Bill O'Brien will kneel...JJ Watt says kneeling is no disrespect to the flag or military

[Jauronimo]

7 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I actually agree with this. 

 

I'm not going to hold this guy up as a martyr or assume their was a racial element, nor am I going to rush to judge the cop, who in all likelihood panicked in a dangerous situation caused entirely by the actions of Brooks.

 

But it doesn't appear to me, based on what I've read, that shooting him was unnecessary.

 

 

"Cancel culture" refers to the trend where one is banished due to having made (or being perceived as having made) a politically incorrect statement, or otherwise deemed to hold politically incorrect views.

 

This most commonly refers to banishment from all or most social media sites and/or demonetization from YouTube which effectively ends the career of one who has spent years building their brand/following.

 

It also refers to one's removal from his chosen profession, and often blackballed from that profession, for such perceived transgressions.

 

Some notable figures who have been cancelled include Gavin McInnis, Milo Yiannopoulos, Pamela Geller, Alex Jones, Carl Benjamin, Owen Benjamin, and Jacob Wohl. There are countless others.

 

A recent example is Grant Napear was fired from his job, after 32 years as the TV voice of the Sacramento Kings, for Tweeting "All Lives Matter."

 

Cancel culture isn't reserved to the famous. Justine Sacco, a 30 year old PR exec, lost her job and was crucified throughout the media for Tweeting a bad joke.

 

In short, "cancel culture" refers to a cultural phenomenon by which those who violate the tenets of political correctness are made to be silenced.

 

 

This is where it gets a little dicey, because the terms are not clearly defined.

 

The numbers don't really support the notion that police disproportionately shoot black suspects. In 2019, people shot and killed by police while unarmed (which doesn't necessarily mean unjustified) were as follows:

 

White: 19
Black: 9
Hispanic: 6
Other: 4
Unknown: 3

 

- Washington Post

 

For every 10,000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed

For every 10,000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed

 

The numbers don't really support the narrative.

 

A more nuanced point was raised in a now closed thread dealing with racial disparities in policing that don't escalate to fatalities.

 

Those issues, as well as debates about police practices generally, are certainly open to debate, but the numbers seriously call into question whether there is truly pervasive racial bias in policing.

These numbers do.  Whites are ~60% of the population, Blacks ~14% depending on the study, which means black people are killed by police while unarmed at more than twice the rate of white people.  The links I sent you in another thread paint the same story and show that the trends have actually improved over the past 5 years but the proportions have been consistent.

 

Got a link to the WaPo figures?  I have cited their data in the past and I do not recall seeing any such figures.  

[LeviF]

22 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

These numbers do.  Whites are ~60% of the population, Blacks ~14% depending on the study, which means black people are killed by police while unarmed at more than twice the rate of white people. 

 

This is only a "racist cops" problem if race was actually the cause of this.  But there's a compelling reason to believe it isn't.  Rob briefly referenced this but there's good reason to believe that differences in police use of force by race is better explained by differences in crime rate by race.  See table 12 (PDF warning!) https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

 

Quote

 

Based on victims’ perceptions of the offenders, the offender-to-population ratio shows that the percentage of violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was 1.8 times the percentage of black persons (12%) in the population. In contrast, the percentage of violent incidents involving white (50%) or Hispanic (14%) offenders was about four-fifths (0.8 times) the percentage of whites (62%) or Hispanics (17%) in the population, and the percentage involving Asian offenders (2.5%) was about two-fifths (0.4 times) the percentage of Asians in the population (6%). The percentage of violent incidents involving offenders of other races (Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races) was 3.8 times the percentage of those races in the population.
 

 

 

The NCVS excludes homicide since you can't exactly survey homicide victims.  But the Justice Department's 2011 report is striking.  See table 1 (PDF warning, again) https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

Quote

 

Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)
 

 

 

Not to mention that 38% of police officers that are feloniously killed are killed by black people. https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2018/tables/table-42.xls

 

If you accept the very reasonable premise that deadly force is most likely to be used by police when an officer either responds to a call involving violent crime or is, him/herself, the victim of a violent crime, then this becomes a very different discussion.

