By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
What do you think should happen to the Police Officer?
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
it is only "3 times as high" if you take the population as the denominator. When you deal with facts and break it down, the amount of black people shot by police officers in the US is entirely consistent with the amount of violent crime being committed by the black population relative to the white population and entirely consistent with the incidences of resisting arrest.
If you commit violent crime and resist arrest you risk being shot by the arresting officer, regardless of your skin colour.
Lisa loves to use partial data to make her case. As you point out the Black Males commit 3 times as much violent crime based on their percentage of the overall population than whites. They also kill 18 times as many Police as Police kill Black people. "Blacks Americans are also 18 times more likely to shoot and kill a police officer than the other way around. Despite making up only 6.4% of the population of the United States, black males make up 33% of cop killers. Blacks are far more likely per 100,000 to kill police officers than any other race." And she wonders why cops are so nervous around them.
Lisa loves to use partial data to make her case. As you point out the Black Males commit 3 times as much violent crime based on their percentage of the overall population than whites. They also kill 18 times as many Police as Police kill Black people. "Blacks Americans are also 18 times more likely to shoot and kill a police officer than the other way around. Despite making up only 6.4% of the population of the United States, black males make up 33% of cop killers. Blacks are far more likely per 100,000 to kill police officers than any other race." And she wonders why cops are so nervous around them.
Have you been watching Larry Elder?
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
This just shows how misinformed and willing to say things you don't know to be true you are. There are countless examples of people being shot once, twice, even up to six or seven times and continuing to charge officers or other people with their weapon before eventually being subdued.
A police officer shoots until the person is no longer a threat. Do you honestly expect the police officer to shoot once, check to see if Ma'Khia is still trying to stab the person she's literally on top of, before deciding whether to shoot again a few seconds later after giving her enough time to stab her target multiple times?
This is from five days ago. A suspect charges at police officers with a weapon. He's shot six times and continues to run towards the officers before eventually dropping to the ground after being hit for the seventh time.
This is from last week. A suspect is shot once but is still able to shoot back at the police officer moments later.
This is from two weeks ago. A suspect manages to take 10+ non lethal rounds before throwing a hammer at the police officers. He's then shot once. He then still manages to throw a hatchet at the officers before they fire again.
There's quite literally hundreds of other examples of people being shot once, twice or more yet continuing to attempt to murder the person(s) they were targeting. There's plenty of examples where the suspect is successful in murdering or seriously injuring people after initially being shot / tased as well. It's very sad.
[Post edited 25 Apr 2021 19:30]
My son in law is an ARV.Interceptor.Unlike lisa,he is sent to the sharp end,the bit where lives are at risk before Police come along too. She is so spectacularly wrong,it is risible,althoigh she wont see it at all. You would be amazed as to what happens out there and how resilient people are when on adrenaline rush.
Good to see some of here are fully conversant with reality and what crap the Police take.
Watch that interview though, it was broadcast tonight, so bang up to date. The man is like a machine, all of his arguments are based on facts. You'd like him. He is bang on the money re: race relations in America as far as I'm concerned.
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
She wasn’t mid lunge when he was first there. He walks towards the incident with his hand on his gun from the outset. And they are grappling (her and another woman) on the grass first before she attacks the other girl at the car. She runs down from outside the house.
As I said, a few times, she seemed to me to be out of control from the clips I saw, so if they say he couldn’t have done anything else after investigating, that’s fair enough. I’m not sure though why he couldn’t have tasered her. But maybe that’s more difficult. No idea.
Well... obviously! It wasn't a summary execution where this cop rocks up and unloads a round into her torso. How is that even a point to make? Any officer worth his salt would recognise this was a volatile situation. Gun at the ready seems the only course of action.
She was shot whilst lunging at her would-be victim. No distinction to make. Lol. And what's with the superfluous, diplomatic language? Seems to be out of control? Just say it how it is! She was wild had to be stopped.
Lisa loves to use partial data to make her case. As you point out the Black Males commit 3 times as much violent crime based on their percentage of the overall population than whites. They also kill 18 times as many Police as Police kill Black people. "Blacks Americans are also 18 times more likely to shoot and kill a police officer than the other way around. Despite making up only 6.4% of the population of the United States, black males make up 33% of cop killers. Blacks are far more likely per 100,000 to kill police officers than any other race." And she wonders why cops are so nervous around them.
But who is willing to look at these issues? At the high single-mother rate among black families, where so many of these these poor kids have no strong, male role model in their lives? The police are seen as the enemy. This is unhealthy and is a root cause of the proportionately high levels of black-on-police homicides. BLM should be addressing the clear disparities here. If they actually cared, of course. There are cultural and social issues in the black community that so many are reluctant to address. Accountability indeed, Mr James.
