The difference in police shootings

[Nice Squirrel]

And the safety net shouldn't be for the working poor. Anyone who works full time should be earning at least enough money to stay out of poverty and to be in the middle class. If we continue to subsidize low wages with the safety net we will just get more low wages.

If you work full time you won't be in poverty.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

Oh yes, blame it on the children.... You crack me up.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

That is the solution, just work more hours every day!

 

[RavenSky]

not "demographics"

GUNS

The prevalence of guns in the USA.

Bolding mine:

While riding with the Gang Intelligence unit on the city’s east side recently, Matthews got an up-close look at the prevalence of guns,

and POVERTY

"third world poverty" to be precise. The kind of poverty that only exists in the USA because we refuse to allow the types of safety nets they have in the UK

I also noticed this:

“In the U.K., officers don’t go to calls thinking they could be shot at any second,” the 21-year police veteran said. “The average cop in London deals with fights, domestic calls, and burglaries. In a year, they might never get called to a homicide scene.

Isn't Loren the one who is constantly telling us that the crime rate in England actually skyrocketted after the gun ban?

"Crime rate" != "Murder rate".

The US has a higher murder rate, mostly thanks to the drug war guns. England has the higher crime rate.

fify

 

[RavenSky]

And the safety net shouldn't be for the working poor. Anyone who works full time should be earning at least enough money to stay out of poverty and to be in the middle class. If we continue to subsidize low wages with the safety net we will just get more low wages.

If you work full time you won't be in poverty.

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

BULLSHIT!!!!

Holy fuck, you are not this ignorant, so why on earth would you spout something so frelling idiotic?

 

[bigfield]

not "demographics"

GUNS

The prevalence of guns in the USA.

Bolding mine:

While riding with the Gang Intelligence unit on the city’s east side recently, Matthews got an up-close look at the prevalence of guns,

and POVERTY

"third world poverty" to be precise. The kind of poverty that only exists in the USA because we refuse to allow the types of safety nets they have in the UK

I also noticed this:

“In the U.K., officers don’t go to calls thinking they could be shot at any second,” the 21-year police veteran said. “The average cop in London deals with fights, domestic calls, and burglaries. In a year, they might never get called to a homicide scene.

Isn't Loren the one who is constantly telling us that the crime rate in England actually skyrocketted after the gun ban?

"Crime rate" != "Murder rate".

The US has a higher murder rate, mostly thanks to the drug war. England has the higher crime rate.

Let's see some statistics from you to back that up.

You made a similar unsupported claim in response to me in the 'deaths by police' thread.

How does it help your position to claim that the US citizenry whom the cops must police are not only much more lethally armed but also more generally prone to criminal violence?

It's quite simple.

Loren made a claim that England has a higher crime rate than the US. In the other thread he more broadly (and vaguely) claimed that European countries have higher crime rates than the US. I want to see the evidence for this before I believe it, although I highly suspect that Loren's evidence is either abysmally poor or completely non-existent.

Regardless, international comparisons of non-lethal crimes are largely meaningless, because they don't define the crimes in the same way reporting rates of such crimes likely various greatly by country.

This is one of the reasons why I have asked Loren to present his evidence; chances are he (or some blog) hasn't even controlled for something as simple as differing definitions of 'violent crime'.

 

[bilby]

not "demographics"

GUNS

The prevalence of guns in the USA.

Bolding mine:

While riding with the Gang Intelligence unit on the city’s east side recently, Matthews got an up-close look at the prevalence of guns,

and POVERTY

"third world poverty" to be precise. The kind of poverty that only exists in the USA because we refuse to allow the types of safety nets they have in the UK

Our safety net is good enough that people don't go hungry so long as they are willing to work with the system.

That's not even close to good enough. As the conditions described in the article demonstrate.

Not going hungry is an insufficient level of support; man does not live by bread alone.

And the system has to work with the people, not the other way about. Not everyone is educated, intelligent, or motivated enough to deal with petty bureaucracy; and in many cases, that is NOT their fault.

A safety net needs to catch those who fall. A safety net that requires acrobatic skill to land in is NOT a safety net; it is just a privilege.

 

[barbos]

Loren made a claim that England has a higher crime rate than the US. In the other thread he more broadly (and vaguely) claimed that European countries have higher crime rates than the US. I want to see the evidence for this before I believe it, although I highly suspect that Loren's evidence is either abysmally poor or completely non-existent.

My understanding is that police in Europe does not pay much attention to petty crime. I remember long time ago couple of guys I knew went to Paris for a couple of days and both were robbed on two separate incidents. Of course they might have looked like tourists and it increased their odds.
England may be better than France but still.

