knew he had a gun. He had it in his hand as he ran for the door. Nice try, but no cookie.

Even if they know he has a gun that doesn't change the fact that he's not aiming it, he can't aim it because he can't see them. Standoff, not shootout.

It's amazing how your side stretches the facts to try to pretend the cases are comparable.

It is amazing how you completely forget that you defended the police shooting at and killing John Crawford at Walmart. He was not aiming a gun at anyone, must less threatening to shoot cops. What happened to your "standoff, not shoot out" stance then?

 

[Davka]

They knew he had a gun. He had it in his hand as he ran for the door. Nice try, but no cookie.

Even if they know he has a gun that doesn't change the fact that he's not aiming it, he can't aim it because he can't see them. Standoff, not shootout.

It's amazing how your side stretches the facts to try to pretend the cases are comparable.

"My side" is the set of all those people who are opposed to bigotry, racism, and injustice. What does that make "your side"?

 

[Davka]

How can you possibly live in this country and need a citation for that?

Fairly easily, thanks to FOX news and right-wing talk radio.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I looked up the Xavier McDonald case. It seems to me the police might have been too timid, possibly as a result of Michael Brown and others. I do not think police need to wait until fired upon to respond with deadly force. Them hesitating to open fire resulted in one policeman getting seriously injured and it could have easily have cost him his life too.

An injured police officer is preferable to an injured or killed civilian 99.9% of the time. The first responsibility of every police officer is to preserve order as well as the safety of both civilians and suspects alike. His own safety MUST be secondary to these considerations.

 

[Derec]

Fairly easily, thanks to FOX news and right-wing talk radio.

Or in other words, you think posting stupid pictures is a substitute for argument or data. Well I can oblige you.

Does that mean he lies down on dams?

Of course you would. Such morally upstanding young people, and they hate US as much as you do.

US is occupying Ferguson? Or do they think Israel is? In any case, anti-semites are supportive of Ferguson protesters.

Yeah, that would help ...

 

[Derec]

An injured police officer is preferable to an injured or killed civilian 99.9% of the time.

Why? And in what percentage of cases do you think a dead police officer is preferable to a dead or injured perp? Because if you let a perp shoot at you you have no way of knowing that he will merely wound you or your comrades. And he might also hit an (innocent) civilian if he misses you. No, letting a perp get a shot off is never a desirable outcome.

The first responsibility of every police officer is to preserve order as well as the safety of both civilians and suspects alike. His own safety MUST be secondary to these considerations.

BS. Nobody is going to fault a police officer for choosing his safety or that of his colleagues over that of a perp.

 

[Derec]

You're ideologically devoted to preserving this injustice, so I know that mere facts cannot change your mind.

Let's see you first present them. All your links show, as far as I can see, is that blacks are more likely to get shot by the police.
They are not backing up claims like "When an armed white person points a gun at the police, he is much less likely to get shot." For that your would need something like showing that P(person is shot|person points a gun at police AND person is black) >> P(person is shot|person points a gun at police AND person is white). And you have not shown anything like that.

 

[Davka]

Fairly easily, thanks to FOX news and right-wing talk radio.

Or in other words, you think posting stupid pictures is a substitute for argument or data. Well I can oblige you.

No, I think posting pictures of stupid right-wing people is evidence of how very easy it is to be ignorant in America. You know, the sort of ignorance which leads one to mistake evidence of a point for an argument?

Of course you would. Such morally upstanding young people, and they hate US as much as you do.

Thank you for yet another example of the abysmal ignorance which can easily be maintained in America. The idea that people who are struggling to improve the nation in which they live are doing so because they hate their nation is absurd as well as ignorant. Only those who are steeped in the reich-wing echo chamber could fall into such an obvious trap.

US is occupying Ferguson? Or do they think Israel is? In any case, anti-semites are supportive of Ferguson protesters.

The National Guard and the police have been imposing martial law on Ferguson. No doubt this information was never presented to you via your preferred propaganda sources.

Yeah, that would help ...

Probably. But it would have to be actual communism, not fascist totalitarianism dressed up as communism.

 

[Derec]

No, I think posting pictures of stupid right-wing people is evidence of how very easy it is to be ignorant in America.