But who is willing to look at these issues? At the high single-mother rate among black families, where so many of these these poor kids have no strong, male role model in their lives? The police are seen as the enemy. This is unhealthy and is a root cause of the proportionately high levels of black-on-police homicides. BLM should be addressing the clear disparities here. If they actually cared, of course. There are cultural and social issues in the black community that so many are reluctant to address. Accountability indeed, Mr James.
I totally agree, in fact BLM are trying to destroy the formal family unit. The worst cities for crime are the Democrat ones, they need major investments of time and money to improve conditions for the young black community.
“ The rate of fatal police shootings of unarmed Black people in the US is more than 3 times as high as it is among White people, finds research published online in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.”
As I said, in this case, the young woman was clearly out of control and presumably it will be considered whether the police officer could have stopped her in any other way.
If not, it’s not an issue.
Such a nonsense stat. I missed that first time round.
You don’t look at numbers and compare vs population, it tells you absolutely nothing. You look at overall police encounters and take the numbers from that (from the total pool of people each year contacted by police due to criminal activity).
Police aren’t killing the population indiscriminately at random, which that stat alludes to, so you don’t have to take the population into account. They shoot people that ultimately resist arrest or pose imminent danger in police contact. So you have to take the pool from that, not the overall population.
African Americans commit a hugely disproportionate amount of serious crime in comparison with their population split (Black males make up 6% of the population yet commit 40% of the homicides or something to that effect, may even be higher) so obviously there will also appear to be a disproportionate amount of police contact and thus a disproportionate amount of police/perpetrator killing.
So when looking at police contact:-
For every 10,000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed.
For every 10,000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed.
So the “rate” is absolutely not 3 times higher for a black male to be killed by police. It’s actually 25% lower. Not only is it completely false, the opposite is true.
I would imagine because the world goes nuts when someone with dark skin gets killed and isn’t that bothered when someone with fair skin gets killed. The repercussions are far greater with the former; Putting myself in the shoes of a police officer I think I would certainly hesitate when faced with an armed black man; where in the same situation with a white armed man I would be far more inclined to shoot as soon as I felt my (or someone else’s) life was in immediate danger.
That’s sad, scary and should never be the case.
But all races are killed by police in proportion to their serious crime rate, there isn’t any great anomaly present. If anything it’s a police brutality issue as opposed to any sort of race issue, but that’s a matter of training and investment - not defunding.
So all in all; It’s a complete myth which is why so many are angry when people try to portray it as anything else, demonising people and a whole profession with it.
[Post edited 26 Apr 2021 5:50]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
This just shows how misinformed and willing to say things you don't know to be true you are. There are countless examples of people being shot once, twice, even up to six or seven times and continuing to charge officers or other people with their weapon before eventually being subdued.
A police officer shoots until the person is no longer a threat. Do you honestly expect the police officer to shoot once, check to see if Ma'Khia is still trying to stab the person she's literally on top of, before deciding whether to shoot again a few seconds later after giving her enough time to stab her target multiple times?
This is from five days ago. A suspect charges at police officers with a weapon. He's shot six times and continues to run towards the officers before eventually dropping to the ground after being hit for the seventh time.
This is from last week. A suspect is shot once but is still able to shoot back at the police officer moments later.
This is from two weeks ago. A suspect manages to take 10+ non lethal rounds before throwing a hammer at the police officers. He's then shot once. He then still manages to throw a hatchet at the officers before they fire again.
There's quite literally hundreds of other examples of people being shot once, twice or more yet continuing to attempt to murder the person(s) they were targeting. There's plenty of examples where the suspect is successful in murdering or seriously injuring people after initially being shot / tased as well. It's very sad.
[Post edited 25 Apr 2021 19:30]
There may be countless examples of all sorts of unrelated things, but in this case, she fell at the first shot.
Not sure why you feel the need to post up footage of people being killed by the way. It may be something that appeals to you to view, but some of us don’t wish to see it.
My son in law is an ARV.Interceptor.Unlike lisa,he is sent to the sharp end,the bit where lives are at risk before Police come along too. She is so spectacularly wrong,it is risible,althoigh she wont see it at all. You would be amazed as to what happens out there and how resilient people are when on adrenaline rush.
Good to see some of here are fully conversant with reality and what crap the Police take.
Read my post again and this time try and digest its content , I can't imagine your outrage should the officer have killed the person being attacked .
I have expressed no outrage on this thread at all.
I’ve quite clearly said that she seemed out of control and if the investigation finds he had no alternative that’s fair enough.
