USA Politics

[JBS]

If those 1000 killed are all colored, that makes a certain kind of American feel not bad at all.

FTR
The number of people of any race killed in police shootings last year was almost exactly 1000.  That's why I used it.

[drogulus]

I'm a Democrat and open-minded. In the past I simply accepted that America was institutionally racist. These days, I think it's more complicated than that.
Please show me any statistics that suggest black people are being disproportionally killed by police.
My guess is that African Americans are stopped more often in some places. On the other hand, I'm not sure there's any evidence that the biggest danger for people, especially blacks people, is cops. I think communities need police and poor neighborhoods, black and otherwise, need police more than most.

     Why would cops have to be the biggest danger? I think the point is cops are a bigger danger than they need to be because brutality is considered to be justified. Cops aren't supposed to shoot people in the back when they run away except under a limited set of circumstances that don't seem to apply to blacks.

     Statistics are important facts. We should include them.

They're saying that this statistics don't show that racism is motivating cops to kill black people

     I glanced at the study and noted that police interactions were evaluated for differences in the rate of extreme violence used in all cases compared to particular groups. It may be beyond this kind of study to determine how so many blacks became subject to recorded interactions in the first place.

     If you are a white jogger, or even drunk, or stoned, or a stoned jogger, one imagines that police may check on you but not arrest you. White people have to work a little harder to be subject to an interaction, to be a stat. Not only are you not shot, there's no record of your encounter.

     If you're white you will be aware of this. You aren't scared of the police. That's no more of an unwarranted fantasy than the fear of police is for those who are fearful.

[Karl Henning]

     Why would cops have to be the biggest danger? I think the point is cops are a bigger danger than they need to be because brutality is considered to be justified. Cops aren't supposed to shoot people in the back when they run away except under a limited set of circumstances that don't seem to apply to blacks.

     Statistics are important facts. We should include them.

     I glanced at the study and noted that police interactions were evaluated for differences in the rate of extreme violence used in all cases compared to particular groups. It may be beyond this kind of study to determine how so many blacks became subject to recorded interactions in the first place.

     If you are a white jogger, or even drunk, or stoned, or a stoned jogger, one imagines that police may check on you but not arrest you. White people have to work a little harder to be subject to an interaction, to be a stat. Not only are you not shot, there's no record of your encounter.

     If you're white you will be aware of this. You aren't scared of the police. That's no more of an unwarranted fantasy than the fear of police is for those who are fearful.

"If you're white you will be aware of this. You aren't scared of the police." A winner!

All I want is a police system of which Americans of color (id est, All Americans) need not be afraid.

[greg]

Speaking for all white people is not a good idea...

My friend got tased and also heard about a white guy in my former town getting shot and killed because they said they saw a gun...

In general avoiding police altogether is a good idea.

Also you can't get arrested for being stoned, only for possession...

[drogulus]

Speaking for all white people is not a good idea...

My friend got tased and also heard about a white guy in my former town getting shot and killed because they said they saw a gun...

In general avoiding police altogether is a good idea.

Also you can't get arrested for being stoned, only for possession...

    No, I'm good, thanks. Some people may have reason to fear the police even if they are white.

[JBS]

Speaking for all white people is not a good idea...

My friend got tased and also heard about a white guy in my former town getting shot and killed because they said they saw a gun...

In general avoiding police altogether is a good idea.

Also you can't get arrested for being stoned, only for possession...

Police shoot whites and kill them.

In fact, the odds are that any particular person killed by a cop will be white or Latino white.

But the odds that any individual black will be killed by a cop is higher than the odds that any particular white will be killed by a cop. Blacks are killed by cops in numbers that much higher than their percentage of the population.

[greg]

Police shoot whites and kill them.

In fact, the odds are that any particular person killed by a cop will be white or Latino white.

But the odds that any individual black will be killed by a cop is higher than the odds that any particular white will be killed by a cop. Blacks are killed by cops in numbers that much higher than their percentage of the population.

Yeah, I saw those stats long ago.

Closer to the root problem is the school to prison pipeline. People are more likely to resist arrest if they already have a record. Minority communities are probably targeted more for other reasons, resulting in more people with records... cops are just the legs of the spider. They are doing their jobs in rough places where people are more likely to have a criminal record and therefore more likely to resist arrest. Something more fishy going on with private prisons,etc. but I don't know much about that stuff. As usual, the evil people sit at the top watching the world destroy itself and cops that are actually good get demonized.

[Gurn Blanston]

Police shoot whites and kill them.

In fact, the odds are that any particular person killed by a cop will be white or Latino white.

But the odds that any individual black will be killed by a cop is higher than the odds that any particular white will be killed by a cop. Blacks are killed by cops in numbers that much higher than their percentage of the population.

