#BlackLivesMatter's War on Cops ... NOT!

[JonA]

Police killing folks happens in the context of crimes being committed.

That's what the police claim anyways . . . many times falsely it's found out later.

Police that are found to have lied about the circumstances of a shooting of a civilian should have their eyes put out.

I don't want to live in a country where people get their eyes poked out for lying.

What the hell's wrong with you?

 

[JonA]

The question you're asking is nonsense.

No one it's claiming that BLM is making people kill cops.

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold.

As I pointed out, your position is undefensible.

Huh?

Not wanting to defend a position I don't hold makes the one I do hold 'undefensible'?

 

[JonA]

You claimed that with fewer police deaths than usual the Black Lives Matter movement couldn't be contributing to the death of police officers.

No, I did not.

Then what is your point with this thread?

 

[laughing dog]

As I pointed out, your position is undefensible.

Huh?

Not wanting to defend a position I don't hold makes the one I do hold 'undefensible'?

No. As I pointed out earlier, since most of the data about the reduction in the rate of police deaths predates BLM, it is a pretty safe bet that police deaths would not be much lower (if at all) without BLMers.

 

[arkirk]

Huh?

Not wanting to defend a position I don't hold makes the one I do hold 'undefensible'?

No. As I pointed out earlier, since most of the data about the reduction in the rate of police deaths predates BLM, it is a pretty safe bet that police deaths would not be much lower (if at all) without BLMers.

Calm down JonA. Cops are doing too much killing of black people. What about THAT do you not understand? Maybe we poke em in the eye and not poke their eye completely out...just make it hurt a little bit.

In time you will learn not to be so literal in your interpretation of figures of speech.

 

[JonA]

Huh?

Not wanting to defend a position I don't hold makes the one I do hold 'undefensible'?

No. As I pointed out earlier, since most of the data about the reduction in the rate of police deaths predates BLM, it is a pretty safe bet that police deaths would not be much lower (if at all) without BLMers.

And what you're pointing out has no bearing on the issue.

You have to look at the killings themselves and figure out what the motivation was behind them. Looking at aggregate numbers from one time period to another doesn't answer the question of whether BLM's vitriol has inspired some of the recent killings of cops—even if there are many fewer than in previous years.

- - - Updated - - -

No. As I pointed out earlier, since most of the data about the reduction in the rate of police deaths predates BLM, it is a pretty safe bet that police deaths would not be much lower (if at all) without BLMers.

Calm down JonA. Cops are doing too much killing of black people. What about THAT do you not understand? Maybe we poke em in the eye and not poke their eye completely out...just make it hurt a little bit.

In time you will learn not to be so literal in your interpretation of figures of speech.

That's nice.

 

[laughing dog]

No. As I pointed out earlier, since most of the data about the reduction in the rate of police deaths predates BLM, it is a pretty safe bet that police deaths would not be much lower (if at all) without BLMers.

And what you're pointing out has no bearing on the issue.

You have to look at the killings themselves and figure out what the motivation was behind them. Looking at aggregate numbers from one time period to another doesn't answer the question of whether BLM's vitriol has inspired some of the recent killings of cops—even if there are many fewer than in previous years.

You realize you are tacitly admitting that you have no factual basis for thinking the reducing the "BLM vitriol" has inspired any killings.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Even when a shooting is justified? Even when a suspect is armed and/or attacks the police? Should police only be allowed to use deadly force against non-black suspects?

They pretty much do. As a percentage of the criminal population, whites are more likely than African Americans to expire at the hand of police.

Or to put it another way, when police go to interact with someone they suspect of a crime, they are more likely to kill that suspect if he's white than if he's black.

Hell, even when a suspect is armed and points a gun at the police (like in the case of Nate Wilks of Oakland) #BLM are still protesting and calling it "murder".

BLM is one of the most morally bankrupt 'civil rights' movements in recent times.

The death of thug, criminal, and cop-beater Michael Brown sends them into a furry; the regular deaths of innocent black folks at the hands of black criminals don't even register on their radar.

When the folks of BLM chant that "black lives matter", it's very clear they aren't talking about innocent black lives, just other thugs and crooks like themselves.

Anyone who really believes that black lives matter should maintain a good distance 'twixt themselves and BLM.

The only thing so far that you have proven is that you hate BLM.

As for who is more likely to be killed,

An analysis of the available FBI data by Vox's Dara Lind shows that US police kill black people at disproportionate rates: Black people accounted for 31 percent of police shooting victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population.

Although the data is incomplete, since it's based on voluntary reports from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police use force.

Black teens were 21 times more likely than white teens to be shot and killed by police between 2010 and 2012, according to a ProPublica analysis of the FBI data. ProPublica's Ryan Gabrielson, Ryann Grochowski Jones, and Eric Sagara reported: "One way of appreciating that stark disparity, ProPublica's analysis shows, is to calculate how many more whites over those three years would have had to have been killed for them to have been at equal risk. The number is jarring — 185, more than one per week."