Edited June 15, 2020 by LeviF91

[Mango]

I mean 80% of people in federal prison and 60% of people in state prison are there for drugs. 69% of all prisoners are people of color. Which is wild because according to the Journal of Criminal Justice, white people are actually using drugs at a higher rate than POC. So POC are disproportionately having more interaction with both police and the justice system. The problem starts with the over policing of people of color and the blind eye turned towards Caucasians. 

[Rob's House]

53 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

These numbers do.  Whites are ~60% of the population, Blacks ~14% depending on the study, which means black people are killed by police while unarmed at more than twice the rate of white people.  The links I sent you in another thread paint the same story and show that the trends have actually improved over the past 5 years but the proportions have been consistent.

 

Got a link to the WaPo figures?  I have cited their data in the past and I do not recall seeing any such figures.  

 

I was going to follow up with you on that but the thread was closed.

 

The problem with using raw population number is that it assumes all other variables are held constant, which isn't the case.

 

Police shootings usually happen in the course of a police encounter brought about by suspected criminal activity. For that reason, a more accurate number is found by looking at the rate of occasions of deadly force per police encounter. With young black males committing a disproportionate amount of violent crime, it necessarily follows that police will have a disproportionate number of encounters with black males. When you look at shootings by demographic relative to violent crime by demographic the disparities disappear.

 

Simply for illustrative purposes, consider the disparity between men and women with regards to police shootings. As of June 4, the U.S. police shot 415 men and 13 women to death in 2020. Women make up over 50% of the population, so going on raw population numbers, it would appear that police are terribly sexist against men. The reality, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by men (and men pose a greater physical threat to the safety of officers during encounters) which explains the discrepancy. Other factors must be considered to get an accurate picture.

 

The Wapo numbers come from their database. Interestingly enough, they've modified those numbers in the last 2 weeks to show 14 black and 25 white people were shot and killed by police while unarmed in 2019.

 

It should be noted again that unarmed does not necessarily mean unjustified. If I punch a cop and charge at his partner I'm probably going to get shot whether I have a weapon or not, and regardless of my pigmentation.

 

Another interesting factor to consider is the crime rate and economic outcomes of black people who immigrate to America compared to native born black Americans. The former have lower crime and incarceration rates, and better rates of economic success, which indicates that there are factors other than race that contribute to these outcomes.

 

17 minutes ago, Mango said:

I mean 80% of people in federal prison and 60% of people in state prison are there for drugs. 69% of all prisoners are people of color. Which is wild because according to the Journal of Criminal Justice, white people are actually using drugs at a higher rate than POC. So POC are disproportionately having more interaction with both police and the justice system. The problem starts with the over policing of people of color and the blind eye turned towards Caucasians. 

 

The factor you're failing to account for is that people serving federal prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses are there for distribution, not consumption. Your statistics give the implication that you have more white offenders, but more minority convictions for the same offense, but you are comparing distribution to use. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

If you want to argue for drug decriminalization I'm with you, but the idea that this disparity comes from turning a blind eye to whites is inaccurate. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Rob's House

[Mango]

16 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I was going to follow up with you on that but the thread was closed.

 

The problem with using raw population number is that it assumes all other variables are held constant, which isn't the case.

 

Police shootings usually happen in the course of a police encounter brought about by suspected criminal activity. For that reason, a more accurate number is found by looking at the rate of occasions of deadly force per police encounter. With young black males committing a disproportionate amount of violent crime, it necessarily follows that police will have a disproportionate number of encounters with black males. When you look at shootings by demographic relative to violent crime by demographic the disparities disappear.

 

Simply for illustrative purposes, consider the disparity between men and women with regards to police shootings. As of June 4, the U.S. police shot 415 men and 13 women to death in 2020. Women make up over 50% of the population, so going on raw population numbers, it would appear that police are terribly sexist against men. The reality, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by men (and men pose a greater physical threat to the safety of officers during encounters) which explains the discrepancy. Other factors must be considered to get an accurate picture.

 

The Wapo numbers come from their database. Interestingly enough, they've modified those numbers in the last 2 weeks to show 14 black and 25 white people were shot and killed by police while unarmed in 2019.

 

It should be noted again that unarmed does not necessarily mean unjustified. If I punch a cop and charge at his partner I'm probably going to get shot whether I have a weapon or not, and regardless of my pigmentation.

