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

It seems to me that the numbers reported on these statistics have varied wildly, from one source to the next. What about the Guardian makes you take their analysis as the gospel? Could it be that their numbers support the narrative that you want to believe? Is this the same Guardian article that erroneously reported that there have been more people killed by police this year versus the last hundred years in the UK?

Personally, I find it hard to believe that even 15% of white suspects killed were not armed with a weapon of some form or fashion. Doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

I'm sorry.....I have to stop laughing. You completely discount data based on....nothing.... and instead want to go by your "smell test". That's just brilliant.

 

You are mistaken. For starters, I did not discount data, rather I asked you with the wildly varying data that has been put out there on this subject, why are you assuming that the "Guardian" is the gospel? Ive not actually taken a stance at all, but as a person seeing wildly varying claims, I am asking you to convince me why your particular source is the one that is correct. Its an honest question. I also asked you if this is from the same Guardian article that claimed that more people have been killed in the USA by police this year than have been killed in the UK over the last 100 yrs? You do know that has been fact checked and shown unequivocally to be patently false.

In summary, I asked you two questions. Are you going to answer?

Don't reply back with feigned laughter, there is nothing inherently funny about a question, nor does that feigned laughter validate your position.

 

If its racism that gets black people killed, we would be hearing about successful, college educated black people getting shot all the time. Yet, we don't. The black people getting shot are mostly drug users, gang members and are usually armed. SHOCKING!!!! There is a profile of the average black shooting victim. Its statistics. It doesn't include wallstreet types. Why? If you want to disagree with reality, be my guest.

 

Please be serious.
If you have an issue with their data, it would up to you to presents facts that support your contention. Don't be lazy and expect me to present your argument as well as my own.

As to some other article they've written, again, you're going to have to tell me hwy that's relevant and make your own case.

 

This must be "throw out whatever unsubstantiated BS that comes to mind and pass it off as fact" day.

Back up your comments with those statistics you mention. I'd be happy to discuss it. I've posted a study showing a statistically disproportionate number of unarmed black people being killed by police. And the DOJ report on Ferguson that shows that the black community there was preyed upon by a racially biased police force and court system. Those people were/are not your simplistic stereotype that you cling to without question.

It doesn't take much to find examples that disprove your assumptions.

http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349

 

I Will help you out a little bit. Here is some data, reportedly from the CDC and published on Real Clear Politics, that appears to completely fly in the face of the claims you quoted from the Guardian.

"In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops -- and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.

Police shootings, nationwide, are down dramatically from what they were 20 or 30 years ago. The CDC reported that in 1968, shootings by law enforcement -- called "legal intervention" by the CDC -- was the cause of death for 8.6 out of every million blacks. For whites the rate was was .9 deaths per million."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...p_stories_that_didnt_make_the_cut_125004.html

I am personally not saying which is correct and which is not, but you seem so 100% convinced that the Guardian claims are unimpeachable. Why is the Guardian the definitive source and the CDC as reported on realclear politics is not?

 

I will dumb this down for you because you don't seem to be able to discern questions in a post.

With such wildly varying statistics being bandied about, why is the Guardians versions of numbers the definitive source?

 

The questions are rhetorical and intended to point out the flawed conclusions of this typical MSM hit piece based on incomplete data.

No real basis for explanation because every situation is exceedingly complex and dynamic. There is really no way to control for the absence or presence of a weapon. On TV cop shows, nobody ever gets shot unless they have a gun. That's not how it works in real life.

Certainly the system is imperfect. But in the context of this thread... that being the behavior of the deceased prior to his or her dispatch by a police officer, my argument stands: If The Gentle Giant (TM) had simply complied with the officer in Ferguson after he assaulted the store clerk after stealing the cigars, Ferguson would not have burned. You are talking about people here who are already behaving violently towards others or towards the police. They have already demonstrated that they are a threat. Are the bad police shootings? Of course there are. Are some based on racial bias? Logically, we would have to assume yes based on the fact that racial bias exists. Does this mean that we as a society feel that "black lives don't matter" as the "black lives matter" crowd wants us to believe? Not even close...

Ha ha. Nice "zinger." You think you're so clever. Problem with your allusion here is every time a white dude is shot by the police, I don't go torch a 7-11...

 

Didn't you hear Al Roker was just gunned down by NYPD for running a red light on Broadway on his bicycle? The white officer who shot him was not only issued a commendation, but is having a street named after him on the Upper East Side.

 

Those numbers debunked
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...reilly-cites-faulty-data-claim-about-shootin/

Guardian methodology
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/about-the-counted

 

If "white dudes" were commonly shot dead by black police officers while unarmed and doing nothing more jaywalking or shop lifting or playing in a park or walking in Walmart with a toy gun or selling smokes on the street corner.......I doubt you would be peacefully demonstrating. It would probably look more like the Bundy standoff or the Biker shootout.

 

The governor of Virginia has ordered the Virginia State Police to investigate the bloody arrest of a black third-year student at the University of Virginia by Alcoholic Beverage Control agents outside a Charlottesville bar.

Redus was shot and killed by officer Carter at 2 am after making a sarcastic remark toward the campus cop who followed him well outside of the boundaries of his campus jurisdiction, finally pulling him over, for allegedly “speeding.”

Local KSAT News says that witnesses claim the officer “emptied his gun” into Redus with no provocation.

“I didn’t hear him say anything like, ‘Get down on your hands and knees,’ you know?” one witness recalled, “I didn’t hear him say anything. He just started shooting. He emptied the gun on him… Boom, boom, boom.Six shots — five or six.”

