The shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, and aftermath

[Loren Pechtel]

That's very telling.

When you compare white vs black shootings you find an excess of blacks shot by police.

When you compare white vs black criminals shot by police it's the other way around--you find a deficit of blacks being shot.

Could you unpack that a little for me please, Loren? Are you saying that black innocents are being shot disproportionately often, but that black criminals are NOT being shot by police at the rate that white criminals are?

(The internet can be ambiguous. Please accept that as a genuine question with no overtones. It reads as snarky to me but I can't think how to clean it up.)

No--I'm saying that when you count arrests (a reasonable proxy for criminal activity) rather than the population as a whole you find things flip-flop, blacks are less likely to be shot.

 

[RavenSky]

No--I'm saying that when you count arrests (a reasonable proxy for criminal activity) rather than the population as a whole you find things flip-flop, blacks are less likely to be shot.

It's not a "reasonable proxy for criminal activity" - that is exactly one of the problems

 

[blastula]

that is correct.. about 1,000 police shootings a year...
How many black people shoot black people each year? What should we expect that number to be, if there was some conspiracy against black people? prolly less than, or close to, 1,000, right? That actual statistic is over 6,000.

so, your view is not supported by reality.

It should be close to 6,000 because summary execution without a trial is fair?

Not sure what you are saying (or asking)... it sounds like you are complaining that all those black people shooting black people (6,000 per year) are acting "unfairly"... ummm.. ok. acting like animals toward each other, more like it.

1 in 6 black people who are shot, get shot by police. the rest seem to be shooting each other. What does that statistic tell you about who the threat to the safety of black people are?

You said that since police shoot about 1,000 people, blacks should shoot about 1,000 other blacks, which means you think that if blacks shoot 6,000 other blacks, you think police should be shooting 6,000. That's your logic.

And it's asinine, since it seems to assume a world where every time a black person shoots a black person, the police should be shooting somebody. Bizarro world.

 

[fast]

No--I'm saying that when you count arrests (a reasonable proxy for criminal activity) rather than the population as a whole you find things flip-flop, blacks are less likely to be shot.

It's not a "reasonable proxy for criminal activity" - that is exactly one of the problems

I agree, but if we were to be reasonably presumptive, the sheer number of criminal acts far exceed the number of arrests, even if some arrests are of non-criminals. It's only in the court system (and for good reason) that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

 

[Trausti]

Let justice be done.

CMPD makes arrest in viral Epicentre parking deck assault

http://www.wcnc.com/news/crime/cmpd-looking-for-attack-victim-suspects/326283142

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I see you decided not to answer the questions.

Still scared of science, Don?

I am not afraid of science but thanks for the insult.

My point which you keep ignoring is that if that's true about the 2-repeat allele being present at a higher frequency in populations than others then there is some selective pressure responsible for its continued existence. Continuing on...it then confers some kind of environmental benefit such as, for example, extra fight in fight-or-flight situations. Otherwise, natural selection itself wouldn't make sense. So don't try to argue against that.

Now since police are killing blacks at twice the rate that blacks kill blacks on average (that is, IF a black person is followed by another black person they might be scared like Bill Cosby says, but if they're followed by a police officer they should be twice as afraid) and since the allele is present among all populations, one must wonder how the 2-repeat allele appears in other populations where it may benefit particular persons--like in particular professions for example. So thus the questions that you ignored.

So police present roughly twice the risk to black people that other black people pose?

Has anyone done genetic testing on police to see if they are more likely to have the warrior gene?

I will extend the question to other professions. Does the warrior gene provide a partial benefit to more 'aggressive' careers such as police officers, professional wrestlers, American football players, military personnel, illegal drug dealers, and bouncers? Do we therefore observe it at a higher rate among such professions?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No--I'm saying that when you count arrests (a reasonable proxy for criminal activity) rather than the population as a whole you find things flip-flop, blacks are less likely to be shot.

It's not a "reasonable proxy for criminal activity" - that is exactly one of the problems

Just because you don't want to believe there's a racial disparity doesn't make it so.

However, it certainly is a proxy for police interaction, though.