Posting pictures of stupid left wing people does the same thing. What it doesn't do, however, is provding citation to some of the specific claims made on this thread for which citation was requested.

You know, the sort of ignorance which leads one to mistake evidence of a point for an argument?

Who needs evidence if you have ideological conviction and illusions of superiority over the "reich-wingers".

Thank you for yet another example of the abysmal ignorance which can easily be maintained in America. The idea that people who are struggling to improve the nation in which they live are doing so because they hate their nation is absurd as well as ignorant.

How is this protester "struggling to improve the nation in which he lives". I only see him ignorantly stating that ISIS is preferable to Ferguson police.
The only example of abysmal ignorance on display here is by this protester.

Only those who are steeped in the reich-wing echo chamber could fall into such an obvious trap.

Only those who are steeped in the left-wing echo chamber call people who aren't "reich wing".

The National Guard and the police have been imposing martial law on Ferguson. No doubt this information was never presented to you via your preferred propaganda sources.

Police responding with riot gear or tear gas to violent protests does not an occupation make.

Probably. But it would have to be actual communism, not fascist totalitarianism dressed up as communism.

Totalitarianism is exactly what "actually existing communism" was and still is in places like North Korea or Cuba.

 

[Davka]

Posting pictures of stupid left wing people does the same thing. What it doesn't do, however, is provding citation to some of the specific claims made on this thread for which citation was requested.

Nobody asked me for a citation. Try to keep up, would you?

Thank you for yet another example of the abysmal ignorance which can easily be maintained in America. The idea that people who are struggling to improve the nation in which they live are doing so because they hate their nation is absurd as well as ignorant.

How is this protester "struggling to improve the nation in which he lives". I only see him ignorantly stating that ISIS is preferable to Ferguson police.

Have you ever heard the word 'hyperbole"? You should probably look it up, since you resort to it so often.

Totalitarianism is exactly what "actually existing communism" was and still is in places like North Korea or Cuba.

No, that's just another ignorant comment. Communism has never actually been implemented on a national basis, probably because it's as absurd and utopian an ideal as libertarianism. Sounds wonderful but fails utterly in practice.

However, our nation is currently so broken that anything short of fascism would probably be an improvement.

As for labeling others as reich-wingers, that's based entirely on having read a long history of posts which defend racists, sexists, plutocrats and oligarchs. It's a minority of Murkinzz who hold such views, represented by a minority of posters here. I'm pretty sure you all know who you are, even if you know not what you do.

 

[laughing dog]

BS. Nobody is going to fault a police officer for choosing his safety or that of his colleagues over that of a perp.

Did you get that from white twitter?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even if they know he has a gun that doesn't change the fact that he's not aiming it, he can't aim it because he can't see them. Standoff, not shootout.

It's amazing how your side stretches the facts to try to pretend the cases are comparable.

"My side" is the set of all those people who are opposed to bigotry, racism, and injustice. What does that make "your side"?

How can you not see a great difference between a gun on the other side of an opaque barrier vs a gun being pointed at an officer??

- - - Updated - - -

How can you possibly live in this country and need a citation for that?

Fairly easily, thanks to FOX news and right-wing talk radio.

She doesn't look like she's from Kenya.


(Note the "there")

- - - Updated - - -

I looked up the Xavier McDonald case. It seems to me the police might have been too timid, possibly as a result of Michael Brown and others. I do not think police need to wait until fired upon to respond with deadly force. Them hesitating to open fire resulted in one policeman getting seriously injured and it could have easily have cost him his life too.

An injured police officer is preferable to an injured or killed civilian 99.9% of the time. The first responsibility of every police officer is to preserve order as well as the safety of both civilians and suspects alike. His own safety MUST be secondary to these considerations.

Except America sees it as a hurt/dead innocent is far worse than a hurt/dead criminal.

 

[bilby]

I looked up the Xavier McDonald case. It seems to me the police might have been too timid, possibly as a result of Michael Brown and others. I do not think police need to wait until fired upon to respond with deadly force. Them hesitating to open fire resulted in one policeman getting seriously injured and it could have easily have cost him his life too.

