As I said, it is BEHAVIOR, not RACE that gets you shot by the cops...

How can you say it is based on false assumptions? Have you taken the time to read the report yourself? Whata re those false assumptions?

I think it a flaw to assume that a primary document is based on false assumptions without reading it first.

But yes, I whole heartedly agree that it is very poor science when people come to a conclusion first then tailor everything to fit that conclusion.

But isn't it wrong to make such an assumption about other reports especially without reading them?

 

People are prejudiced to the police who are trying to kill them and violate their constitutional rights.

 

Blacks comprise approx. 67% of the population in Ferguson. If they are more likely to be pulled over in a traffic stop it is because they are the majority, not because cops are racist.

 

So you say, but how can I take that into consideration when I know you haven't read the report. I don't think you're being objective here. being objective means reading things from both sides of the issue. So far I don't think you're done that and are just reading the criticism of the report.

I challenge you to be objective and read the report.

you see, the flaw to just using one source is that you get an incomplete picture as both critics and those who are partial only take out just enough information to support their conclusions, and a lot of the times, are out of context.

So, i challenge to read the report and get back to me.

 

I challenge YOU to prove anything you have posted. At least I provided a link. You, on the other hand, have provided only unsupported opinion and ask everyone else to prove you wrong without the least bit of citation, support, link etc. Either provide your proof or I will consider this discussion a waste of my valuable time.

 

From what I can tell, he just keeps on with the mantra that "whites are racist" and goes from there.

 

No police office should shoot "to kill" unless the individual they approach has a gun. Otherwise, if they believe their life is threated they should shoot at the persons knee or foot in order to stop their advance.

Stopping the threat is what should be legal. Killing the individual when injuring them would have stopped the threat should be against the law.

And, all stops should be on video and all officers should be wearing something similar to Go Pro with sound.

I am sick of Officers telling lies. I actually had an officer stop me and when I said I know I was speeding she said, unlike some officers I will tell you the truth, I didn't have you on radar. Since I hadn't had a ticket in 25 years she gave me a warning. Point is, apparently officers do lie.

 

"Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.

An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting found that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.

Non-white Americans make up less than 38% of the the US population......yet almost half of all people killed by police are minorities…...and minorities make up almost two-thirds of unarmed people killed by police."

 

NO. It was about people recognizing criminals by their behavior and appearance, NOT RACE. Just because race is a factor, doesn't mean people are racist. Its false equivalency. Black people might make up a higher percentage of criminals, but just because you're black, it doesn't make you a criminal. If an old lady clutches her bag tighter on a train, because a large threatening looking BLACK man is standing right next to her, is she racist, or reacting to a life long experience of people who LOOK a certain way, acting a certain way. Notice I didn't mention the race of the lady. She can be ANY race and the reaction would be basically the same. If the old lady fails to adapt her behavior to the environment around her, that would make her a very stupid person. Would she clutch her bag the same, if Al Roker was standing next to her? Doubt it!! Like not pulling your hand away from a fire even though you KNOW its hot. Its self preservation. Failing to do so is fighting nature. Its natural to fear what should be feared. Its irrational to ignore the obvious.

And this all comes right back to profiling. If you LOOK or ACT like a criminal, kids, adults, police, everyone will treat you like one unless you prove to them otherwise. The onus is on YOU to correct the problem, if people perceive you in the wrong light, not on everyone else to ASSUME what you think. No one knows what you're thinking. They know what you SHOW them. So if a black man feels like everyone around him is racist, unless he's the honored guest at a Klan rally, the problem lies with him, because another black guy probably feels the opposite.

 

The DOJ report on Ferguson found that the law enforcement and court system there practiced systemic racial bias.

In Ferguson you've got three black officers and 50 white officers with a town that is 67 percent African-American

The city’s practices are shaped by revenue rather than by public safety needs.
The 67% of African Americans in Ferguson account for 93% of arrests made from 2012-2014.
The disproportionate number of arrests, tickets and use of force stemmed from “unlawful bias,” rather than black people committing more crime.
A singled missed, late or partial payment of a fine could mean jail time.
Arrest warrants are “almost exclusively” used as threats to push for payments.
If time is served, no credit for jail time is received and the length of time isn’t even recorded by the court.
From October 2012 to October 2014, every time a person was arrested because he or she was “resisting arrest,” that person was black.
Of all stopped black drivers, 91% (8,987)received citations. 87% (1,501)of white drivers received citations.