 

[bigfield]

Loren made a claim that England has a higher crime rate than the US. In the other thread he more broadly (and vaguely) claimed that European countries have higher crime rates than the US. I want to see the evidence for this before I believe it, although I highly suspect that Loren's evidence is either abysmally poor or completely non-existent.

My understanding is that police in Europe does not pay much attention to petty crime. I remember long time ago couple of guys I knew went to Paris for a couple of days and both were robbed on two separate incidents. Of course they might have looked like tourists and it increased their odds.
England may be better than France but still.

For your information:

Anecdotal evidence
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Anecdotal evidence is often used in politics, journalism, blogs and many other contexts to make or imply generalisations based on very limited and cherry-picked examples, rather than reliable statistical studies. A classic instance was Ronald Reagan's story of a "welfare queen" who was abusing the system, who Reagan attempted to portray as indicative of the average welfare recipient. It turned out she didn't even exist when some reporters finally decided to look for her.

 

[barbos]

My understanding is that police in Europe does not pay much attention to petty crime. I remember long time ago couple of guys I knew went to Paris for a couple of days and both were robbed on two separate incidents. Of course they might have looked like tourists and it increased their odds.
England may be better than France but still.

For your information:

Anecdotal evidence
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Anecdotal evidence is often used in politics, journalism, blogs and many other contexts to make or imply generalisations based on very limited and cherry-picked examples, rather than reliable statistical studies. A classic instance was Ronald Reagan's story of a "welfare queen" who was abusing the system, who Reagan attempted to portray as indicative of the average welfare recipient. It turned out she didn't even exist when some reporters finally decided to look for her.

Well, one anecdote is just an anecdote, two anecdotes is statistics. And yes, there are a lot of countries in EU which basically ignore "small" crimes, that's a fact.
And please don't compare me to some 20th century US politician, that must b against some rule here.

http://france.usembassy.gov/traveltips.html

 

[TV and credit cards]

There are plenty of poor people around the world where the crime is not commensurate with the level of poverty, if we use US cities as a reference point. Not by a long shot. My blonde haired, white ass has visited very impoverished, remote areas of the Philippines dressed in my desirable American clothes and shoes and a pocket full of dollars. The people are wonderful. It is their nature to be so.

 Crime in the Philippines

Violent crime is high in the country; foreigners are usually the victims. As many Filipinos are stricken with poverty, one alternative they take is to kidnap others for money.[2]

consider yourself lucky.

Like anyplace, there are areas to avoid: Manila, Mindinao in general. I was surprised by this Wikipedia entry. Now, I don't usually bother checking Wikipedia references here, but those first two are pretty weak. The rest appear to be largely about sex trafficking.

And the safety net shouldn't be for the working poor. Anyone who works full time should be earning at least enough money to stay out of poverty and to be in the middle class. If we continue to subsidize low wages with the safety net we will just get more low wages.

If you work full time you won't be in poverty.

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

Loren, I'm not afraid to say, I find myself agreeing with what you write quite often. This is an exception. People have sex because it's fun. Poor people have sex because it's fun and free. I believe it was Kurt Vonnegut who said in Breakfast of Champions: "Fucking is how babies are made." Shit happens.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And the safety net shouldn't be for the working poor. Anyone who works full time should be earning at least enough money to stay out of poverty and to be in the middle class. If we continue to subsidize low wages with the safety net we will just get more low wages.

If you work full time you won't be in poverty.

Wrong

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

People have kids Loren, and they have every right to do so without clearing it with you. People also get sick, get laid off, have their insurance cancelled because they actually use it, and they die.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

Wrong again. Still batting a thousand (backwards)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Our safety net is good enough that people don't go hungry so long as they are willing to work with the system.

Having been trapped in the safety net when I was a child, I can say that yes, I did go hungry often because (1) conservative legislators were always reducing the safety of the net and (2) the system doesn't work for some people, like people who have yet to be diagnosed with a debilitating physical or mental illness but they are already living that reality.

 

[ronburgundy]

not "demographics"

GUNS

The prevalence of guns in the USA.

Bolding mine:

While riding with the Gang Intelligence unit on the city’s east side recently, Matthews got an up-close look at the prevalence of guns,

and POVERTY

"third world poverty" to be precise. The kind of poverty that only exists in the USA because we refuse to allow the types of safety nets they have in the UK

I also noticed this:

“In the U.K., officers don’t go to calls thinking they could be shot at any second,” the 21-year police veteran said. “The average cop in London deals with fights, domestic calls, and burglaries. In a year, they might never get called to a homicide scene.