 

[RavenSky]

It's not a "reasonable proxy for criminal activity" - that is exactly one of the problems

Just because you don't want to believe there's a racial disparity doesn't make it so.

However, it certainly is a proxy for police interaction, though.

When people are being arrested without having committed a crime, no it is not - and I don't care what you want to believe - your claims are not facts

 

[Deepak]

It's not a "reasonable proxy for criminal activity" - that is exactly one of the problems

Just because you don't want to believe there's a racial disparity doesn't make it so.

However, it certainly is a proxy for police interaction, though.

Surely the observer expectancy effect couldn't be in play here.

Think of it this way - if I get a fine mesh sand sifter, put red colored sand on the left half, and blue colored sand on the right half then I proceed to shake it with my left hand and catch grains with my right, would that be a fair experiment to determine which grains of sand are falling through? As fast said, the sheer number of criminal activity exceeds the number of arrests and knowing that how are we to conclude that the arrest rate is a 'reasonable proxy' when we know that the number of experimental observations aren't randomly distributed?

 

[Derec]

It's not a "reasonable proxy for criminal activity" - that is exactly one of the problems

It is certainly a better proxy than just using population numbers because the latter presumes that different groups have same crime rates which we know is not true.

P.S.: Ever since I posted the article about the stolen gun and restraining order, the focus of discussion quickly moved away from Keith Lamont Scott. What? Nobody here wants to still claim he had a sandwich book or that he was "shot for being black" (as his daughter Lyric YourAdorable claimed, helping incite the riots).

 

[Malintent]

So police present roughly twice the risk to black people that other black people pose?

Has anyone done genetic testing on police to see if they are more likely to have the warrior gene?

no, it is 1/20th, if coloradoatheist is correct. since that attributes 95% of the risk on other black civilians, would you ask about the "black warrior gene"?

 

[RavenSky]

It's not a "reasonable proxy for criminal activity" - that is exactly one of the problems

It is certainly a better proxy than just using population numbers because the latter presumes that different groups have same crime rates which we know is not true.

That is pure circular 'reasoning' on your part.

You are saying "we know more blacks commit crimes because more blacks are arrested, and we know they are arrested at higher numbers because we know that "group" has higher crime rates". You said a fat lot of nothing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So police present roughly twice the risk to black people that other black people pose?

Has anyone done genetic testing on police to see if they are more likely to have the warrior gene?

no, it is 1/20th, if coloradoatheist is correct. since that attributes 95% of the risk on other black civilians, would you ask about the "black warrior gene"?

no, the probability given the other person is a police officer is twice as high as the probability given the other person is black assuming coloradoatheist is correct about 1/20th. it's not called the 'black warrior gene' either. so the questions still stand.

 

[coloradoatheist]

no, it is 1/20th, if coloradoatheist is correct. since that attributes 95% of the risk on other black civilians, would you ask about the "black warrior gene"?

no, the probability given the other person is a police officer is twice as high as the probability given the other person is black assuming coloradoatheist is correct about 1/20th. it's not called the 'black warrior gene' either. so the questions still stand.

I think the math becomes a little more complicated than that with Bayesian probability.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

no, the probability given the other person is a police officer is twice as high as the probability given the other person is black assuming coloradoatheist is correct about 1/20th. it's not called the 'black warrior gene' either. so the questions still stand.

I think the math becomes a little more complicated than that with Bayesian probability.

What are the odds?

 

[blastula]

Whatever the comparable rates are it doesn't make police shootings of no concern.

 

[Arctish]

P.S.: Ever since I posted the article about the stolen gun and restraining order, the focus of discussion quickly moved away from Keith Lamont Scott. What? Nobody here wants to still claim he had a sandwich book or that he was "shot for being black" (as his daughter Lyric YourAdorable claimed, helping incite the riots).

Lyric YourAdorable hasn't posted in this thread, so don't expect anyone to 'still claim' the things only she claimed.

As for Scott having a book in the car:

CHARLOTTE — Keith Lamont Scott was well-known in the neighborhood, a fixture in the after-school hours who sat in his truck, passing time reading while waiting for his son to step off the bus, according to local residents.

The first time Justin Petty noticed the man sitting in his truck with a book, the sight struck him as odd, but he soon realized Scott’s reading was a daily habit.