Correctamundo. Quoting rates and stats is all well and good, but the fact is, you don't have to be some special category to get your ass shot by the police. All you have to do is be. Back in my life BCM (before classical music) I lived a bit more adventurously than I do now, and I have known people who got shot. They deserved it, mainly. But one of the things I learned was that it pays big dividends to respect the police. For whatever reasons, whether they are altruistic or purely selfish.

[drogulus]

     'The corporate tax rate — I'm actually OK at 28%': Gary Cohn

     Wow, conservative "pro business" economists are as deep into howyougonnas as liberals are, like they're racing to be most dumb.

     No, Gary a business tax isn't a pay for, no federal tax is. Spending is the pay for. You of all people should know that. And really, you do, when you say lower taxes are positive for the economy. Why are you taking it back?

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (D-VT) promised to raise taxes had either of them won the race to become the Democratic Party nominee and presidency. Presumptive nominee Joe Biden has proposed more modest tax increases but has yet to detail his plans.

     You OK with that, Gary? Do you agree that taking more money from people leaves them with more money?

     OK, Dems usually limit tax hikes to the top where it does some good by relieving the tax burden on lower incomes. My problem with that is how they confuse the tax side fiscal balance effects with taxing for revenue, something the federal government doesn't do.

     

[Pohjolas Daughter]

"If you're white you will be aware of this. You aren't scared of the police." A winner!

All I want is a police system of which Americans of color (id est, All Americans) need not be afraid.

+ 1

[milk]

     Why would cops have to be the biggest danger? I think the point is cops are a bigger danger than they need to be because brutality is considered to be justified. Cops aren't supposed to shoot people in the back when they run away except under a limited set of circumstances that don't seem to apply to blacks.

     Statistics are important facts. We should include them.

     I glanced at the study and noted that police interactions were evaluated for differences in the rate of extreme violence used in all cases compared to particular groups. It may be beyond this kind of study to determine how so many blacks became subject to recorded interactions in the first place.

     If you are a white jogger, or even drunk, or stoned, or a stoned jogger, one imagines that police may check on you but not arrest you. White people have to work a little harder to be subject to an interaction, to be a stat. Not only are you not shot, there's no record of your encounter.

     If you're white you will be aware of this. You aren't scared of the police. That's no more of an unwarranted fantasy than the fear of police is for those who are fearful.

Why? Because the reaction we're seeing accuses police of being racist murderers. It's not that it just says all police are, it says the system is built upon white supremacy.
Now, is that not what's being asserted? Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Coming from the left, I always assumed it was true.  Do you think it is?
As for the guy in Atlanta being shot in the back, cops are gonna shoot you if you fire anything at them. Especially after you gave one a concussion and tried to grab weapons off another. This is a traumatic experience for a cop, I imagine, it certainly doesn't seem like murder.
I think we're in a weird moment right now. Go look at the ideology of BLM on their website. Can we question this ideology? Now that it's been approved by Brown University, Amazon and CNN?
It's quite jarring to suddenly sound like a conservative; I'm just not for the identity ideologies of this woke left and I'm shocked at how social media really drives the direction of politics into a place of emotion untempered by rational discourse. 

[BasilValentine]

The Atlanta guy gave the cops no choice. They couldn't let him run off after he committed two violent felonies - fighting with/resisting cops (one of them got a concussion) and grabbing the cop's taser. After he aimed something at them, what could they do? Even if there were a better choice, one can hardly hold them responsible in any criminally intentional way as they were fighting for their own lives on the ground.
As to police generally, I doubt good will come from social media-driven hysteria. There's not any strong evidence for racial motivation in police brutality, for racial killing by police, etc. I think cops are trained badly in the US and that cops are militarized but the causes are complex and certainly not settled. The hysteria of the moment says that everyone must subscribe to woke/BLM/intersectional ideology and there's a rush to enforce a discourse and stifle critical debate. I certainly won't risk the backlash I'd get by going on FB and even questioning whether there's a known racial element to the famous cases of police killings. One is just not allowed.

The best choice points came earlier on. The officers could have issued a citation or summons for DUI, taken his keys, had his car booted, and called a cab or drove him a few blocks to his home. You did notice that they forced Brooks to operate the vehicle after they knew he was drunk, right? What was that about?

As for fighting for their lives: After Brooks ineptly fired the taser while running, it was no longer a viable weapon. It could not be used again. So when Brooks was shot in the back he was effectively unarmed, moving away from the officers, and neither officer was in danger. I too believe there are mitigating circumstances in this case, unlike the case of the callous murder of George Lloyd. In the heat of the moment, the officers might not have remembered that the taser had already been discharged twice and was no longer a threat. They had just come out of a dangerous situation, their adrenaline was pumping, and their training (NPR interviewed a training officer on these points) likely inclined them to regard the loss of a taser as a deadly threat. The danger is getting tased and then having your firearm taken. In this case, of course, Brooks no longer had a usable taser. Whether one could expect officers in this situation to have worked this out before reacting seems to be the critical question. I don't have an opinion on that and I don't think it's an easy question.

