Blue Lives Matter, Black Lies Shatter. Cops 1850% More Killed by Blacks Than Kill Blacks.

That could be correct, I haven't checked it. Doesn't change the indication, however. If your share of crime is lower than your share of population, somebody else's crime rate is higher.

 

The relative sizes of the populations ARE factored in.

The examples, including the OP article finding, compare incident rates in the pertinent populations.

 

dup

 

Yes, black people commit more than 13% of many crimes, yet they are 13% of their population.

But they have a VERY long legacy of suffering from persecution, discrimination and slavery. And after they were freed from slavery, all the good jobs of the industrial revolution were given to white immigrants....and not former slaves.

This was followed by bad laws that kept blacks in a a shitty socio-economic status, plus many good blue-collar jobs being shipped overseas and white flight taking tax dollars away that kept schools in good shape.

The recipe for keeping black people down for 500 years, seems to be working perfectly. Almost like a well-scripted plan.

 

Noted you refuse to substantiate your claims.

 

Noted that you can't be bothered to look through the FBI/UCR stats, like I did. They should have been top of page when you googled.

 

Enjoy
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

 

When did you ever do the same?

 

In written matter, sure. And in that case, they need to be very detailed: Author, date of publication, page#(s), publisher. At the minumum. On the internet - Citations should include, at the minimimum a LINK to the specific web page that containst the data you are sourcing, and even better -- if you are intersted in providing the citation for discussion in good faith -- an excerpt that directly-references the data or facts you are proffering in support of your position.

The fact that you made claim that you are claiming is factual means that you should have the link(s) within reach. Your pedantic refusal to provide them discredits your argument and provides evidence that you are not interested in a discussion in good faith.

Concession accepted.

 

I'm sorry that says SPLCENTER. Can you not read? I said show me the White Lives Matter website.

 

And that is ancient history in America. It is not so however in Africa today, where there are more than 9 million in slavery.
Nor was that different 1,000 year before white people set foot in Africa, because black people were already engaged in the business of capturing and selling their fellow blacks as slaves.

There are no blacks in America today that were ever slaves. The nation not only was leading in the effort to end slavery around the world long ago, we have been making disproportionate efforts to bring blacks into the normal mainstream of society since Lyndon Johnson invented the "Great Society" idea 60 years ago. The problem is not that white people haven't opened the door and invited them up- more that many black slammed the door in our face and prefer to think of themselves as victims. Doing so relieves on of a lot of responsibility, makes them feel entitled, and makes them feel justified in hating the descendants of people who might have owned slaves 200 years ago. My family never did, but they don't care- I'm white, so I'm responsible for their miscontent. That by the way- IS RACISM.

The quality people in the black community know better, but they fear being called names by the lower class of blacks, and condemned by liberals if they say anything along the lines that black people are actually
responsible for the conduct of black people.

The old saying fits- You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. History is full of times of suppression for nearly all people- However, not all people have invented slavery as a business than blamed the rest of the world for it. To the best of my knowledge, that honor belongs to blacks.

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.

Booker T. Washington

 

Tell you what, you back up 1 (one) claim that you have made with any sort of link, citation, anything and then all your wishes come true. Your "freebies" were proven wrong but in typical fasion you just ignored the fact. The hypicrocy that you bring is sad.

 

Couldn't read the full article due to a paywall, but your quote shows it's not a fair comparison.... UNARMED black males killed. I mean that's a pretty exceptionally blatant case of excessive force. Cops, on the other hand, are armed. So you're comparing unarmed deaths to armed deaths. And just because a non-cop is armed, doesn't mean they need to be killed. Does unarmed include people who had their gun/knife in the pocket, or dropped it after being told to? Does a vehicle count as a weapon (being armed)? Just doesn't seem like a meaningful statistic as presented.

 

You make the claim. You back it up. That's how this works. The onus is on you to substantiate your position. I'm not doing your work for you. You obviously have the link(s): Why not just post them? What are you trying to hide?

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

1. Unarmed =/= not a threat. And as far as cops approaching a subject -- they don't know you and to stay alive, must assume you are a threat until they are satisfied you are not. This is why they want to see your hands, tell you to stay in the vehicle, etc.
2. The article specifically is a push-back on the claims of BLM, whose key metric is always "unarmed black man killed by cop." So it would seem a valid comparison.

 

takes a big, strong, confident police officer to feel the need to kill an unarmed person.

clearly their life or the life of another was ALWAYS in jeopordy.

 

I'm fascinated by the fact that you aren't ALREADY familiar with the FBI/UCR pages, like most people who've ever been interested in crime stats.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43

 

How do you know if a person is armed or not?

 

if you see a gun, you shoot.

if you see a knife, shooting only necessary if they lunge at you or another.

too often cops take the easy way out, and shoot. then they keep shooting till the magazine is empty.

 

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem, red herring. Two fallacies in one sentence! Today's record!

I've already accepted your concession. I'll give you one more chance to post a real citation. Otherwise, your claims are disproved and we can end this fascinating discussion.

 

So a person is only armed if you can see a gun? Is that your final answer? Think very carefully about this one now...

 

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-55

 

if you see a gun or another weapon.

again, just cause they have a weapon doesnt mean you must kill them.

too bad too many cops disagree

 

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-49

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-61