Derec's derail on Donkey Cartel

[crispy]

This one goes into the ACLU report. https://www.minnpost.com/politics-p...olis-lurking-and-spitting-laws-succeeded-time The lurking law was used as an excuse to arrest anyone and 65% of those arrests were Black men.

I don't care if it was 94%. I'm a firm believer that people overwhelmingly suck at interpreting statistical results.

What are you talking about? This is blatant racism at its best. Arrests for lurking with intent are arrests on people who are actually not doing anything illegal! People walking around on the street. And 65 % of the people arrested for this non-crime are black. So here we actually have a number that show you how much more likely police are to arrest you, only based on your appearance.

 

[fast]

I don't care if it was 94%. I'm a firm believer that people overwhelmingly suck at interpreting statistical results.

What are you talking about? This is blatant racism at its best. Arrests for lurking with intent are arrests on people who are actually not doing anything illegal! People walking around on the street. And 65 % of the people arrested for this non-crime are black. So here we actually have a number that show you how much more likely police are to arrest you, only based on your appearance.

One cannot properly infer your conclusion given the available information.

 

[laughing dog]

And one of those reasons was race. Duh.

Don't confuse possible reasons with actual reasons. Every actual reason is a possible reason but not inversely.

If you had read the article you would have seen it was a cited reason. As far as I can see either you
1) did not read the article,
2) did not read the article with comprehension, or
3) are confused over what an actual reason is.

 

[fast]

Don't confuse possible reasons with actual reasons. Every actual reason is a possible reason but not inversely.

If you had read the article you would have seen it was a cited reason. As far as I can see either you
1) did not read the article,
2) did not read the article with comprehension, or
3) are confused over what an actual reason is.

Would this seem to you to be a relevant quote?

"These two ordinances are antiquated, unnecessary, and unfairly affect people of color in our community," Mayor Betsy Hodges said in a statement. "It's about time we got them off the books. I thank the Council for moving forward and taking this important next step to make changes that help enable more equitable outcomes."

 

[Toni]

That doesn't make sense unless the law specifically referred to their race. Surely you're not talking about the outcomes of the law. There can be any number of reasons for that.

And one of those reasons was race. Duh.

One????

- - - Updated - - -

No I am not. There was enough crime the jackass committed before this "convicted felon with a weapon" got fatally shot by the police.

You are using your hindsight in your analysis.

No I am not. I am going by his

You have no idea what the capacity of the local jails were at the time.

Do you?

Nor do you have any idea what any of the outstanding legal issues were either.

Yes we do know that.

This is not Minority Report - people are not locked up because someone thinks they are "trouble".

Nobody is talking about precogs or punishing people for crimes not yet committed. But judges are expected to make decisions about the danger a person poses - remanding somebody without bail or setting a high bail are certainly options judges have in the real world. When you have a felon who violated his parole and keeps breaking the law, even shoots a 12 year old boy, then how do you hell do you release somebody like that?

But isn't the real question whether or not he frequented prostitutes?

 

[Toni]

What are you talking about? This is blatant racism at its best. Arrests for lurking with intent are arrests on people who are actually not doing anything illegal! People walking around on the street. And 65 % of the people arrested for this non-crime are black. So here we actually have a number that show you how much more likely police are to arrest you, only based on your appearance.

One cannot properly infer your conclusion given the available information.

If by one, you mean you and Derec, I would suggest that two certainly cannot infer the logical conclusion given the available data.

FFS, do you have any idea what the percentage of the Minneapolis population are black or native american?

 

[fast]

One cannot properly infer your conclusion given the available information.

If by one, you mean you and Derec, I would suggest that two certainly cannot infer the logical conclusion given the available data.

FFS, do you have any idea what the percentage of the Minneapolis population are black or native american?

Bowing out. Take care.

 

[laughing dog]

If you had read the article you would have seen it was a cited reason. As far as I can see either you
1) did not read the article,
2) did not read the article with comprehension, or
3) are confused over what an actual reason is.

Would this seem to you to be a relevant quote?

"These two ordinances are antiquated, unnecessary, and unfairly affect people of color in our community," Mayor Betsy Hodges said in a statement. "It's about time we got them off the books. I thank the Council for moving forward and taking this important next step to make changes that help enable more equitable outcomes."

Apparently you can reproduce the relevant part of the article, but your responses do not indicate any understanding of it.