At the time of his death, Ball was reportedly a Human Services major at Forest Park Community College. The campus newspaper, The Scene, reported Ball said he had a 3.86 grade point average and in the past was honored as an “emerging scholar.” He did, however, spend five-and-a-half years in prison — “three years for armed robbery when he was 17, and another two-and-a-half years for a probation violation involving a misdemeanor.”
Regardless of his history, if a man places his gun on the ground, why are police shooting him? And not just firing a single shot, but 25?

The San Antonio campus cop was placed on paid administrative leave following the shooting of a clearly unarmed and non-combative student. What was the 23-year-old student’s crime? Robert Cameron Redus was shot dead by officer Carter at 2 a.m. for nothing more than making a sarcastic remark toward the officer who pulled him over for speeding..

 

An investment based on fraud and deceit needs to be exposed no matter what. A lie is a lie-- not a narrative.

 

I see. So in your world, the FBI and CDC numbers are bogus, and the numbers by the Guardian, that encourages readers and witnesses to contribute the data, are therefore the gospel. In the Guardian link that you provided, they say themselves that "These will occasionally prove inaccurate".

I am only left with the question why you feel like slightly incomplete data from the FBI and CDC are to be ignored, and that self reported data from readers of the Guardian are considered infallible?

One can almost always hunt and peck for supposed data that backs up their preconceived notion on any controversial issue, and it seems that the Guardian provides the data that supports the narrative you want to push. How self servingly delightful.

 

LOL! You didn't read it.

 

Come on now, don't let silly things like "facts" spoil a perfectly good argument.

 

I most certainly DID read it. The last two sentences from your link from the Guardian....

"These will occasionally prove inaccurate. If you know of more accurate information, please contact us as soon possible."

Does that disclaimer not give you pause? It surely doesn't inspire confidence to me.

Because of the wildly varying numbers being bandied about on this subject, I have asked you why the Guardians numbers are the gospel, and your only response thus far is a link from the Guardian, that says "these will occasionally prove inaccurate". Your confidence seems misplaced. Your very own source doesn't show the confidence in their own numbers, that you seemingly do. Strange.

Perhaps it is time for you to once again feign laughter?

 

I think you have mixed two news stories here?

But if the facts in the Virginia case as reported here turn out to be true then we have a bona fide case of murder of a citizen by a police officer.

 

Hold on a second... this student is white.

 

My god, if anything it should make you even more confident of their data! In the business world that's referred to as a continual improvement process. That's a good thing. That leads continuously to better and more accurate data.

What you obviously chose to ignore:
The US government has no comprehensive record of the number of people killed by law enforcement.

The FBI runs a VOLUNTARY program through which law enforcement agencies may or may not choose to submit their annual count of “justifiable homicides”, which it defines as “the killing of a felon in the line of duty”.

This system is arguably less valuable than having no system at all.

Between 2005 and 2012 just 1,100 police departments – a fraction of America’s 18,000 police agencies – reported a “justifiable homicide” to the FBI.

The FBI system counted 461 justifiable homicides by law enforcement in 2013, the latest year for which data is available. Crowdsourced counts found almost 300 additional fatalities during that year.

That last one is a pretty good indication of the superiority of the Guardian's methodology over what currently exists.

Here's a good article:
Now there's proposed legislation for mandatory tracking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/03/number-police-killings_n_7501532.html

It also explains why its important that information on a case is continuously updated

"Swaine said the April shooting of South Carolina man Walter Scott offers one example of how an entry can morph as new details come to light: Initial reports based on police information painted a drastically different picture than the reality the public saw a day later when video of the incident was released."

Do you think we'll see GOP support for the legislation?

 

They're all different. If you would take a half a second to do your own research you could find pages of non white college students getting abused or killed by police.

 

Lets be clear, I understand FULLY that there are limitations to all stated data on this subject because of the lack of a standardized reporting method. As such, I have not declared ANY of the data as the definitive word on the subject. The only one in this conversation throwing around definitive is YOU.

With that being said, I asked you why you think the Guardian data is the gospel. Your only response was to give me a link that explains their methodology, and that link itself admits that its data may be inaccurate. That is almost like giving someone a lie detector test, them admitting to the crime, then you saying after the fact "they passed the test ! " . There is no such thing as continuous improvement when expressing supposed concrete data, but at least you got the opportunity to throw around a clichéd business term.

Their data is admitted by them to be inaccurate. You keep pretending like it is the gospel. You throw around the term statistical sampling, but obviously don't understand that concept or you wouldn't be relying upon voluntarily self reported input for a statistical sample. We could go into depth about why voluntary input skews statistical sampling, but you would probably just reply with more feigned laughter, so what is the point?

 

Do you know how to use the quote function? I assume this was directed at me?

Anyway, you just proved my point, so thank you.

 

Now you're just being ridiculous. Definitive? Can you show me where I ever used the word definitive?
The Guardians data is the best available. They're acknowledgement to inaccuracy refers to the way the police and/or media outlets report each case. Each case is, to a certain extent, fluid and ongoing. That acknowledgement makes them MORE trustworthy, not less.

Do you really need to have it explained to you why a voluntary reporting program is less than useless? Would a lazy department administer voluntarily track and report data throughout the year? How about a department spread thin? How about one that's small and isn't even aware of the program? How about a department that will not look very good if the data gets publicized? I don't know if there would be one accurate conclusion you could draw from a program like this.