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/10/8382457/police-shootings-racism

 

[scombrid]

the regular deaths of innocent black folks at the hands of black criminals don't even register on their radar.

How do you know this?

I bet people that live in violent neighborhoods give lots of damns about violence.

Seems the BLM movement exists because people would rather have the police/state as an ally against violence rather than a perpetrator of thuggery.

It is hard to stop violence if you can't trust any authority because authority treats you like a criminal from the outset.

When the folks of BLM chant that "black lives matter", it's very clear they aren't talking about innocent black lives, just other thugs and crooks like themselves.

I reckon it is clear if viewed through the correct lens but I'm not seeing it.

 

[Derec]

An analysis of the available FBI data by Vox's Dara Lind shows that US police kill black people at disproportionate rates: Black people accounted for 31 percent of police shooting victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population.

Blacks also commit disproportionate rate of violent crimes. Blacks commit about the same raw number of homicides for example than whites (meaning an about 5:1 ratio of homicide rates!) which means that homicides are far more disproportionate with regard to population than police shootings.

Although the data is incomplete, since it's based on voluntary reports from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police use force.

No, it does not show a disparity in how police use force, only in the outcome. You have to compare use of force vs. commission of crimes, not use of force vs. population at large.

Black teens were 21 times more likely than white teens to be shot and killed by police between 2010 and 2012, according to a ProPublica analysis of the FBI data. ProPublica's Ryan Gabrielson, Ryann Grochowski Jones, and Eric Sagara reported: "One way of appreciating that stark disparity, ProPublica's analysis shows, is to calculate how many more whites over those three years would have had to have been killed for them to have been at equal risk. The number is jarring — 185, more than one per week."

Vox and ProPublica are hardly an unbiased publication here. But let's take those numbers seriously. If they are true, that would only show how out of control many black teens are, be their carjackers from Indianapolis or armed robbers from Minneapolis. Michael Brown, Tony Robinson, etc. were also all teens.
And since the overall rate is nothing close to 21:1 overall (more like 2:1), it seems that non-teenage blacks are not any more likely to be shot by police (relative to population) than whites, if not less so. Did ProPublica compile data for police shootings of blacks and whites aged 20+?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Blacks also commit disproportionate rate of violent crimes. Blacks commit about the same raw number of homicides for example than whites (meaning an about 5:1 ratio of homicide rates!) which means that homicides are far more disproportionate with regard to population than police shootings.

Although the data is incomplete, since it's based on voluntary reports from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police use force.

No, it does not show a disparity in how police use force. You have to compare use of force vs. commission of crimes, not use of force vs. population at large.

Black teens were 21 times more likely than white teens to be shot and killed by police between 2010 and 2012, according to a ProPublica analysis of the FBI data. ProPublica's Ryan Gabrielson, Ryann Grochowski Jones, and Eric Sagara reported: "One way of appreciating that stark disparity, ProPublica's analysis shows, is to calculate how many more whites over those three years would have had to have been killed for them to have been at equal risk. The number is jarring — 185, more than one per week."

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/10/8382457/police-shootings-racism

Vox and ProPublica are hardly an unbiased publication here. But let's take those numbers seriously. If they are true, that would only show how out of control many black teens are, be their carjackers from Indianapolis or armed robbers from Minneapolis. Michael Brown, Tony Robinson, etc. were also all teens.
And since the overall rate is nothing close to 21:1 overall (more like 2:1), it seems that non-teenage blacks are not any more likely to be shot by police (relative to population) than whites, if not less so. Did ProPublica compile data for police shootings of blacks and whites aged 20+?

Derec, where did I say anything you are attributing to me?

 

[Derec]

Derec, where did I say anything you are attributing to me?

Quote snafu. Fixed it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Blacks also commit disproportionate rate of violent crimes. Blacks commit about the same raw number of homicides for example than whites (meaning an about 5:1 ratio of homicide rates!) which means that homicides are far more disproportionate with regard to population than police shootings.

Although the data is incomplete, since it's based on voluntary reports from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police use force.

No, it does not show a disparity in how police use force, only in the outcome. You have to compare use of force vs. commission of crimes, not use of force vs. population at large.

Black teens were 21 times more likely than white teens to be shot and killed by police between 2010 and 2012, according to a ProPublica analysis of the FBI data. ProPublica's Ryan Gabrielson, Ryann Grochowski Jones, and Eric Sagara reported: "One way of appreciating that stark disparity, ProPublica's analysis shows, is to calculate how many more whites over those three years would have had to have been killed for them to have been at equal risk. The number is jarring — 185, more than one per week."