[drogulus]

Why? Because the reaction we're seeing accuses police of being racist murderers. It's not that it just says all police are, it says the system is built upon white supremacy.
Now, is that not what's being asserted? Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Coming from the left, I always assumed it was true.  Do you think it is?
As for the guy in Atlanta being shot in the back, cops are gonna shoot you if you fire anything at them. Especially after you gave one a concussion and tried to grab weapons off another. This is a traumatic experience for a cop, I imagine, it certainly doesn't seem like murder.
I think we're in a weird moment right now. Go look at the ideology of BLM on their website. Can we question this ideology? Now that it's been approved by Brown University, Amazon and CNN?
It's quite jarring to suddenly sound like a conservative; I'm just not for the identity ideologies of this woke left and I'm shocked at how social media really drives the direction of politics into a place of emotion untempered by rational discourse. 

     I can understand how people can feel like they lost something. I don't feel like I've lost anything I'm entitled to have. Nor do I have to agree with anyone's idea of what justifies the reassessment of history that recognizes the role of white supremacy. I can do that myself while in general agreement with the changes that are happening.

     I'll continue to interpret the goal as the recognition that racist murder by police should be ended, not to characterize police as racist murderers.

     

[milk]

The best choice points came earlier on. The officers could have issued a citation or summons for DUI, taken his keys, had his car booted, and called a cab or drove him a few blocks to his home. You did notice that they forced Brooks to operate the vehicle after they knew he was drunk, right? What was that about?

As for fighting for their lives: After Brooks ineptly fired the taser while running, it was no longer a viable weapon. It could not be used again. So when Brooks was shot in the back he was effectively unarmed, moving away from the officers, and neither officer was in danger. I too believe there are mitigating circumstances in this case, unlike the case of the callous murder of George Lloyd. In the heat of the moment, the officers might not have remembered that the taser had already been discharged twice and was no longer a threat. They had just come out of a dangerous situation, their adrenaline was pumping, and their training (NPR interviewed a training officer on these points) likely inclined them to regard the loss of a taser as a deadly threat. The danger is getting tased and then having your firearm taken. In this case, of course, Brooks no longer had a usable taser. Whether one could expect officers in this situation to have worked this out before reacting seems to be the critical question. I don't have an opinion on that and I don't think it's an easy question.

yes, in traumatic moments, there's a kind of tunnel vision. From what I understand, it's normal for police to not realize how many bullets they fired.
And they were in a struggle on the ground, when he grabbed at their weapons and gave one a concussion. He ran with a weapon and turned. I don't know if the cop knew what was coming at him or not. This was a dangerous person, unlike those in some of the other incidents in question.

[JBS]

Fact is, blacks (and hispanics) make up a disproportionate amount of crime in NYC. You can find the stats year by year in this link:

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/reports-analysis/crime-enf.page

Your argument seems to be that because some POCs commit crimes, it's okay for LEOs to brutalize and kill POCs even if they are totally law abiding.

[Karl Henning]

Your argument seems to be that because some POCs commit crimes, it's okay for LEOs to brutalize and kill POCs even if they are totally law abiding.

Indeed. Has the appearance of selective vision.

[JBS]

Indeed. Has the appearance of selective vision.

I had a different word in mind.

[Karl Henning]

I had a different word in mind.

As did I....

[JBS]

Lol, no. Quit it with the brutalize talk. That is your attempt to end all arguments here. "Are you against 'reform'? Well, you must sanction brutality!" Um, no. Brutality is rare, so rare that only a few overblown media stories get attention among the 10 million arrests each year.   

POC are disproportionately arrested and killed because they commit a disproportional amount of crime. The cops are supposed to go where the criminal activity is being committed, after all, and detain or prevent the suspects. You're basically asking for lawlessness and anarchy, which is what we've seen in the last month or so.

Brutality is actually an everyday event, and it happens to people who don't commit crimes. You don't hear about it because it's so common it doesn't get reported unless it's flagrant.

Police don't need to brutalize people while enforcing the law. Reform simply means to stop the police from brutalizing people. So yes, to oppose reform is to support brutality.

[greg]

If one race of people increases the number of interactions with the police, they will increase the number of incidents where they are shot and killed, even if they are treated as fairly as other races. It's like when you are working as a cashier and interact with one asshole customer a day for a 5 hour shift, you know mathematically that you will interact with more assholes over the course of a week if you start working 8 hour shifts instead.

But the question "The question is why certain certain ethnic groups commit more crime than others in the US (leading to more police interactions)?"... that's not quite a fun question to discuss at all.  Just discussing the problem alone only leads to dark places, so yeah, good luck with that.

It always has something to do with relative poverty, as that seems to be the cause of violent societies in general.

btw "POC" is a useless term because it includes Asians/Indians, which I think make more money than white people on average, and I would definitely assume commit far less crime on average as well.