 

Another interesting factor to consider is the crime rate and economic outcomes of black people who immigrate to America compared to native born black Americans. The former have lower crime and incarceration rates, and better rates of economic success, which indicates that there are factors other than race that contribute to these outcomes.

 

 

The factor you're failing to account for is that people serving federal prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses are there for distribution, not consumption. Your statistics give the implication that you have more white offenders, but more minority convictions for the same offense, but you are comparing distribution to use. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

If you want to argue for drug decriminalization I'm with you, but the idea that this disparity comes from turning a blind eye to whites is inaccurate. 

 

Except that both black and white people sell drugs at similar rates. So your assumption that more black people are selling drugs is just wrong. The below data is pulled from the census bureau and the FBI. 

 

https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice

 

 

[Mike in Horseheads]

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

I’m indifferent on whether people kneel or not...I look at it more from a legal standpoint instead of an emotional one- “private vs public”...

 

Essentially, if the protesting is on private property and the NFL is ok with it while the players are representing the league, then so be it...

 

If the league is not ok with it and doesn’t want to allow it, that is their prerogative as well...

 

How people feel about the issue, personally, seems irrelevant imho...

Doesn't matter to me if they do or don't.  "go with God Crispy"

[leonbus23]

8 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

Why do you think this?  Because they're white?  Because they've changed their minds about the topic?

 

It seems to me that there's been a sudden sea change in how people look at the issues of systemic racism and excessive use of force by law enforcement because of the George Floyd murder.  Many white people who never really thought about racism or police brutality have jolted to awareness -- and many to action -- by watching that video.

 

 

 

That's good. 

But this expands beyond race and into economics. Which expands into capitalism and things like private property ownership. One of the main points of having the police and military is protect the interests of capital, both domestically and internationally (see Iraq War).

 

Furthermore, since most working class folks don't own anything and must sell their labor or make other plans, black markets emerge and must be disproportionately policed. Hence, police brutality against black folks and the working poor.  

 

Thus, in order to combat racism, major changes to the economic structure must happen.  

 

I don't see Watt in favor of defunding our domestic and international police and redistributing that trillion dollars to education, for example.

 

I don't see Watt and the like supporting those objective economic changes. 

 

Make sense?

Edited June 15, 2020 by leonbus23

[Rob's House]

17 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

Except that both black and white people sell drugs at similar rates. So your assumption that more black people are selling drugs is just wrong. The below data is pulled from the census bureau and the FBI. 

 

https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice

 

 

 

I'd be interested to see some other studies on the issue. The link you posted doesn't provide enough information to make a meaningful analysis, but I'm not going to dismiss your theory out of hand.

 

The methodology is unclear and it makes no meaningful distinctions between those who sell drugs. Someone selling small quantities of pot would count the same as someone moving large quantities of narcotics under that graph. Further, the overwhelming majority of drug cases are handled in state court and your initial numbers dealt only with Federal cases, so it makes it even more difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from that data. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the data is insufficient to draw that conclusion.

 

There are also other factors that come into play that don't show up in those charts. For example, I know plenty of white people who caught pot charges when they were younger but I can't think of any that have been charged after their mid 20s. They didn't stop smoking pot, but they no longer smoke in places where they're likely to be arrested. They buy from people they know who only sell to people they know, and they smoke and keep their stash in their houses where they're not likely to come in contact with police. When they were younger, and driving around and more inclined to smoke in public they were more likely to get caught.

 

That's not to necessarily suggest black people are more likely to smoke in public. I don't have any data to support that. Just pointing out that a lot of times there are other factors that aren't immediately apparent that cause certain disparities.

[Victory Formation]

2 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

Brooks was shot in the back twice while he was running away.   There is no way that there's an excuse for that.   The officer could have just let him run away and collected him later as they had his personal information and his car.  It's attitudes like yours which continually excuse the use of excessive -- including deadly -- force by police officers against citizens in general but black citizens in particular that perpetuates unnecessary police violence.

Let me rethink that, maybe you’re right. My facts were clearly off and I’m deleting my comment. I should have kept my mouth shut. 

[Coach Tuesday]

This exists...

[Jauronimo]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I was going to follow up with you on that but the thread was closed.

 

The problem with using raw population number is that it assumes all other variables are held constant, which isn't the case.