 

[Toni]

I am not asking the judge for hindsight. But the jackass had committed enough crimes that the judge should have sent him back to prison for parole violation in addition to awaiting trial for the new offenses (like shooting a 12 year old!) Sure, the judge could not have foreseen that the jackass would shoot up the mall and get shot to death himself, but it doesn't take a fortune teller to see that the guy was trouble.

You are using your hindsight in your analysis. You have no idea what the capacity of the local jails were at the time. Nor do you have any idea what any of the outstanding legal issues were either. This is not Minority Report - people are not locked up because someone thinks they are "trouble".

I don't really have a problem with Derec or anyone else thinking he belonged back in jail. It may well be that he should have been in jail. He does not sound like a very good guy to me.

He should not have been shot by police. He was unarmed. Witness accounts indicate that he was not resisting. He may have been handcuffed when he was shot or perhaps the handcuffs came after he was dead. There are conflicting reports.

The fact is that nearly 1000 people in the US have been killed by on duty police officers so far in 2015. Will likely be more than 1000 for 2015. It's far too many.

Unless there is imminent danger to the lives of members of the public or the officers, it is hard to find any genuine justification.

We--as a nation--are too quick to let officers off the hook in such deaths. Even if the person killed is a child. Or a shopper in a discount store. Or a bystander. Certainly, mentally ill people seem to be fair game. At least some of these police shootings happen so quickly that it begs all credulity to believe that they even attempted to assess the situation rather than simply opening fire.

Not everyone killed by a police officer is innocent of the crime he or she, but face it: it's almost always he and disproportionately he is not white--is being pursued for. Some are pretty bad people. Some are just silly teens doing stuff that silly teens do. Some are troubled individuals. Some are career criminals. Some are children, playing in a play ground. Some are talking on a cell phone will walking through Walmart. Some are neighbors, trying to help. In my town, one person was killed while threatening to commit suicide, despite the fact that he had no firearm and was not near any other person, although that did not happen in 2015.

It is relatively rare that killing someone is the only way to stop imminent danger to the public.

Surely there are better ways to apprehend suspects than to shoot them, sometimes in the back. Sometimes when they are children. Or distracted shoppers.

You do not have to be a candidate for sainthood or the congressional medal of honor to deserve not to be shot dead by the police.

 

[Arctish]

You are using your hindsight in your analysis. You have no idea what the capacity of the local jails were at the time. Nor do you have any idea what any of the outstanding legal issues were either. This is not Minority Report - people are not locked up because someone thinks they are "trouble".

I don't really have a problem with Derec or anyone else thinking he belonged back in jail. It may well be that he should have been in jail. He does not sound like a very good guy to me.

He should not have been shot by police. He was unarmed. Witness accounts indicate that he was not resisting. He may have been handcuffed when he was shot or perhaps the handcuffs came after he was dead. There are conflicting reports.

The fact is that nearly 1000 people in the US have been killed by on duty police officers so far in 2015. Will likely be more than 1000 for 2015. It's far too many.

Unless there is imminent danger to the lives of members of the public or the officers, it is hard to find any genuine justification.

We--as a nation--are too quick to let officers off the hook in such deaths. Even if the person killed is a child. Or a shopper in a discount store. Or a bystander. Certainly, mentally ill people seem to be fair game. At least some of these police shootings happen so quickly that it begs all credulity to believe that they even attempted to assess the situation rather than simply opening fire.

Not everyone killed by a police officer is innocent of the crime he or she, but face it: it's almost always he and disproportionately he is not white--is being pursued for. Some are pretty bad people. Some are just silly teens doing stuff that silly teens do. Some are troubled individuals. Some are career criminals. Some are children, playing in a play ground. Some are talking on a cell phone will walking through Walmart. Some are neighbors, trying to help. In my town, one person was killed while threatening to commit suicide, despite the fact that he had no firearm and was not near any other person, although that did not happen in 2015.

It is relatively rare that killing someone is the only way to stop imminent danger to the public.

Surely there are better ways to apprehend suspects than to shoot them, sometimes in the back. Sometimes when they are children. Or distracted shoppers.

You do not have to be a candidate for sainthood or the congressional medal of honor to deserve not to be shot dead by the police.

