Blacks killed by cops.

[bellisarius]

Speaking of a false basis, the big assumption you make is that everyone killed by a police officer is someone who died in the process of committing a felony. This is not remotely the case.

Well, yes it is "remotely" the case 98% of the time. Those numbers are in as well.

 

[bellisarius]

I, too saw those blood curling vids. on youtube, I'm sure that there Is a racism problem too, within some White members of the US Police force.
But you guys are being dishonest through omission, implying that it's a systemic 'White' problem:

White police officers are not more likely to fatally shoot minorities compared to black or Hispanic officers
"If fatal shootings of minority civilians are due to bias by white officers, we would expect that when white officers are involved in a fatal shooting, the person fatally shot would be more likely to be black or Hispanic.
This is not what we found. In contrast, when all the officers that fired at a civilian were black, a person was 2.0 times more likely to be black than when all the officers who fired were white. When all the officers that fired at a civilian were Hispanic, a person was 9.0 times more likely to be Hispanic than when all the officers who fired were white."

https://www.psypost.org/2019/07/whi...-compared-to-black-or-hispanic-officers-54090



ETA

What you guys are doing is dangerous, it puts a target on the back of White cops.

What makes you think that's not a purposeful goal?

 

[beezzz]

all those blacks killed by cops

have one thing in common

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/926cf9733cee15447c03d9a43e590e06de3fd5feff2d28df1aff7b67912b2d22.jpg?w=600&h=460

 

[bellisarius]

A subject that has been thoroughly destroyed by false "percentages."

Let's start with the disclosure that I' drawing from several sources, Snopes, CIA World Factbook, and the FBI-UCR being among them.

In 2015 1,388 citizens were killed by the police. Of those 318 were black and 560 were white. The balance were of "other" ethnic/racial backgrounds. So in raw numbers more whites were killed than blacks. 17% more as a matter of fact. Those numbers are from 2015 and while the year to year total changes, the proportions remain mostly the same.

But hold on here, blacks only represent 13% of the population. Proportionately only 180 blacks should have been killed by the police. Where as whites represent 66% of the population, therefore 916 should have been killed by police, right? All the numbers (percentages) are correct. Obviously blacks are killed at twice the rate of whites.

Make sense to you?

All of those numbers above are bogus (except the raw number), sleight of math. Bullshit peddled by the press.

Time for a reality check. The proportion of your group that is killed by the police is directly proportional to the felonies your groups commits, NOT your proportion of the population. The reasoning is straight forward, the probability of interaction with the police is proportional to the crime rate for your group. If your group happens to be one-legged, Asian lesbians and your group commits 1% of all felonies then the rules of statistics dictate that your group should be 1% of all citizens killed by the police. If it's .5% then you're under-represented and if it's 1.5% you're over-represented.

Fact, 54% of ALL felonies committed in the US are committed by blacks. Applying the rule of proportionality based on felonious behavior the police should have shot 749 blacks in 2015. They are under-represented by a factor of 2 (200%). Conversely whites are over-represented by a factor of 25% and that's not taking into consideration the Hispanic population (approx. 17%).

Point being that if you start with a false basis you end up with a false conclusion.

In the year 2015 approx. 60 women were shot by police. Women are 50% of the population. Clearly we have a HUGE problem here.

For the year 2015 only 4.3% of those killed by police were women. However women make up 50% (actually a little more) of the population.

If you're going to use proportion of the population as a basis for your statistics then it's clear that the police are prejudicially shooting men. The numbers don't lie here. Men are 25 times more likely to be the target of police shootings than women. Shouldn't this warrant a congressional investigation?

OR

Could it be that women are far less likely to be involved in felonies where violence might play a role?

Which is it? You can't play these numbers both ways.

 

[SpeareChucker]

More bull shit based on apples and oranges comparisons.

Go back to school dummy.

The interesting thing is, the further we go out on a limb to protect
their rights as minorities, stop working Broken Windows, end stop and frisk
and prosecute police for being too aggressive, does it make the problem better, or worse?