 

Police shootings usually happen in the course of a police encounter brought about by suspected criminal activity. For that reason, a more accurate number is found by looking at the rate of occasions of deadly force per police encounter. With young black males committing a disproportionate amount of violent crime, it necessarily follows that police will have a disproportionate number of encounters with black males. When you look at shootings by demographic relative to violent crime by demographic the disparities disappear.

 

Simply for illustrative purposes, consider the disparity between men and women with regards to police shootings. As of June 4, the U.S. police shot 415 men and 13 women to death in 2020. Women make up over 50% of the population, so going on raw population numbers, it would appear that police are terribly sexist against men. The reality, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by men (and men pose a greater physical threat to the safety of officers during encounters) which explains the discrepancy. Other factors must be considered to get an accurate picture.

 

The Wapo numbers come from their database. Interestingly enough, they've modified those numbers in the last 2 weeks to show 14 black and 25 white people were shot and killed by police while unarmed in 2019.

 

It should be noted again that unarmed does not necessarily mean unjustified. If I punch a cop and charge at his partner I'm probably going to get shot whether I have a weapon or not, and regardless of my pigmentation.

 

Another interesting factor to consider is the crime rate and economic outcomes of black people who immigrate to America compared to native born black Americans. The former have lower crime and incarceration rates, and better rates of economic success, which indicates that there are factors other than race that contribute to these outcomes.

 

 

The factor you're failing to account for is that people serving federal prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses are there for distribution, not consumption. Your statistics give the implication that you have more white offenders, but more minority convictions for the same offense, but you are comparing distribution to use. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

If you want to argue for drug decriminalization I'm with you, but the idea that this disparity comes from turning a blind eye to whites is inaccurate. 

Do we have statistics on a per encounter basis? 

 

I am conscious of the fact that even with the most robust statistics the numbers alone do not prove racism. Nor do I necessarily buy the idea of our police force as a racist institution.  Trends which are more explainable via socio-economics are often attributed to race.  I think the numbers are useful in that, while flawed, they directionally support the anecdotal evidence we have heard for years.  The anecdotal evidence is directly supported by numerous studies on attitude toward police by race.  Justice also expands beyond just our policing and covers investigations, charges, sentencing, or the lack thereof (have seen some interesting statistics on disparities in sentencing for similar crimes based on race and gender which are related to but tangential to this discuss).  

 

I have made similar arguments to yours above about crime rates and still believe that the argument is valid.  Over the years my perspective has changed slightly.  Years ago I would likely stop at this point of statistical analysis and dismiss the more absurd claims like "the police are hunting minorities in the streets" and go no further.   The past few years of video evidence and headlines show there is a problem.  Even if there isn't a single racist in uniform in the whole country (last week's headlines alone prove this is not the case), there is a problem.  This problem disproportionately effects the black and minority community. 

 

People dying over selling CDs, or loosies, or sitting in the living rooms of their own homes, or calling the police for a violent crime and being shot instead of the criminal, or jogging, or knowingly/unknowingly passing a fake $20 is an unacceptable outcome.   In many of these cases there were no repercussions or investigations took months to commence.   

[Coach Tuesday]

6 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

People dying over selling CDs, or loosies, or sitting in the living rooms of their own homes, or calling the police for a violent crime and being shot instead of the criminal, or jogging, or knowingly/unknowingly passing a fake $20 is an unacceptable outcome.   In many of these cases there were no repercussions or investigations took months to commence.   

The problem is probably extremely complicated and not capable of being reduced to chewable soundbites or political talking points.  The steady erosion of the middle class.  The reduction and elimination of social welfare services leaving the police to pick up the slack.  The prison-industrial complex as a powerful lobbying group with a direct financial incentive to push heavy-handed and draconian police procedures.  The embedded reactionary-ism of unions.  The ghettoization of, well, urban ghettos and the unequal distribution of, and access to, basic human needs and services.  Changing national demographics and the inability of the (soon to be former) white majority to adapt to changing times and global competition for trade and intellect.  Etc. etc.  It is a multi-layered problem - a societal Rubik’s Cube that is nearly impossible to solve.  Racism exists.  But it does not come close to explaining what we’re witnessing.

[Meatloaf63]

54 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

Let me rethink that, maybe you’re right. My facts were clearly off and I’m deleting my comment. I should have kept my mouth shut. 