QFT

 

[Derec]

I don't really have a problem with Derec or anyone else thinking he belonged back in jail. It may well be that he should have been in jail. He does not sound like a very good guy to me.

So far so good.

He should not have been shot by police. He was unarmed.

What are you talking about? This is the Donkey Cartel (Daquan Westbrook) "derail". He had a gun, with which he fired shots and which he pointed toward police.

Witness accounts indicate that he was not resisting. He may have been handcuffed when he was shot or perhaps the handcuffs came after he was dead. There are conflicting reports.

I assume you are talking about that god's gift to women, Jamar Clark. Yes, there are conflicting reports. Police says he was resisting (which is consistent with him attacking his girlfriend and the paramedics which got the police involved in the first place) and went for the officer's gun. Which would make it a justified shooting. But regardless of not knowing what happened, BLM is prejudging the case.

The fact is that nearly 1000 people in the US have been killed by on duty police officers so far in 2015. Will likely be more than 1000 for 2015. It's far too many.

The fact is that vast majority of these shootings are not only justified but so non-controversial that not even BLM (only for those who happen to be black of course) is touching them.
The other fact is that this number is high because of behavior of the perps and because of high gun availability in the US.

Unless there is imminent danger to the lives of members of the public or the officers, it is hard to find any genuine justification.

When you have a physical confrontation between a suspect and an armed police officer, the perp can arm himself quickly by going for the officer's gun. So being "unarmed" is not really an excuse - if you want to live you do not attack the police.

We--as a nation--are too quick to let officers off the hook in such deaths.

All too often certain segments of this nation are too quick to condemn police for such deaths, at least when the perp is black, and to riot, loot etc. or block hard-working people from shopping, driving and even flying.

Even if the person killed is a child.

Depends on the case. Tamir Rice (12) was a tragic concatenation of circumstances. Andre Green (15) was a justified police shooting. Lavauntai Broadbent (16) was a justified civilian shooting. The latter two committed adult crimes and faced adult consequences regardless of their chronological age.

Or a shopper in a discount store.

Donkey was a shopper (not a discount store though), but he pulled out a gun and was firing. Open and shut case.

Or a bystander.

Those are also tragic things, but nothing in life is 100%. I place the blame on the original perpetrator, be it the mother of four killed because her landlord's son was attacking people with a baseball bat or because a murder suspect evading police struck and killed a small child on his way to the beach.

Certainly, mentally ill people seem to be fair game.

Sadly, mentally ill people can be very dangerous, especially when armed. The danger is enhanced by their unpredictability.

At least some of these police shootings happen so quickly that it begs all credulity to believe that they even attempted to assess the situation rather than simply opening fire.

These situations can unfold very quickly. A split second hesitation too long can cost a police officer his or her life.
And you have to consider that even when police take their sweet time and attempt non-lethal methods to disarm the perp, BLMers are still calling them murderers and protesting (including asshole moves like blocking interstates). See Mario Woods.

ot everyone killed by a police officer is innocent of the crime he or she, but face it: it's almost always he and disproportionately he is not white--is being pursued for.

Can you show some evidence for that assertion. And do not base the proportionality on population share but on crime rates. The sad fact is that blacks commit more crimes in this country than whites - 5x as many homicides for example, according to FBI.

In my town, one person was killed while threatening to commit suicide, despite the fact that he had no firearm and was not near any other person, although that did not happen in 2015.

Sounds like suicide by cop.

It is relatively rare that killing someone is the only way to stop imminent danger to the public.

Police need not place themselves in undue danger just to seek this other way.

Surely there are better ways to apprehend suspects than to shoot them, sometimes in the back. Sometimes when they are children. Or distracted shoppers.

Sometimes there are. Often there aren't, given the knowledge police had at the time of shooting and how much time they had to make the decision.

You do not have to be a candidate for sainthood or the congressional medal of honor to deserve not to be shot dead by the police.

But doing things like pointing a weapon at police or attacking police certainly helps increase the odds.

 

[Derec]

Apparently you can reproduce the relevant part of the article, but your responses do not indicate any understanding of it.

Apparently it is you who has difficulties understanding. The article clearly portrays this as opinion by proponents of the repeal, not a fact.

 

[Derec]

But isn't the real question whether or not he frequented prostitutes?