 

[beezzz]

The question is how do you define problem

you define problem as the police or you can Define problem as crime and criminals

As of now the definition is open to raging debate

 

[bellisarius]

2016 was the high water mark for police shootings so in that respect the numbers are going down, as are murders it seems. However, robbery, burglary, property crimes, and etc. are on the increase. Basically mirroring what is happening in Europe, and Oz.

Obviously the velvet glove isn't working.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Speaking of a false basis, the big assumption you make is that everyone killed by a police officer is someone who died in the process of committing a felony. This is not remotely the case.

Exactly.

Well, yes it is "remotely" the case 98% of the time. Those numbers are in as well.

Prove your claim.

 

[Hal9000_]

I, too saw those blood curling vids. on youtube, I'm sure that there Is a racism problem too, within some White members of the US Police force.
But you guys are being dishonest through omission, implying that it's a systemic 'White' problem:

White police officers are not more likely to fatally shoot minorities compared to black or Hispanic officers
"If fatal shootings of minority civilians are due to bias by white officers, we would expect that when white officers are involved in a fatal shooting, the person fatally shot would be more likely to be black or Hispanic.
This is not what we found. In contrast, when all the officers that fired at a civilian were black, a person was 2.0 times more likely to be black than when all the officers who fired were white. When all the officers that fired at a civilian were Hispanic, a person was 9.0 times more likely to be Hispanic than when all the officers who fired were white."

https://www.psypost.org/2019/07/whi...-compared-to-black-or-hispanic-officers-54090



ETA

What you guys are doing is dangerous, it puts a target on the back of White cops.

First of all, who are "you guys"? I am one person.

Secondly, I imply nothing. I just present facts. Interesting how you omitted my quote "racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, are disproportionately represented in the arrest and victimization reports which are used to compile crime rate statistics in the United States."

Finally, I agree that black LEO's actually kill more black civilians than white officers. Why?

"If anything, black police were more likely to kill black civilians, because police tend to be drawn from the communities they work in. The best predictor of the race of killed civilians, they found, was the rate of violent crime in the place they lived. In areas with high rates of violent crime by African-Americans, police were more likely to shoot dead a black person. In areas in which white people committed more crimes, police were more likely to shoot white people."
https://www.economist.com/democracy...ot-dead-african-americans-than-black-ones-are

Regardless of the race of the cop, they need to adopt more less than lethal methods of subduing unarmed suspects.

 

[HisArpy]

Well said, actually.


OFF TOPIC:

I also found this quite often on Lit. (my only avenue for discussion of social issues):

People challenge the other team for not producing credible evidence, so then they produce some statistics. To which the other team replies by producing Their statistics. Half of debates thus morph into a battle of statistics.

Evidence base and economics are so subjective, they are falsely equated to math and science. Interestingly, AngloSaxon countries figured that out and put Economics in the Dept. of Humanities, we still have them as independent subjects.

It's actually poorly said.

Look at the way the 4th paragraph reads:

"Research suggests that police practices, such as racial profiling, over-policing in areas populated by minorities and in-group bias may result in disproportionately high numbers of racial minorities among crime suspects.

Does anyone believe that if the police patrol in areas populated by minorities that they'll find high numbers of "white guys" committing crimes?

What exactly is "over patrolling"? Is that another way of describing the practice of the police patrolling in high crime areas in sufficient number to ensure individual officer safety and an adequate and speedy response?

"Research suggests" isn't "fact" but conjecture based on the perceptions and biases of the writer. I say this because if there's only a "suggestion" then there is also sufficient lack of evidence to say "nothing happening here". Unless you want to find something. If that's the case, then any small thing you discover is sufficient to say "suggests".

The whole thing is biased from the first sentence to the conclusion. Very poorly written.

 

[LesDesirable]

It's actually poorly said.

Look at the way the 4th paragraph reads:



Does anyone believe that if the police patrol in areas populated by minorities that they'll find high numbers of "white guys" committing crimes?

What exactly is "over patrolling"? Is that another way of describing the practice of the police patrolling in high crime areas in sufficient number to ensure individual officer safety and an adequate and speedy response?

"Research suggests" isn't "fact" but conjecture based on the perceptions and biases of the writer. I say this because if there's only a "suggestion" then there is also sufficient lack of evidence to say "nothing happening here". Unless you want to find something. If that's the case, then any small thing you discover is sufficient to say "suggests".

