Two police shot in Ferguson

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of the people I don't often agree with, you're the best.

 

[RavenSky]

The thing... to realize is that white cops and black cops aren't white or black, they are blue. A white cop is blue, and a black cop is blue. Everyone else is a civilian, the enemy, and some of those enemies are white and some of those enemies are black. And the blue people do have a noted tendency to mistreat the black people in Ferguson, but the people who shot at the cops weren't shooting black people or white people, they were shooting blue people.

I agree with you to a degree, but on top of the truth of your comments are the facts of systematic racism as documented in the DoJ report.

 

[ronburgundy]

True, but even without that fact, the odds were already overwhelming that they were white, because facts point to black shooters fueled by racist anger.

Which facts specific to this situation point to that?

Facts that are logically relevant to probabilities don't have to be specific to a given situation. This was attempted homicide. National level stats show that blacks are 8 times more likely to commit homicide than whites. Combined with a 60% black local population (such as in Ferguson), there is an a-priori (meaning prior to knowing specific details about that particular shooting), probability of about 92% that the shooter in any attempted or successful homicide in that area is black. Then, you factor in case specific facts, such that it was cops that were shot, the current rhetoric painting all white cops there as anti-black racists, and the timing of the shootings, and that 92% gets close to 100% that the shooters were black, with the motive being both cop targeted and racial.

No, I mean that they were actual criminals prior to the shooting, which is made very likely by the combined facts they committed murder of these cops

The cops are dead?

Gee, sorry it was only attempted cold-blooded murder by lousy shots. Yeah that makes all the difference in the world. After, people who try to murder but happen to shoot in the wrong place are much less violent and prone to law breaking than people who happen to shoot in a more deadly spot.
The fact that this is what you focus on shows that even you know your have zero intellectual ground to stand on.

(which indicates their general violence and criminality) along with the large % of black males nationwide who have criminal records because they commit crimes and are rightly convicted of them.

hahaha, ok buddy

Yeah, that is the hand-wave blind dismissal to actually meaningful stats and evidence-based inference that you've made your calling card. Why would today be the day you make a rational argument? After all, how could attempted murder be any indication of proneness to violence and criminal behavior? I mean just because every relevant fact and supported theory of human behavior says it is, doesn't mean anything. 25% of the black men that are not currently in prison have 1 or more convictions on their record, but how could that be relevant to the probability that black men who attempted to murder cops would have prior records? What a crazy bunch of disconnected facts!! Someone would almost have to apply an ounce of honest thought to see the connection, and this is no place for that.

 

[laughing dog]

Which facts specific to this situation point to that?

Facts that are logically relevant to probabilities don't have to be specific to a given situation. This was attempted homicide. National level stats show that blacks are 8 times more likely to commit homicide than whites. Combined with a 60% black local population (such as in Ferguson), there is an a-priori (meaning prior to knowing specific details about that particular shooting), probability of about 92% that the shooter in any attempted or successful homicide in that area is black. Then, you factor in case specific facts, such that it was cops that were shot, the current rhetoric painting all white cops there as anti-black racists, and the timing of the shootings, and that 92% gets close to 100% that the shooters were black, with the motive being both cop targeted and racial.

It is illogical to assume that all of the protesters are residents of Ferguson. You are assuming the shooters were shooting to kill. Your application of national statistics to a specific local is a misapplication of those statistics. And your application of national homicide statistics to shootings of police is a misapplication of those statistics. At best, your "facts" are simply guesses based on questionable assumptions.

 

[ronburgundy]

Facts that are logically relevant to probabilities don't have to be specific to a given situation. This was attempted homicide. National level stats show that blacks are 8 times more likely to commit homicide than whites. Combined with a 60% black local population (such as in Ferguson), there is an a-priori (meaning prior to knowing specific details about that particular shooting), probability of about 92% that the shooter in any attempted or successful homicide in that area is black. Then, you factor in case specific facts, such that it was cops that were shot, the current rhetoric painting all white cops there as anti-black racists, and the timing of the shootings, and that 92% gets close to 100% that the shooters were black, with the motive being both cop targeted and racial.