Last week 6 Atlanta police officers lose their jobs because they used a Taser, a deadly weapon on two college students. This week the Taser should be treated like a squirt gun? and firing one at an LEO’S face should be disregarded.

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, LeviF91 said:

 

This is only a "racist cops" problem if race was actually the cause of this.  But there's a compelling reason to believe it isn't.  Rob briefly referenced this but there's good reason to believe that differences in police use of force by race is better explained by differences in crime rate by race.  See table 12 (PDF warning!) https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

 

 

The NCVS excludes homicide since you can't exactly survey homicide victims.  But the Justice Department's 2011 report is striking.  See table 1 (PDF warning, again) https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

 

Not to mention that 38% of police officers that are feloniously killed are killed by black people. https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2018/tables/table-42.xls

 

If you accept the very reasonable premise that deadly force is most likely to be used by police when an officer either responds to a call involving violent crime or is, him/herself, the victim of a violent crime, then this becomes a very different discussion.

 

Except that none of the recent killings of black men and women were involved in any violent crimes, and in none of the cases were the cops involved were victims of violent crime or were their lives in danger.    Maurice Gordon was killed during a traffic stop.  George Floyd was apprehended for supposedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill.  In the case of Rayshard Brooks, he struggled with the police,  took the tazer, and shot it at the officers, but he was running away from the police not toward them.  A tazer is not a deadly weapon. 

 

The protests aren't about the police shooting blacks involved in violent crimes.  They are about police killing blacks who were guilty at most of petty crimes or traffic violations.   They are about lesser incidents as well as in this one that just happened:  Teens arrested for jaywalking

 

[LeviF]

4 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Except that none of the recent killings of black men and women were involved in any violent crimes, and in none of the cases were the cops involved were victims of violent crime or were their lives in danger.    Maurice Gordon was killed during a traffic stop.  George Floyd was apprehended for supposedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill.  In the case of Rayshard Brooks, he struggled with the police,  took the tazer, and shot it at the officers, but he was running away from the police not toward them.  A tazer is not a deadly weapon. 

 

The protests aren't about the police shooting blacks involved in violent crimes.  They are about police killing blacks who were guilty at most of petty crimes or traffic violations.   They are about lesser incidents as well as in this one that just happened:  Teens arrested for jaywalking

 

“Struggling with the police” aka assaulting a peace officer. 

[thebandit27]

12 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Except that none of the recent killings of black men and women were involved in any violent crimes, and in none of the cases were the cops involved were victims of violent crime or were their lives in danger.    Maurice Gordon was killed during a traffic stop.  George Floyd was apprehended for supposedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill.  In the case of Rayshard Brooks, he struggled with the police,  took the tazer, and shot it at the officers, but he was running away from the police not toward them.  A tazer is not a deadly weapon. 

 

The protests aren't about the police shooting blacks involved in violent crimes.  They are about police killing blacks who were guilty at most of petty crimes or traffic violations.   They are about lesser incidents as well as in this one that just happened:  Teens arrested for jaywalking

 

Just a point of order: tasers can (and do, in fact) kill...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/police-killed-1000-people-tasers-since-2000

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

Do we have statistics on a per encounter basis? 

 

I am conscious of the fact that even with the most robust statistics the numbers alone do not prove racism. Nor do I necessarily buy the idea of our police force as a racist institution.  Trends which are more explainable via socio-economics are often attributed to race.  I think the numbers are useful in that, while flawed, they directionally support the anecdotal evidence we have heard for years.  The anecdotal evidence is directly supported by numerous studies on attitude toward police by race.  Justice also expands beyond just our policing and covers investigations, charges, sentencing, or the lack thereof (have seen some interesting statistics on disparities in sentencing for similar crimes based on race and gender which are related to but tangential to this discuss).  

 

I have made similar arguments to yours above about crime rates and still believe that the argument is valid.  Over the years my perspective has changed slightly.  Years ago I would likely stop at this point of statistical analysis and dismiss the more absurd claims like "the police are hunting minorities in the streets" and go no further.   The past few years of video evidence and headlines show there is a problem.  Even if there isn't a single racist in uniform in the whole country (last week's headlines alone prove this is not the case), there is a problem.  This problem disproportionately effects the black and minority community. 