The whole thing is biased from the first sentence to the conclusion. Very poorly written.

The only bias is against those who stop reading once they find a website that agrees with their preconceived political bias on the issue.

The post was intentionally ambiguous because the data on police shootings is ambiguous.

You see, unlike you, I am unafraid to post my own words and opinions on the topic, and on this one, my opinion is that I do not know the truth because the truth is buried beneath false studies and biased studies.

 

[Rightguide]

The interesting thing is, the further we go out on a limb to protect
their rights as minorities, stop working Broken Windows, end stop and frisk
and prosecute police for being too aggressive, does it make the problem better, or worse?

It makes it easier to be a criminal. If you're an un-socialized asshole who left school in the 8th grade to join a gang and a life of crime to get by, your life has become easier, especially if you live in a jurisdiction governed by Democrats who see your social element, criminal as it might be, as a valued constituency.

 

[Rightguide]

What exactly is "over patrolling"?

Patrolling that results in arrests.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HisArpy View Post

What exactly is "over patrolling"?

Patrolling that results in arrests.

I can't help thinking, assuming I am a law-abiding citizen, and I spend a lot of time in a high-crime area, I will be highly in favor of "over patrolling." In fact, I would want as many cops as possible in the area where I am spending that time. On the other hand, if I were a criminal, I would prefer no cops at all.

And this would be so regardless of my race or ethnicity.

 

[Rightguide]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HisArpy View Post

What exactly is "over patrolling"?



I can't help thinking, assuming I am a law-abiding citizen, and I spend a lot of time in a high-crime area, I will be highly in favor of "over patrolling." In fact, I would want as many cops as possible in the area where I am spending that time. On the other hand, if I were a criminal, I would prefer no cops at all.

And this would be so regardless of my race or ethnicity.

On the other hand if you live in an area that is dominated by a criminal element spending much of it's time engaged in criminal activity, anything that effectively interdicts that activity might be considered "over patrolling" by a large segment of people in the neighborhood.

 

[suurfer]

Regardless of the race of the cop, they need to adopt more less than lethal methods of subduing unarmed suspects.

I think it's a mix.

Thugs Are overrepresented everywhere within Police compared to other jobs. (but the majority are good people)

But if I were a cop in the States I would be anxious as hell and trigger happy too:
Every Jack and Jim, particularly among offenders and suspects, own a gun.

 

[Rightguide]

I think it's a mix.

Thugs Are overrepresented everywhere within Police compared to other jobs. (but the majority are good people)

Since you mentioned it:


FBI: Gang members infiltrating America are hidden in the ranks of police departments

Posted by Mitch McKinley | Jul 22, 2019



The law enforcement community is simply a microcosm of our greater society. The problems and issues we see in our communities will most likely be present in police departments, sheriff’s offices and federal agencies. Issues include, alcoholism, drug use, abuse, theft, suicide and yes, even murder. But among the things that should never be present at any level, much less at a larger degree, is gang membership and activity.

It is that very alleged activity that has led the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to launch a probe into multiple gangs hidden within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

The Banditos, Spartans, Regulators, and Reapers are literal gangs that are claimed to exist within the Los Angeles law enforcement agency. The investigation started after allegations of abuse by the Banditos in March.

All members of the Banditos have tattoos of a skeleton wearing a sombrero, bandolier, and pistol. Allegations against these deputies include using gang tactics to recruit young Latino deputies, and punishing those who reject their advances with physical attacks.

An unidentified source told the Los Angeles Times that FBI agents “are trying to determine whether leaders of the Banditos require or encourage aspiring members to commit criminal acts, such as planting evidence or writing false incident reports, to secure membership in the group.”

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-gang-members-are-hidden-in-the-ranks-of-police-departments/

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fbi-investigating-sheriff-20190711-story.html

 

[suurfer]

Since you mentioned it:


FBI: Gang members infiltrating America are hidden in the ranks of police departments

Posted by Mitch McKinley | Jul 22, 2019



The law enforcement community is simply a microcosm of our greater society. The problems and issues we see in our communities will most likely be present in police departments, sheriff’s offices and federal agencies. Issues include, alcoholism, drug use, abuse, theft, suicide and yes, even murder. But among the things that should never be present at any level, much less at a larger degree, is gang membership and activity.