It is illogical to assume that all of the protesters are residents of Ferguson.

I don't have to assume that at all. The shooters were people in the area, which need not be "protesters", and can be anyone in the locality at the time. That includes all of the residents, of which 60% are black. If you include all of the out-of-town protesters, they would have to be almost all white to significantly alter the overall racial make-up of people in the area. In reality, the protestors are probably even more than 60% black, which would raise the probability of black shooters even above the numbers I gave.

You are assuming the shooters were shooting to kill.

Actually, that has no logical relevance to my argument that they were black. Besides, they shot two cops which is a clear deliberate act to use a highly deadly weapon, which shows at minimum a willingness to kill them or cause probable life-long harm to them. That reveals a sufficiently violent and criminal character to support my separate claim that they likely had criminal records.

Your application of national statistics to a specific local is a misapplication of those statistics.

No, it is a perfectly valid application. Ferguson is part of what contributes to the national stats, along with other urban areas similar to Ferguson.
The stats available for Ferguson specifically only further support similar high probabilities of a black perp in a shooting.

And your application of national homicide statistics to shootings of police is a misapplication of those statistics.

Wrong again. If you could follow a logical argument, I used to national stats to determine the a priori probability that the shooter of anyone was black, then considered case specific factors. The fact that they were cops only increases the odds above the a priori odds, both because of the obvious connection to racial tensions surrounding cops in Ferguson, and because in urban areas in general, blacks are much more likely to be the shooter when cops are shot at. Those stats came out back around the NY shootings of 2 cops.
I realize you are unfamiliar with thinking about how statistics are validly applied, but this is how. Here is an example of the most invalid use of statistics one can engage in "Blacks are much more likely to be searched when pulled over, therefore racism".

At best, your "facts" are simply guesses based on questionable assumptions.

No, I am applying highly relevant evidence and facts to draw the most plausible inference. That is how valid social science works. You should try it sometime, it feels even better than being blindly dogmatic.

 

[laughing dog]

It is illogical to assume that all of the protesters are residents of Ferguson.

I don't have to assume that at all. The shooters were people in the area, which need not be "protesters", and can be anyone in the locality at the time. That includes all of the residents, of which 60% are black. If you include all of the out-of-town protesters, they would have to be almost all white to significantly alter the overall racial make-up of people in the area. In reality, the protestors are probably even more than 60% black, which would raise the probability of black shooters even above the numbers I gave.

Your defense is full of even more assumptions. LOL.

Actually, that has no logical relevance to my argument that they were black.

Try to focus: it is relevant to your conflation of your assumptions with fact.

Besides, they shot two cops which is a clear deliberate act to use a highly deadly weapon, which shows at minimum a willingness to kill them or cause probable life-long harm to them. That reveals a sufficiently violent and criminal character to support my separate claim that they likely had criminal records.

But you used national statistics on homicides. This is not a homicide.

No, it is a perfectly valid application. Ferguson is part of what contributes to the national stats, along with other urban areas similar to Ferguson.

So are rural areas. If there were no regional differences in the USA, you'd have a point. But there are significant regional differences. You are employing the  Fallacy_of_division.

The stats available for Ferguson specifically only further support similar high probabilities of a black perp in a shooting.

Then use those. Even then, you are really just guessing. Guesses are not facts about reality.

Wrong again. If you could follow a logical argument, ...

The problem is I did. You are wrong as I have shown.

No, I am applying highly relevant evidence and facts to draw the most plausible inference. That is how valid social science works.

I realize this makes your ego feel better, but there is no evidence here that you are competent to judge valid from invalid social science.

You should try it sometime, it feels even better than being blindly dogmatic.

Showing skepticism over the "application" of statistics to derive "facts" is not blind dogmatism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of the emails that got a lot of coverage (the one about black people holding jobs) was from 2008. Hardly recent. But still the entire police department, and really the entire city, was crucified by DOJ for it. Yet Ferguson protesters should get a free pass?