Isn't Loren the one who is constantly telling us that the crime rate in England actually skyrocketted after the gun ban?

"Crime rate" != "Murder rate".

The US has a higher murder rate, mostly thanks to the drug war. England has the higher crime rate.

Let's see some statistics from you to back that up.

You made a similar unsupported claim in response to me in the 'deaths by police' thread.

How does it help your position to claim that the US citizenry whom the cops must police are not only much more lethally armed but also more generally prone to criminal violence?

It's quite simple.

Loren made a claim that England has a higher crime rate than the US. In the other thread he more broadly (and vaguely) claimed that European countries have higher crime rates than the US. I want to see the evidence for this before I believe it, although I highly suspect that Loren's evidence is either abysmally poor or completely non-existent.

So, are you trying to support a position or just trying to attack Loren, no matter what he claims?
If Loren is wrong about crime generally being higher in UK, then it means that the US is not just more armed and thus more murderous but also more generally violent in other ways. That would only further justify greater use of force by US police. It would mean they have to be more violent to defend themselves against a more violent citizenry.

Regardless, international comparisons of non-lethal crimes are largely meaningless, because they don't define the crimes in the same way reporting rates of such crimes likely various greatly by country.

This is one of the reasons why I have asked Loren to present his evidence; chances are he (or some blog) hasn't even controlled for something as simple as differing definitions of 'violent crime'.

It is fine to point out flaws in data. But you seem to be assuming that scoring points against Loren on this fact benefits your position against US law enforcement, when in fact it supports their greater use of force as justified.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you work full time you won't be in poverty.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

Oh yes, blame it on the children.... You crack me up.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

That is the solution, just work more hours every day!

Laugh at your own ignorance if you want. Or do the math.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

Loren, I'm not afraid to say, I find myself agreeing with what you write quite often. This is an exception. People have sex because it's fun. Poor people have sex because it's fun and free. I believe it was Kurt Vonnegut who said in Breakfast of Champions: "Fucking is how babies are made." Shit happens.

Note that I said "breed", not "fuck". Go ahead, fuck like rabbits. Just be careful. It's amazing how few oopses there are when women really care about not being pregnant.

- - - Updated - - -

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

People have kids Loren, and they have every right to do so without clearing it with you.

If you have a kid that's your business. When you can't provide for the kids you have it becomes societies' business.

- - - Updated - - -

Our safety net is good enough that people don't go hungry so long as they are willing to work with the system.

Having been trapped in the safety net when I was a child, I can say that yes, I did go hungry often because (1) conservative legislators were always reducing the safety of the net and (2) the system doesn't work for some people, like people who have yet to be diagnosed with a debilitating physical or mental illness but they are already living that reality.

The latter I will agree with--we are far too slow at processing disability claims.

 

[KeepTalking]

And the safety net shouldn't be for the working poor. Anyone who works full time should be earning at least enough money to stay out of poverty and to be in the middle class. If we continue to subsidize low wages with the safety net we will just get more low wages.

If you work full time you won't be in poverty.

If you are already in poverty, chances that you will be able to find a full time job are not that great.

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

If you and your wife both work full time, are near poverty, and have even one child, chances are that daycare costs will break the bank. But whatever happened to the "nuclear family", where one member of the family can work full time, and and afford to raise a family of four? It is what right wingers want everyone to aspire to, but their reckless policies have destroyed the ability for most families to even get that far.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

And it's not the fault of the poor. Most will work full time if they are allowed to do so. We need to mandate a living wage for anyone working full time, but as you note, that is not enough. We also need to mandate that any employer with more than X number of employees must employ at least Y% of those employees full time*. In addition, we should not allow corporations to use franchising to skirt those rules.



*The values for X and Y can be debated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you work full time you won't be in poverty.

If you are already in poverty, chances that you will be able to find a full time job are not that great.

Hint: There's a reason you couldn't find a full time job. It's probably internal.

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

If you and your wife both work full time, are near poverty, and have even one child, chances are that daycare costs will break the bank. But whatever happened to the "nuclear family", where one member of the family can work full time, and and afford to raise a family of four? It is what right wingers want everyone to aspire to, but their reckless policies have destroyed the ability for most families to even get that far.

That was a fantasy, it never applied to the lower classes. It's just those lower classes were usually black or foreign and we didn't notice them.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

And it's not the fault of the poor. Most will work full time if they are allowed to do so. We need to mandate a living wage for anyone working full time, but as you note, that is not enough. We also need to mandate that any employer with more than X number of employees must employ at least Y% of those employees full time*. In addition, we should not allow corporations to use franchising to skirt those rules.