An injured police officer is preferable to an injured or killed civilian 99.9% of the time. The first responsibility of every police officer is to preserve order as well as the safety of both civilians and suspects alike. His own safety MUST be secondary to these considerations.

Except America sees it as a hurt/dead innocent is far worse than a hurt/dead criminal.

'America'?

You claim that an entire nation of ~300 million people share your personal opinion on this issue?

That's some pretty fucking impressive humility you've got going there.

 

[Underseer]

You're ideologically devoted to preserving this injustice, so I know that mere facts cannot change your mind.

Let's see you first present them. All your links show, as far as I can see, is that blacks are more likely to get shot by the police.
They are not backing up claims like "When an armed white person points a gun at the police, he is much less likely to get shot." For that your would need something like showing that P(person is shot|person points a gun at police AND person is black) >> P(person is shot|person points a gun at police AND person is white). And you have not shown anything like that.

You're kidding, right?

The studies in question directly compare what happens when white people confront police versus what happens when African-Americans are involved in a police situation. The articles gave you exactly what you asked for, so of course you're just going to stick your head in the sand.

Oh, wait.

I see what the problem is. I cited scientific studies. As a rightist, you believe that anecdotal evidence always trumps scientific studies with proper statistical analysis. Fine. Let's do this with anecdotes. In the link you originally posted, you will find a comment that directly references the counterexample.

Conservative hero Cliven Buddy got a bunch of his thug friends to rally to his side and a bunch of them pointed guns at the police. This wasn't just one person pointing a gun at the police, but several people pointing guns at the police. Notice how the police didn't kill any of those thugs? Heck, they didn't even fire a single shot.

 

[Axulus]

Let's see you first present them. All your links show, as far as I can see, is that blacks are more likely to get shot by the police.
They are not backing up claims like "When an armed white person points a gun at the police, he is much less likely to get shot." For that your would need something like showing that P(person is shot|person points a gun at police AND person is black) >> P(person is shot|person points a gun at police AND person is white). And you have not shown anything like that.

You're kidding, right?

The studies in question directly compare what happens when white people confront police versus what happens when African-Americans are involved in a police situation. The articles gave you exactly what you asked for, so of course you're just going to stick your head in the sand.

Oh, wait.

I see what the problem is. I cited scientific studies. As a rightist, you believe that anecdotal evidence always trumps scientific studies with proper statistical analysis. Fine. Let's do this with anecdotes. In the link you originally posted, you will find a comment that directly references the counterexample.

Conservative hero Cliven Buddy got a bunch of his thug friends to rally to his side and a bunch of them pointed guns at the police. This wasn't just one person pointing a gun at the police, but several people pointing guns at the police. Notice how the police didn't kill any of those thugs? Heck, they didn't even fire a single shot.

Serious question: did you bother to read what you linked to, or do you simply not understand how what you linked to has no logical connection to the statements you made? Are you capable of understanding nuance and that the claims you made are very specific?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's see you first present them. All your links show, as far as I can see, is that blacks are more likely to get shot by the police.
They are not backing up claims like "When an armed white person points a gun at the police, he is much less likely to get shot." For that your would need something like showing that P(person is shot|person points a gun at police AND person is black) >> P(person is shot|person points a gun at police AND person is white). And you have not shown anything like that.

You're kidding, right?

The studies in question directly compare what happens when white people confront police versus what happens when African-Americans are involved in a police situation. The articles gave you exactly what you asked for, so of course you're just going to stick your head in the sand.

Your first two links are useless in this regard.

Only the last is of any value and they admit the data they are working with is crap--but it looks like they didn't even try to compare what was going on when whites were shot vs when blacks were shot.

I see what the problem is. I cited scientific studies.

Scientific studies? Only the last looks like a study and it's not very scientific.

Conservative hero Cliven Buddy got a bunch of his thug friends to rally to his side and a bunch of them pointed guns at the police. This wasn't just one person pointing a gun at the police, but several people pointing guns at the police. Notice how the police didn't kill any of those thugs? Heck, they didn't even fire a single shot.

The Cliven Bundy mess was basically a hostage situation. It evolved slowly enough the cops were able to back down rather than turn it into a gun battle that would have massacred the hostages.