 

People dying over selling CDs, or loosies, or sitting in the living rooms of their own homes, or calling the police for a violent crime and being shot instead of the criminal, or jogging, or knowingly/unknowingly passing a fake $20 is an unacceptable outcome.   In many of these cases there were no repercussions or investigations took months to commence.   

 

I agree with a lot of this, but disagree with some.

 

I think that there are some police who are biased against the black community. But I think the overwhelming majority are not. Some judges are probably racist, but most of them are not. The problem is that we tend to paint with a very broad brush and assume that the problem is widespread, pervasive, and only flows one way.

 

One of the biggest problem is that we frame the cognitive functions that are present in all humans as a moral issue. As long as humans are manning the police force there will always be cognitive biases in place. In all likelihood this probably does lead to some level of disparate treatment, even if it is unintentional.

 

If, for example, you were a used car salesman, and people in blue shirts were twice as likely to take up your time without buying a car, you would subconsciously be less inclined to go out of your way to assist people with blue shirts. By the same token, a cop is likely to be more suspicious of a young black guy just because on average there is a higher probability that he is engaged in criminal behavior. Now that isn't fair to the majority of young black guys who aren't committing any crimes, but it's not based on hatred. Further, if you are pulled over for a busted tail light when the cop may not have pulled someone else, that sucks, but it's not the great tragedy we make it out to be.

 

This does not apply only to black people. When I was 19 driving around in a sporty looking red Saturn with shaggy hair, a subwoofer in the back, cigarette in my mouth, clothes that were just a little too big, and the general appearance of a guy who didn't give a *****, I was more likely to have a cop ask to search my car than I am now as a 40 year old man in my late model sedan with a professional looking haircut and no big beats bumpin in my trunk.

 

In the cop's experience, he doesn't often find drugs on guys that look like me, and I'm allowed to have beer in the trunk. By contrast, he's more often found those things on the guy who fit my 19 year old description. My 19 year old self will get searched more often and in more places than a 40 year old black guy driving a sedan in a suit. And my brother in law with his baggy pants, gold chain, street lingo, and beat up car is going to get searched more often than both of us.

 

Contrary to popular belief it really does cut both ways. Overall, the benefit probably does fall to white people more often, not because of a deep seeded hatred for blacks, but simply as a circumstantial benefit of being in the majority. But it's not absolute. Some cops, judges, and prosecutors are actually more inclined to give the black guy a break, especially if there's some indication he's getting his ***** together, because they want to give him a chance, and they feel like the white guy should know better. It doesn't always happen that way, but sometimes it does.

 

There are some benefits that are simply inherent to being in the majority group, whether it's based on race, ethnicity, religion, or any other criteria. These are not typically major, life-changing benefits, but simple, circumstantial benefits, like having most of the hair care products designed for you.

 

If the conversations about "white privilege" and "systemic racism" addressed this phenomenon in this context it would be much more acceptable. Instead it's typically framed in moral terms, and exaggerated beyond any reasonable measure to the point that it becomes absurd, and focuses on blaming and shaming people for the crime of being human.

 

The idea that cops shoot black men en masse is patently false, and the idea that those who are shot are done out of a sense of racist hatred is utterly baseless. I'm not even a big pro-cop guy. I've dealt with some cops that are straight up bullies that have no business wearing a badge. (Incidentally, the worst case of police brutality I've witnessed was a cop that went Hulk on a 60 year old white man who lightly touched the officer while trying to get past him in order to help his son who was suffering a PTSD induced panic attack. After the cop knocked him out, he charged him with felony AB LEO). But the majority of cops are just regular guys doing a dangerous and thankless job that they were hired to do, and doing it the way they were trained.

 

Most police shootings are not done in anger or hatred, but out of fear. There are ways to reduce these incidents that don't include dividing people, inflaming passions, destroying property, and vilifying those who disagree. Body cams are a great addition. They protect the public against abuse of power and protect the police and against false accusations of misconduct. Prioritizing their use would go a long way towards allowing us to quantify the problems that exist, and address them constructively. We also talk about better training for police, which is good, but we ought to focus on training the population on how to deal with the police.