Yeah, because armed robbery, gun crimes and attempted murder of a child (12) are not nearly as serious as what consenting adults do for sex.
Besides, Donkey being a rapper and a thug I am sure he didn't lack for amateur female companionship. In fact, his girlfriend was expecting their child when he got himself shot.

 

[crispy]

What are you talking about? This is blatant racism at its best. Arrests for lurking with intent are arrests on people who are actually not doing anything illegal! People walking around on the street. And 65 % of the people arrested for this non-crime are black. So here we actually have a number that show you how much more likely police are to arrest you, only based on your appearance.

One cannot properly infer your conclusion given the available information.

Alright, then what other criteria does police use to arrest in these cases, other than appearance?

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently you can reproduce the relevant part of the article, but your responses do not indicate any understanding of it.

Apparently it is you who has difficulties understanding. The article clearly portrays this as opinion by proponents of the repeal, not a fact.

It is a fact the City Council repealed the law due to its disparate effect. It is a fact that black men were arrested for the well-defined and well-recognized crime of "lurking" far more than any other race, both in absolute numbers and in proportion to the population. Your response is simply an example of bias and poor reasoning skills unless you can show that black men have greater propensity to "lurk" than anyone else.

 

[blastula]

I wonder if he's going to spark protests by BLM.

Are you still wondering? Or are you now finally reconsidering your hateful, dehumanizing outlook?

 

[Derec]

It is a fact the City Council repealed the law due to its disparate effect.

Disparate impact is nothing but unequal outcomes.
NBA selection process has a disparate impact but that doesn't mean the process is racially discriminatory.

It is a fact that black men were arrested for the well-defined and well-recognized crime of "lurking" far more than any other race, both in absolute numbers and in proportion to the population. Your response is simply an example of bias and poor reasoning skills unless you can show that black men have greater propensity to "lurk" than anyone else.

Again, all you have are unequal outcomes. That alone is not enough to show racially discriminatory practices.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you still wondering?

I guess not.

Or are you now finally reconsidering your hateful, dehumanizing outlook?

I don't hold BLM in much esteem because I think they are a hateful, often racist group.

 

[laughing dog]

Disparate impact is nothing but unequal outcomes.

No one said otherwise.

Again, all you have are unequal outcomes. That alone is not enough to show racially discriminatory practices.

Given the long history of treatment of black by the Minneapolis police and the lack evidence or reasons showing why black men in Minneapolis would criminally "lurk" more than other races, it was sufficient for the Minneapolis city council to repeal the law. Now until you can show why black men in Minneapolis criminally lurk more than other races, you've got nothing but tautologies.

 

[Derec]

No one said otherwise.

So are you also against "disparate impact" of NBA selection process?

Given the long history of treatment of black by the Minneapolis police

What would that be? That they shoot perps who go for their gun?

and the lack evidence or reasons showing why black men in Minneapolis would criminally "lurk" more than other races, it was sufficient for the Minneapolis city council to repeal the law.

Blacks tend to generally commit more crimes on a per capita basis. It may not be a PC thing to notice, but it's a fact. So why would you expect "criminal lurking", whatever that entails, to be racially invariant?

Now until you can show why black men in Minneapolis criminally lurk more than other races, you've got nothing but tautologies.

Can you show they don't? In other words, other than unequal outcomes (which is not evidence of anything, see NBA), do you have any evidence whatsoever blacks are treated differently by the police?

 

[laughing dog]

So are you also against "disparate impact" of NBA selection process?

No. The NBA selection process is obstenibly based on skill. Do you have any evidence at all the black men are liable to "lurk" than any other race?

What would that be? That they shoot perps who go for their gun?

No. It is well-known in the Twin Cities that there has been a problem for a long time. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/US-Minneapolis-Police-Officers-Repeatedly-Tried-for-Racism-20151124-0036.html and http://citizen.education/index.php/2015/11/25/the-ghosts-in-minneapolis-progressive-machine/ report such history.

Blacks tend to generally commit more crimes on a per capita basis. It may not be a PC thing to notice, but it's a fact. So why would you expect "criminal lurking", whatever that entails, to be racially invariant?

Why would any rational person expect criminal lurking to be racially variant? BTW, given the small number of black people in Minneapolis, it would take a gigantic per capita difference to cause them to be almost 2/3 of the arrests for "lurking". Up to now, you have not produced a single piece of evidence or a reasoned argument to support the notion that black men are liable to criminally lurk substantially more than any other race.