While I understand the logic of requiring a certain % to be full time I don't think it works very well (company A has an office with consistent staffing 8-12/1-5, company B cooks from 8:30-10:30 and serves from 11-1 but is otherwise closed {food trucks providing lunch to construction sites}, their number of part time workers would be very different indeed.) Rather than try to deal with every case I think the easier fix is to remove the incentive: When benefits can reasonably be applied to part-timers (for example, vacation. They get the same number of vacation days, just at whatever their average hours/day was for the last year) are applied, the value of anything that can't be applied goes to the government.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Hahahahahahahahaha!

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

Oh yes, blame it on the children.... You crack me up.

Poverty is almost totally a matter of work hours--which is why attacking it via the minimum wage is doomed--it's not controlling factor.

That is the solution, just work more hours every day!

Laugh at your own ignorance if you want. Or do the math.

Did the math.

A single person earning $9 an hour working a full time schedule with no vacation or holidays makes $18,720. In a city like Detroit, a one-bedroom or studio apartment in the ghetto can cost anywhere between $500 and $700 monthly rent, or $6,000 to $7,400 per year. Deduct 20% for payroll taxes, take off another $3,744.

18,720
-7,400
-3,744
$7,596,

That gives him $633 a month in which to pay for food, electricity (and possibly gas), water bill, phone bill, transportation. If he's a really good home cook who knows how to stretch a budget, he might be able to keep his grocery bill around $230 for the month. That leaves $400 for everything else.

Note, however, that if anything goes even SLIGHTLY wrong in this man's life, he is completely fucked. If he gets hit by a car, if he gets shot by a gang banger, if his boss cuts his hours or suspends him for a week, if he is forced to take a pay cut because of hard times, or if his transportation costs go up, or if his stove stops working and he has to depend on fast food, or if he has a serious illness and has to pay the deductible for his medical bills. And this before you consider every day/normal screwups: if his debit card gets overdrawn and the bank hits him with $200 worth of fees, or if his student loan company decides not to give him a hardship deferment and starts garnishing his wages. Or if his landlord decides to raise his rent by $150 at the end of the year... and the next year, and the year after that. And if his full time job is somewhere that's hard to get to without public transit, he may be required to buy a car.

This for a man who technically ISN'T in poverty.
And these are the kinds of people the U.K. police officer sees as being let down by the system. He sees it this way because it's true: people who make considerably higher than the minimum wage are living on the margins of survival day by day, have no prospects for improving their own position, let alone the position of their families.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If you and your spouse work full time you won't be in poverty unless you breed like rabbits.

People have kids Loren, and they have every right to do so without clearing it with you.

If you have a kid that's your business. When you can't provide for the kids you have it becomes societies' business.

And society is pro having kids, Loren. Without having kids, there is no society.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's interesting how those who typically jump to racism and unjustified use of force for most police shootings are focusing only on the poverty angle and ignoring the guns. The guns is by far to greater focus of the story and directly connected to police shootings, whereas the poverty is only an indirect and enabling factor, neither neccessary nor sufficient for cops to be under greater threat and trying to protect others under greater threat.

It is obvious this focus on poverty is because that can be cast as something that is not the fault of those who get shot by cops, whereas having and using guns is most immediately the fault of those who have and use them, whether they are poor or not, and thus they hold blame for the consequences of those pervasive guns that create a context for violence in general, including by police.
The main point of the article supports the argument I've made in most cop-shooting threads on this board, denied by most people now focusing on poverty, which is that nearly all cop shootings are a byproduct of the very real lethal threats that US cops face everyday, due to millions of illegal guns possessed by men, women, and children they encounter on even routine enforcement of seemingly non-violent crimes. Those instances where a post-hoc analysis fails to support any immediate threat, must be understood within this context in which an immediate gun-related threat is almost always plausible at the outset.

That doesn't means cops couldn't and shouldn't be made less jumpy and more certain before unholstering or using their firearms. But it means they are acting on normal human response given their experiences and context, and to override that requires a kind and level of training and self control that no cops around the world have (because most don't need it), and that most people couldn't pass. And no training will be enough to eliminate the fact that given the need for all US cops to have and be trained with guns, there will be more needless killings by cops than in places where cops rarely need to kill because no one has a gun.

 

[laughing dog]

Interesting how the goosestepping apologists for police shootings easily disregard the premise that being scared or even "extra careful" is neither a necessary nor sufficient humane justification for shooting the unarmed or the mentally ill.