Yeah. Nothing to see here. Many businesses looted and burnt down, police officers shot, but the Ferguson "protesters" are not to blame.

You have a very short, or utterly biased, memory. It was Feguson protesters who protected stores from looters.

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You have a very short, or utterly biased, memory. It was Feguson protesters who protected stores from looters.

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

Really Loren?

Now the problem is "outside agitators?"

What did you do, pick up a pamphlet called HOW TO BLAME BLACK PEOPLE REGARDLESS by the White Citizens Council of Montgomery Alabama 1961?

Watch your step, Loren. From outside agitators is it just a short stroll to "our nigras ain't like that."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You have a very short, or utterly biased, memory. It was Feguson protesters who protected stores from looters.

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

How big? Ferguson wasn't reduced to smoldering ash, was it?

 

[arkirk]

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

How big? Ferguson wasn't reduced to smoldering ash, was it?

Something struck me in this case. You have protesters. You may very well have a number of people with very specific beefs with these two cops. In other words, this might involve other incidents we don't know about, though they may be actually included in a list of incidents. It just takes a shooter to shoot these cops to make it happen. There may be very little connection between the protesters and the shooters...possibly none.

There certainly is a terrible residue of bad feelings as a result of the actions of the police force in that town.

 

[RavenSky]

You have a very short, or utterly biased, memory. It was Feguson protesters who protected stores from looters.

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

How come - in your mind anyway - they were all "protesters" rather than what they actually were: one group of protesters and another (much much much smaller) group of looters. And the protesters did their best to protect local shops from the looters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

Really Loren?

Now the problem is "outside agitators?"

What did you do, pick up a pamphlet called HOW TO BLAME BLACK PEOPLE REGARDLESS by the White Citizens Council of Montgomery Alabama 1961?

Watch your step, Loren. From outside agitators is it just a short stroll to "our nigras ain't like that."

You simply assume blacks must be right and don't realize that there are those who like to cause trouble. This isn't a specifically black problem, protests everywhere are victimized by this type of scum.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

How come - in your mind anyway - they were all "protesters" rather than what they actually were: one group of protesters and another (much much much smaller) group of looters. And the protesters did their best to protect local shops from the looters.

The looters acted like protesters. It's reasonable to call them protesters.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Really Loren?

Now the problem is "outside agitators?"

What did you do, pick up a pamphlet called HOW TO BLAME BLACK PEOPLE REGARDLESS by the White Citizens Council of Montgomery Alabama 1961?

Watch your step, Loren. From outside agitators is it just a short stroll to "our nigras ain't like that."

You simply assume blacks must be right and don't realize that there are those who like to cause trouble. This isn't a specifically black problem, protests everywhere are victimized by this type of scum.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

How come - in your mind anyway - they were all "protesters" rather than what they actually were: one group of protesters and another (much much much smaller) group of looters. And the protesters did their best to protect local shops from the looters.

The looters acted like protesters. It's reasonable to call them protesters.

I assume nothing. I know that we don't know. I known that looting behavior isn't the same as protesting behavior, which is why people don't confuse Martin Luther King with Dutch Schultz.

and i know that your arguments didn't work fifty years ago and they don't work now.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Arrest Made In Connection To Ferguson Police Shooting

St. Louis County Police announced on Sunday that they had made an arrest related to the two officers who were shot during a protest on Thursday in Ferguson, Missouri.

St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch announced that authorities had brought charges, including assault in the first degree, against 20-year-old Jeffrey Williams. Williams is from the St. Louis area and had been on probation for receiving stolen property.

Williams had been involved in protests on the evening that the shooting occurred and had "acknowledged" firing shots, according to McCulloch. McCulloch said that Williams, who is African-American, may have been firing at someone other than the police.

Imagine that.

 

[Derec]

Williams had been involved in protests on the evening that the shooting occurred

So he's a protester after all. Imagine that indeed.

Btw, does anybody else think he looks like he could be Chris Rock's cousin?

