GoBills808

You really want to do this, dude? You use way too many adjectives for a guy who wants to be taken seriously.

You mean like this, oh impartial untriggered one?

Yeah, cause you definitely seem like the kind of impartial observer we need defining what a ‘real offender’ looks like.

117%

Isn't it hard to argue that it's just 'a few bad cops' ruining the rest's reputation when 57 of them from one unit resign in solidarity with the two who shoved the guy to the ground?

Appreciate the response. The above is a different statistic than the one we were talking about earlier which I hope you understand is about as meaningless as comparing the velocity of a car to the interest on a savings account. What you have here is the ratio of police killed by black people to the amount of black people per capita. That's a much different formula than originally proposed, and if you really want I guess we could get into the socioeconomic reasons behind the disparity.

Look- imagine for a second there's no political bone to pick. Just for a second. Rate refers to the ratio between two related quantities in different units. Like the rate of velocity is measured in terms of meters per second. You're trying to measure the rate of cops killed to the rate of unarmed black people killed by cops without defining a comparable denominator: you don't have compatible rates. What you are operating under is (police)+(unarmed black people killed by police)/...what?

Those two rates are meaningless as you've set them up. They don't refer to anything that I'd want to use to draw a conclusion.

If you really think it's weird that cops are killed at a higher rate than unarmed blacks are killed by police might I suggest a course in remedial statistics.

I'm going to miss you terribly

When you said this: Unless I am misreading you, your premise is that the difference in police response to the two groups is understandable due to a 'reasonable belief' that one group may be looting the local target or try(ing) to set fire to city hall. I object to the flippant suggestion that your version, and by proxy the police's, of 'reasonable belief' should be applied unilaterally, as illustrated recently by law enforcement's interactions with the segment of society for whom these protests represent.

OK- your assumption that the police apply the same standard to different people is one such privileged view. Your definition of what constitutes reasonable expectation wrt violence against protestors is another.

Tip toe is hilarious. I explained my point perfectly in the last comment you quoted. I can further explain, if you like, the concept of privilege. Yours is such a position. It's ok to acknowledge that without trying to divert the conversation along some racial tangent.

I imagine Kaepernick doesn't care about folks who are more concerned with what socks he's wearing than what he was protesting. all lives matter lmfao

The one wherein you feel justified in asserting a 'reasonable expectation' should be the standard for police violence against peaceful protestors.

If you need to ask...

You're talking to people who aren't aware of the irony in claiming to be against politicizing sports and yet are fans of a league whose product is basically a 3 hour military advertisement.

‘Reasonable belief’ is your standard for assault, tear gas, general police brutality? Lmfao your privilege has privilege

I think a preponderance of the evidence suggests I almost certainly am. And even if I'm not, I see very little point in arguing the side with the resources, political will, prosecutorial connections, and general overwhelming authority.

And that's the crux of the issue.

It took the protests to get them to bring charges

Nobody with two brain cells to rub together is going to be chanting Brees' name without some expletive in front of it

lmfao now everyone is going to hate him

That's a very gracious outlook. I see it as gratuitous expedience for the vast majority of politicians.