Vox and ProPublica are hardly an unbiased publication here. But let's take those numbers seriously. If they are true, that would only show how out of control many black teens are, be their carjackers from Indianapolis or armed robbers from Minneapolis. Michael Brown, Tony Robinson, etc. were also all teens.
And since the overall rate is nothing close to 21:1 overall (more like 2:1), it seems that non-teenage blacks are not any more likely to be shot by police (relative to population) than whites, if not less so. Did ProPublica compile data for police shootings of blacks and whites aged 20+?

The ProPublica data indicates a magnitude greater than yours. Can you cite something to support 2:1?

 

[Derec]

The ProPublica data indicates a magnitude greater than yours. Can you cite something to support 2:1?

The Pro-Publica's 21:1 data, if even accurate, are only for teenagers. The 2:1 I got from quickly glancing at the numbers in the chart in the same Vox article. Actual calculation yields 2.88:1 (still far less than the 5:1 discrepancy in homicide rates!) That is much less than 21:1 so if both sets of numbers are accurate it would imply black teenagers being way out of control compared to white teenagers and also that there is probably not much difference in police shooting rates among black and white 20+ year olds.

 

[fromderinside]

The ProPublica data indicates a magnitude greater than yours. Can you cite something to support 2:1?

The Pro-Publica's 21:1 data, if even accurate, are only for teenagers. The 2:1 I got from quickly glancing at the numbers in the chart in the same Vox article. Actual calculation yields 2.88:1 (still far less than the 5:1 discrepancy in homicide rates!) That is much less than 21:1 so if both sets of numbers are accurate it would imply black teenagers being way out of control compared to white teenagers and also that there is probably not much difference in police shooting rates among black and white 20+ year olds.

Anything other than 1:1 should suggest to the normal person there is probably a problem. It could range from blacks are so poor that they encounter cops more than whites, that cops are afraid of blacks, that cops see black crime easier than they see white crime, that the laws are F**ked up on race, that the pollsters have a vendetta, that it doesn't rain in the inner cities, etc. It needs study and repair. Everybody needs to have the same opportunity including that of being killed by cops. Pushing numbers which are outside any notion of within the margin of error is a wasted effort.

 

[Derec]

Anything other than 1:1 should suggest to the normal person there is probably a problem.

Yes, there is a problem, but it is for the most part not with the police. The 5:1 discrepancy in homicide rates proves that.

It could range from blacks are so poor that they encounter cops more than whites, that cops are afraid of blacks, that cops see black crime easier than they see white crime, that the laws are F**ked up on race, that the pollsters have a vendetta, that it doesn't rain in the inner cities, etc. It needs study and repair. Everybody needs to have the same opportunity including that of being killed by cops. Pushing numbers which are outside any notion of within the margin of error is a wasted effort.

How about modification of your first point: "blacks commit many more violent crimes (relative to population) and thus they encounter cops more than whites". Also police are more likely to use deadly force with violent and other street crime - robbery, assault, homicide. If you want to call that "black crime" you are welcome to do so. It is clear that blacks are more likely than whites to commit those kinds of crimes, but no race has a monopoly and no race is exempt from those kinds of crimes.
What laws do you think are "fucked up on race"? The only race-based laws I know are those that allow certain races to get preferential treatment - casinos and tax exemptions for Indians, affirmative action, that sort of thing. But those do not result in police using deadly force so what do you mean by laws that are fucked up on race?

 

[SimpleDon]

Proof that BLM is responsible for police deaths?

You miss my point. You claimed that with fewer police deaths than usual the Black Lives Matter movement couldn't be contributing to the death of police officers.

But that's a fallacious argument because you can't really know whether BLM is contributing to the death of cops without considering how many police officers might die were it not for BLM shouting things like "pigs in a blanket, fry them up like bacon". It's very hard to imagine that none of the recent killings of police officers have been motivated by people inspired by the hatred BLM has for cops.

At the end of the day, the easiest way to disconnect BLM from the death of cops would be for BLM to stop calling for the death of cops.

And the easiest way to disconnect the BLM and to leave them mute without any support would be for the police to stop killing unarmed men and women.

ksen beat me to it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The ProPublica data indicates a magnitude greater than yours. Can you cite something to support 2:1?

The Pro-Publica's 21:1 data, if even accurate...

Please, no passive aggressive stuff where you introduce the potential for it being accurate when you have absolutely no intention to consider it.

...are only for teenagers.

Well that makes me feel better.

The 2:1 I got from quickly glancing at the numbers in the chart in the same Vox article. Actual calculation yields 2.88:1 (still far less than the 5:1 discrepancy in homicide rates!)

I would agree 3 to 1 would be much better than 21 to 1. It would still imply a notable problem though.