Scott, the 43-year-old father of seven who was recently injured in a motorcycle accident, was waiting each day for his son to be dropped off from school.

The last time Petty saw Scott, he lay on the pavement, convulsing in his last moments of life.

<link>

People who knew him say it would have been unusual for him not to be reading as he waited for his kid's school bus to arrive. I'll take the neighbors' word for it. At the very least, it was perfectly reasonable for his wife to believe he had been reading a book when the cops started freaking out about him holding something in his hands.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

People who knew him say it would have been unusual for him not to be reading as he waited for his kid's school bus to arrive. I'll take the neighbors' word for it. At the very least, it was perfectly reasonable for his wife to believe he had been reading a book when the cops started freaking out about him holding something in his hands.

Am I really the only one who is puzzled as to why anyone thinks "Sitting in car with a pistol in hand, brandishing pistol at passing police officers" is even a believable claim for a man who was waiting for his son to come home from school?

I'm just not understanding the logic here:
On the one hand, the possibility that the police simply misunderstood his presence (not knowing why he was there) and mistook the object he was carrying for a weapon and escalated the confrontation unnecessarily.
On the other hand, the possibility that he was sitting in his car with the weapon in his hand, got out of the car with the weapon, then back INTO the car with the weapon, and then pointed the weapon AT the police, all for reasons unknown, all while waiting for his son to get dropped off.

I mean, even if we were to concede that he HAD a weapon, no part of the police narrative even BEGINS to make sense.

 

[RavenSky]

People who knew him say it would have been unusual for him not to be reading as he waited for his kid's school bus to arrive. I'll take the neighbors' word for it. At the very least, it was perfectly reasonable for his wife to believe he had been reading a book when the cops started freaking out about him holding something in his hands.

Am I really the only one who is puzzled as to why anyone thinks "Sitting in car with a pistol in hand, brandishing pistol at passing police officers" is even a believable claim for a man who was waiting for his son to come home from school?

I'm just not understanding the logic here:
On the one hand, the possibility that the police simply misunderstood his presence (not knowing why he was there) and mistook the object he was carrying for a weapon and escalated the confrontation unnecessarily.
On the other hand, the possibility that he was sitting in his car with the weapon in his hand, got out of the car with the weapon, then back INTO the car with the weapon, and then pointed the weapon AT the police, all for reasons unknown, all while waiting for his son to get dropped off.

I mean, even if we were to concede that he HAD a weapon, no part of the police narrative even BEGINS to make sense.

Keeping in mind that the original police were not in uniform and in an unmarked car, and admit to watching him closely enough to claim he was rolling a joint... Maybe (speculation here), he saw them watching him and - not knowing they were cops - showed his gun (if he really had one) as a warning not to start shit with him. To be clear, this is purely wild speculation in an attempt to make sense of the conflicting reports; and still not a justification for police shooting at and killing him (or even approaching him for any reason)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Am I really the only one who is puzzled as to why anyone thinks "Sitting in car with a pistol in hand, brandishing pistol at passing police officers" is even a believable claim for a man who was waiting for his son to come home from school?

I'm just not understanding the logic here:
On the one hand, the possibility that the police simply misunderstood his presence (not knowing why he was there) and mistook the object he was carrying for a weapon and escalated the confrontation unnecessarily.
On the other hand, the possibility that he was sitting in his car with the weapon in his hand, got out of the car with the weapon, then back INTO the car with the weapon, and then pointed the weapon AT the police, all for reasons unknown, all while waiting for his son to get dropped off.

I mean, even if we were to concede that he HAD a weapon, no part of the police narrative even BEGINS to make sense.

Keeping in mind that the original police were not in uniform and in an unmarked car, and admit to watching him closely enough to claim he was rolling a joint... Maybe (speculation here), he saw them watching him and - not knowing they were cops - showed his gun (if he really had one) as a warning not to start shit with him. To be clear, this is purely wild speculation in an attempt to make sense of the conflicting reports; and still not a justification for police shooting at and killing him (or even approaching him for any reason)

That's ALMOST plausible, though it would depend on what kind of neighborhood this happened in.