It is that very alleged activity that has led the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to launch a probe into multiple gangs hidden within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

The Banditos, Spartans, Regulators, and Reapers are literal gangs that are claimed to exist within the Los Angeles law enforcement agency. The investigation started after allegations of abuse by the Banditos in March.

All members of the Banditos have tattoos of a skeleton wearing a sombrero, bandolier, and pistol. Allegations against these deputies include using gang tactics to recruit young Latino deputies, and punishing those who reject their advances with physical attacks.

An unidentified source told the Los Angeles Times that FBI agents “are trying to determine whether leaders of the Banditos require or encourage aspiring members to commit criminal acts, such as planting evidence or writing false incident reports, to secure membership in the group.”

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-gang-members-are-hidden-in-the-ranks-of-police-departments/

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fbi-investigating-sheriff-20190711-story.html

Wow. Just wow. It reminded me of one of the best movies of all times, L.A.Confidential. So eerie.
But I shouldn't be surprised, it makes sense that criminal elements would try to infiltrate Police to get advantages. But one thinks of forms like bribery of officers, not actually sending in gang members to become officers.



===============

This was also an interesting one - from the Comments section:

"Robert Bagnell
This really doesn’t surprise me in 2004 I attended training as a member of Virginia Homicide Investigators Association.
A large part of this training was free various Federal Law Enforcement Agencies and focused on criminal gangs the Department of Corrections discussed how they had intercepted correspondence between incarcerated gang leaders and gang leaders on the outside the gist was to recruit young people to the gang but keep them separate and help them finish not only high school but assist with college/community colleges so as to get a good education and never let them get involved with the criminal aspects of the gang. The end game was to get gang members into law enforcement agencies, prosecuting attorney offices and maybe ultimately to become judges. This has been knocked to law enforcement for at least 15 years now so why are we acting surprised?"

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-gang-members-are-hidden-in-the-ranks-of-police-departments/

 

[acerbedingfield]

The problem of patrolling and thus policing black and Hispanic neighborhoods is this...

THEY don't WANT cops in their hoods while they are conducting their own criminal endeavors, but when something happens to THEM on an individual basis, they then want and expect police to be on patrol.

Its a classic of "I cant report my neighbor for stealing the other neighbors credit card and buying 3,000 in tvs.... because he gave me a tv to keep quite."

 

[HisArpy]

The only bias is against those who stop reading once they find a website that agrees with their preconceived political bias on the issue.

The post was intentionally ambiguous because the data on police shootings is ambiguous.

You see, unlike you, I am unafraid to post my own words and opinions on the topic, and on this one, my opinion is that I do not know the truth because the truth is buried beneath false studies and biased studies.

I read a lot more legal stuff than most people. Especially those who only read selected media sources.

It's from all of that reading where I form my opinions AND allows me to spot crap when I see it.

That article is crap because it starts with a preconceived premise then arranges the information to suit that premise while adding in qualifiers like "research suggests" and then throws in more meaningless terms like "over patrolling".

There's been more than enough "real" research done to show that the police do not profile based solely on ethnicity. Yet, for some reason, the article assumes that racial profiling is routinely done. Ask yourself why that is. The answer is because without that assertion (and others), the article has nothing to support the preconceived premise.

 

[HisArpy]

Regardless of the race of the cop, they need to adopt more less than lethal methods of subduing unarmed suspects.

There IS a "less lethal" method. It's called not resisting arrest and surrendering.

 

[bellisarius]

Anyone going to bother to take a stab at which metric is best to base the statistics on?

 

[Kantarii]

Anyone going to bother to take a stab at which metric is best to base the statistics on?

You seen what happened when I threw a statistic out there on the mass shooting thread

 

[bellisarius]

If you mean gerrymandered statistics based on false premises, then yes I've seen it. They've been doing it for years.

 

[Kantarii]

If you mean gerrymandered statistics based on false premises, then yes I've seen it. They've been doing it for years.

I was referring to the statistic of California having the highest number of mass shootings.