That is much less than 21:1 so if both sets of numbers are accurate it would imply black teenagers being way out of control compared to white teenagers and also that there is probably not much difference in police shooting rates among black and white 20+ year olds.

That Dylan Roof kid, his arrest almost felt like a birthday party. If anyone was "out of control" sure the heck was that kid, yet he was arrested with almost no fanfare whatsoever. So could you please demonstrate that the statistic that black teens were at an abnormal risk actually demonstrates they are "out of control".

Also, what is doubtful about the Propublica stats:

The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police.

Are you alleging that they made stuff up?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yes, there is a problem, but it is for the most part not with the police. The 5:1 discrepancy in homicide rates proves that.

It could range from blacks are so poor that they encounter cops more than whites, that cops are afraid of blacks, that cops see black crime easier than they see white crime, that the laws are F**ked up on race, that the pollsters have a vendetta, that it doesn't rain in the inner cities, etc. It needs study and repair. Everybody needs to have the same opportunity including that of being killed by cops. Pushing numbers which are outside any notion of within the margin of error is a wasted effort.

How about modification of your first point: "blacks commit many more violent crimes (relative to population) and thus they encounter cops more than whites". Also police are more likely to use deadly force with violent and other street crime - robbery, assault, homicide. If you want to call that "black crime" you are welcome to do so. It is clear that blacks are more likely than whites to commit those kinds of crimes, but no race has a monopoly and no race is exempt from those kinds of crimes.
What laws do you think are "fucked up on race"? The only race-based laws I know are those that allow certain races to get preferential treatment - casinos and tax exemptions for Indians, affirmative action, that sort of thing. But those do not result in police using deadly force so what do you mean by laws that are fucked up on race?

Do we really know who commits more crimes and what the numbers are?

We know what neighborhoods get policed more heavily. We know who gets arrested more often. And we know who is more likely to get shot by the police while unarmed. (That last one was to remind everybody what got BLM started in the first place)

We have stats dependent on voluntary reporting by the police. Review boards are sporadic and not uniform in structure, conduct, or purpose. And then there is the  Dark figure of crime, the amount of unreported or undiscovered crime.

So what do we really know?

 

[fromderinside]

...

But those do not result in police using deadly force so what do you mean by laws that are fucked up on race?

Federal laws fucked up on race:

On April 22, 1987, a majority of the United States Supreme Court announced a startling and deeply disturbing opinion about race and the administration of criminal justice in the United States. Presented with overwhelming statistical evidence of racial bias in Georgia's use of the death penalty, the Court ruled in McCleskey v Kemp that race-based sentencing disparities for similarly situated defendants are "an inevitable part of our criminal justice system." After expressing fear that responding to racial bias in death penalty cases might necessarily require confronting racial bias in other criminal cases, the Court concluded that the Constitution does not place such "totally unrealistic conditions" on the use of capital punishment or the administration of criminal justice.

Summary from Deliberate Indifference: Judicial Tolerance of Racial Bias in Criminal Justice http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1598&context=wlulr

You should read the whole article which provides many laws and many instances where such bias exists. The statistics are devastating. Because it was so overwhelming a majority on the court simply passed existing law bias along without opening the door for remedy.

State law is much worse and you'll sees some of it in the article above.

That is not to mention bias against blacks by police in the form of fear, social status, by white prejudice with presumption of inferiority of blacks as can be seen even here on this rational forum.

Bias Crimes: Unconscious Racism in theProsecution of Racially Motivated Violence http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=faculty_scholarship

In its analysis of bias crimes, this Note has identified a number ofproblems which account for the nonenforcement of bias crimes. Theproblems include: the exclusion of disfavored groups; prosecutorial discretion;and unconscious racism. The proposed model statute attempts to address those problems by monitoring prosecutorial discretion and empoweringvictims.The myriad of problems associated with arbitrary hatred will not disappearovernight, nor will they be solved by any single innovative legalprocess. The creation of state criminal statutes in combination with a specialBias Reporting Agency must be used in addition to Federal remediesto be most effective. Although some commentators might criticize a statutorily-createdBias Reporting Agency because it represents too drastic ameasure, it should be noted that existing prosecutorial structures havebeen deficient in handling bias crime prosecution. Slight modifications ofexisting arrangements would be futile in changing the status quo perceptionthat bias crimes are isolated incidents that do not require widespreadprosecution. As difficult as instituting a new administrative agency mightbe, the only way that crimes of arbitrary hatred can be opposed is bywaging a full scale attack. Anything less than a comprehensive optimisticapproach is a poor attempt to confront the social dilemma of bias crimes.

Here's another article illustrating deficiencies in law concerning interracial violence. A top down kind of analysis suggesting inadequate federal law fails to motivate any state law.

keyword search; federal law race bias in Google Scholar. enjoy.