 

[arkirk]

Really Loren?

Now the problem is "outside agitators?"

What did you do, pick up a pamphlet called HOW TO BLAME BLACK PEOPLE REGARDLESS by the White Citizens Council of Montgomery Alabama 1961?

Watch your step, Loren. From outside agitators is it just a short stroll to "our nigras ain't like that."

You simply assume blacks must be right and don't realize that there are those who like to cause trouble. This isn't a specifically black problem, protests everywhere are victimized by this type of scum.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

How come - in your mind anyway - they were all "protesters" rather than what they actually were: one group of protesters and another (much much much smaller) group of looters. And the protesters did their best to protect local shops from the looters.

The looters acted like protesters. It's reasonable to call them protesters.

No it is not! Protesters protest. Looters loot. You know your remarks smack of extreme prejudice and you appear to have the idea that shooting people in the street is actually okay as long as the victim is black and the shooter is a cop. Be careful where you're trying to take us. Your leanings appear to be all in favor of the violence of the rulers, the violence of the rich and the violence of the cops. This violence is becoming standard fare in our newspapers. You just seem to think you can smack down all rebellious souls in the name of what? order? Things haven't been too orderly lately in Ferguson and the cops are doing just as you would have them do. Do you expect that wherever you go you can get by saying...."Don't shoot! I'm white!"????

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You simply assume blacks must be right and don't realize that there are those who like to cause trouble. This isn't a specifically black problem, protests everywhere are victimized by this type of scum.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is it went both ways. There were two separate groups of protesters.

The locals protested during the day and weren't a problem. Outsiders "protested" at night and were a big problem.

How come - in your mind anyway - they were all "protesters" rather than what they actually were: one group of protesters and another (much much much smaller) group of looters. And the protesters did their best to protect local shops from the looters.

The looters acted like protesters. It's reasonable to call them protesters.

I assume nothing. I know that we don't know. I known that looting behavior isn't the same as protesting behavior, which is why people don't confuse Martin Luther King with Dutch Schultz.

and i know that your arguments didn't work fifty years ago and they don't work now.

Williams had been involved in protests on the evening that the shooting occurred

So he's a protester after all. Imagine that indeed.

Btw, does anybody else think he looks like he could be Chris Rock's cousin?

you really don't pay attention, do you?

Here is what I said

I assume nothing. I know that we don't know. I known that looting behavior isn't the same as protesting behavior, which is why people don't confuse Martin Luther King with Dutch Schultz.

Do you think that looting behavior is the same as protesting behavior? Did we know that the shooter had been protesting when when I typed that?

I knew, either you, dismal or Loren would pick that one sentence to run with. I am going to start making up betting pools, not on what you guys say, but how long it takes you to say it. I'll make a fortune.

 

[arkirk]

Derec: Your picture, which I am not going to bother to repost is obviously a black man. Now what else do we know about him? You posted his picture. Is that all the further your thinking goes....Here's his picture and he looks like Chris Rock. What is his story? So far I know the cops have him and he is black and that is about that. I am sure you will keep us posted in important information on this matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Williams had been involved in protests on the evening that the shooting occurred

So he's a protester after all. Imagine that indeed.

Btw, does anybody else think he looks like he could be Chris Rock's cousin?

Could be. But then again all blacks look alike to me, just like all racist posts kind of look the same to me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No it is not! Protesters protest. Looters loot. You know your remarks smack of extreme prejudice and you appear to have the idea that shooting people in the street is actually okay as long as the victim is black and the shooter is a cop. Be careful where you're trying to take us. Your leanings appear to be all in favor of the violence of the rulers, the violence of the rich and the violence of the cops. This violence is becoming standard fare in our newspapers. You just seem to think you can smack down all rebellious souls in the name of what? order? Things haven't been too orderly lately in Ferguson and the cops are doing just as you would have them do. Do you expect that wherever you go you can get by saying...."Don't shoot! I'm white!"????

Some protesters simply protest peacefully. Some loot and commit violence.