 

I was arrested with a friend on my 21st birthday for being drunk in public. I chatted with the cops before they politely cuffed me, made sure they weren't too tight, helped me into the car, and took me to the drunk tank. My friend, however, got roughed up, thrown up on the hood of the cop car, and had a mag light jabbed in his kidney while they forcefully handcuffed him as tight as they could, and threw him headfirst into the back of the car. The difference was that he mouthed off and resisted when they tried to cuff him. I was pleasant, offered no resistance, and even told my friend to chill out. Luckily for him we were well outnumbered, they could tell he wasn't armed, they sensed no threat from me, and felt perfectly capable of physically dominating him. Under different circumstances he could have been a statistic.

 

To your last paragraph, those are one-off situations that are not indicative of any broader trend. The guy selling loosies wasn't "murdered" by the cops. He had a heart attack while being wrestled to the ground after he resisted arrested. Personally, I think it's a stupid law, and if I were a cop I wouldn't go out of my way to arrest a guy for selling cigarettes, but the cop didn't make the law and he was doing what he was hired to do. He may have been a little overly aggressive, but you can't decide to let someone go because they resist arrest. Otherwise you're encouraging resistance. It's unfortunate that it happened, but the fact that we're citing THAT example from six years ago is evidence itself that the problem may not be as bad as we make it out.

 

The only story I know of a cop shooting the person who called for help is a white woman who was shot and killed by a Somali cop who she had called to report an attack in an ally. He shot her as she went out to tell him where the crime was taking place. The cop who killed the guy who passed a counterfeit $20 is sitting in jail charged with murder. The jogging incident didn't involve cops, and the guy sitting in his living room (if it's the case I'm thinking of) was an idiotic reaction from an off-duty cop who thought she was walking into her own apartment and saw a strange man inside. It was incredibly stupid and unfortunate, but it wasn't even in the line of duty. It's hardly indicative of a scourge of police brutality or racially motivated killings.

 

The point isn't that there's nothing to see here and we should do nothing, but rather that we should have some sense of perspective. Overstating the problem is not helpful, treating it like it's the greatest issue of our day is just silly, and grabbing our pitchforks to join the witch-hunting lynch mob is not productive or moral. If this really is the greatest threat facing America people we have it pretty damn good. All of us.

 

In short, if anyone's sitting around in genuine fear that they're going to be the next guy murdered by a racist cop, they're either suffering from paranoid delusions or they've been brainwashed by a corrupt media with a nefarious agenda. They might as well sit around worrying that they're going to be struck by lightening.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Rob's House

[Captain Caveman]

12 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

In short, if anyone's sitting around in genuine fear that they're going to be the next guy murdered by a racist cop, they're either suffering from paranoid delusions or they've been brainwashed by a corrupt media with a nefarious agenda. They might as well sit around worrying that they're going to be struck by lightening.

 

~1 in 1000 black men can expect to be killed by police.  (It's about 1 in 2000 for white men, which is still too high IMO.)

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

 

~1 in 15000 people can expect to be struck by lightning.

 

Are some (most?) of these killings justifiable in some way?  I'm sure that's the case.  But the problem is that there is such a culture of cops protecting each other, and no real oversight, so we just don't know.  

 

For anyone who is really interested in finding out more about where we currently are, I highly recommend "13th" on Netflix.

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Captain Caveman

[Devil’s Advocate]

What is the protest exactly? Systemic racism seems like an intangible force that we have to assume exists. What is the exact complaint or injustice? Is it our police’s treatment of minorities? Because I have seen multiple studies that show law enforcement officers are more likely to use lethal force on white offenders than any other race. And over the last couple decades, it stays consistent that Twice as many white people are killed by police every year than black people. 

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Devil’s Advocate said:

What is the protest exactly? Systemic racism seems like an intangible force that we have to assume exists. What is the exact complaint or injustice? Is it our police’s treatment of minorities? Because I have seen multiple studies that show law enforcement officers are more likely to use lethal force on white offenders than any other race. And over the last couple decades, it stays consistent that Twice as many white people are killed by police every year than black people. 

The lethal force used against George Floyd was the spark that lit the fuse.  I encourage all of us who are not black to talk to some of your black neighbors, or read some literature.  It is about being pulled over more frequently for no reason.  It is about different housing opportunities, business opportunities.  And so on. 

 

I don’t pretend to understand the plight of black men in America, and I don’t necessarily agree with each point.  But if you take the time to listen it becomes a lot easier to understand why blacks feel systemic racism exists.  And hard to argue.