In 2013, 32,975 offenses had associated warrants, so that there were 1.5 offenses for every city resident.
For comparison sake - In 2014, the Boston Municipal Court System, for a city of 645,000 people, issued about 2,300 criminal warrants. The Ferguson Municipal Court issued 9,000, for a population 1/30th the size of Boston's.

In 2013, 92 percent of Ferguson's arrest warrants were issued against African Americans, and black Fergusonians were 68 percent less likely than others to have their court cases dismissed.

 

Statistics refute your less than convincing argument.
Seriously, if people stereotype you its incumbent upon YOU to prove them wrong? OK.....Republicans - old white men - are commonly stereotyped as bigots. Hey, its not my fault. I don't make up the stereotype. It is what it is. Prove me wrong.

 

You don't have a constitutional right to attack a cop.

 

Right, because so many suburban whites join gangs and kill each other over sneakers. Meaningless statistics.

 

Are you having trouble understanding the term "unarmed"?

Those stats are only meaningless to racists who support institutionalized racism.

 

So if you dress like a thug with a tear tattoo and pants around your knees it's up to everyone else to delve into inner astronaut? They need to have a long conversation with you to learn how normal and kind you are?

When a cat bares it's teeth and hisses does that mean come pet me? How many times do you need to get bitten or scratched before taking the hint?

 

Cops don't have a constitutional eight to attack you.

You're losing this contest of wits.

Don't mess with my wit fu.

 

It is absolutely behavior. What has skin color have to do with wether you are a criminal. You chose behavior, but you cant chose your skin color.

 

Show me where cops are attacking people. It's the other way 'round.

And you don't get to keep score in a game you're playing... What color is the sky in your world? Honestly?

 

I'm not the one playing this game. You are.

No, it is the cops that are attacking people. I could show you a few things, but why bother?

I'm beginning to think you want to put them on a pedestal and can't see that a lot of them are just another kind of bully who cares nothing about things like the constitution.

The sky is a kaleidoscope of colors within colors exploding in radiant beauty int he shape of naked shapely young women.

 

Please tell me you're kidding.
If not, you do understand that you're proving my point, right?
The topic is whether its racism or behavior that's to blame for black people getting killed.
A cat barring its teeth, hissing, biting and scratching is an attack. Its agression. That's an example of behavior.
You judge a person by they're appearance. What they wear. How they look. That's an example of stereotyping which is the basis of racism.

I'm not sure if you could have failed in a more spectacular fashion if you had tried.

 

"Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.

An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting found that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.

Non-white Americans make up less than 38% of the the US population......yet almost half of all people killed by police are minorities…...and minorities make up almost two-thirds of unarmed people killed by police."

 

Outcomes of incidents do not serve as proof of the police attacking people. As in the case of Michael Brown, it was the other way around. It was Michael Brown's behavior that got Michale Brown killed-- not his race.

 

And what is the proportion of non-white Americans convicted of violent crimes? In other words, which demographic has more contact with the police? Which demographic is statistically more likely to generate a police call? Which demographic is statistically more likely to participate in gang violence and other activities that predispose them to contact with law enforcement?

And "carrying a weapon" is a meaningless statistic. An attacker can advance 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. You have 1.5 seconds to respond to that threat with no other information other than somebody who is already behaving violently or aggressively is advancing on you or another person. You do not need to be armed to be a threat.

- - - Updated - - -

You'll never convince half these people of that fact because it breaks the narrative... a narrative in which they are unfortunately heavily invested.

 

I think that a large statistical sampling is a better indication than the anecdote you cite. And the anecdote you mention is a very poor example. The highly partisan prosecutor acted as defense attorney and solicited testimony from someone he admittedly knew was lying on a number of issues. There's no way you can say you know what happened on that day.

 

You ask some relevant questions but make no attempt to do some simple research to answer them. That pretty much tells me that you don't care about the answers to those questions - you're going to go with your assumptions.

Your point about the weapon -t he same fact is true for black and white suspects alike yet black suspects are far far more likely to be fired upon and killed. Explain that please.

Also, when you look into crime statistics have to take into account the bias of police and the criminal justice system. Look at the DOJ report on the Ferguson PD and court system. Look at how powder cocaine vs crack cocaine is handled.

I agree that there are people who are ideologically vested in a particular narrative and will refuse to look objectively at the facts. Look in the mirror.