The only point being made was the expertise from some as to whether he could or couldn’t have done anything different according to how difficult it is to shoot accurately when he shot four times when she was right next to an innocent party is ludicrous. That’s why they’ll have an investigation.
Such a nonsense stat. I missed that first time round.
You don’t look at numbers and compare vs population, it tells you absolutely nothing. You look at overall police encounters and take the numbers from that (from the total pool of people each year contacted by police due to criminal activity).
Police aren’t killing the population indiscriminately at random, which that stat alludes to, so you don’t have to take the population into account. They shoot people that ultimately resist arrest or pose imminent danger in police contact. So you have to take the pool from that, not the overall population.
African Americans commit a hugely disproportionate amount of serious crime in comparison with their population split (Black males make up 6% of the population yet commit 40% of the homicides or something to that effect, may even be higher) so obviously there will also appear to be a disproportionate amount of police contact and thus a disproportionate amount of police/perpetrator killing.
So when looking at police contact:-
For every 10,000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed.
For every 10,000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed.
So the “rate” is absolutely not 3 times higher for a black male to be killed by police. It’s actually 25% lower. Not only is it completely false, the opposite is true.
I would imagine because the world goes nuts when someone with dark skin gets killed and isn’t that bothered when someone with fair skin gets killed. The repercussions are far greater with the former; Putting myself in the shoes of a police officer I think I would certainly hesitate when faced with an armed black man; where in the same situation with a white armed man I would be far more inclined to shoot as soon as I felt my (or someone else’s) life was in immediate danger.
That’s sad, scary and should never be the case.
But all races are killed by police in proportion to their serious crime rate, there isn’t any great anomaly present. If anything it’s a police brutality issue as opposed to any sort of race issue, but that’s a matter of training and investment - not defunding.
So all in all; It’s a complete myth which is why so many are angry when people try to portray it as anything else, demonising people and a whole profession with it.
[Post edited 26 Apr 2021 5:50]
I know you write this stuff thinking it’s a clever take on the situation, but all it shows is how much your opinions are just parroted nonsense from the populist American right wing led by people like Ben Shapiro.
The particular view you’ve just repeated has been debunked so many times it’s not even really worth doing so again. But in case anyone is actually interested in discovering the reality rather than the nonsense I’ll just leave the link to the explanation and they can find out for themselves why it’s such complete rubbish. And I’ve also left a link which spells out in simple terms why your ‘police contact’ point is so spectacularly misguided.
I know you write this stuff thinking it’s a clever take on the situation, but all it shows is how much your opinions are just parroted nonsense from the populist American right wing led by people like Ben Shapiro.
The particular view you’ve just repeated has been debunked so many times it’s not even really worth doing so again. But in case anyone is actually interested in discovering the reality rather than the nonsense I’ll just leave the link to the explanation and they can find out for themselves why it’s such complete rubbish. And I’ve also left a link which spells out in simple terms why your ‘police contact’ point is so spectacularly misguided.
It’s not clever nor is it “a take” on anything. It’s literally the hard data, devoid of opinion or bias. Simply the correct calculation when looking at any sort of specific rate.
It isn’t parroted from anyone, it’s basic mathematics. If they have said it also, it’s probably because it’s factual and the only way to look at that kind of data.
There is nothing to debunk. This is data from the FBI database. All races are killed in proportion to their serious crime rate. It’s that simple.
You do not, repeat, do not - work out any sort of a “rate” with regards to police brutality by looking at population demographics. It is one of the most ridiculous trains of thought one can have and one many left wing sites and “journalists” thought very basically about and ran with it... and thus it has bred posts such as yours.
I read your links and they are again doing the nonsensical thing of population adjustment. It’s crime rate not population that is the calculation, the police don’t randomly kill the population - they kill people involved in police contact. Surely you know this? It really isn’t a complex thing. Completely basic.
............
I’ll try and explain this as simply as I can by taking it away from the emotive subject of police killings, as some are too entrenched in their views they cannot see what they are saying makes absolutely no sense.
For example. 100 staff in an office (take this as population). 90 white, 10 black (take this as population split).
10 people break office protocols at the Xmas party. 5 black and 5 white (take that is as crime rate). All are subsequently fired (take that as police killings).
Now what you are suggesting is that in this instance the office is targeting black people because it fired 50% of the black workforce and only 4.5% of the white workforce and saying that black people are 10 times more likely to get fired.
But that isn’t the case is it, that’s patently false. Because they were all fired for a reason, and both races faced the same punishment. All were treated the same, equally and fairly.
In order to prove that, you take the total pool of protocol breakers (10) and deduce your % from that.... not the total workforce, because if you behave you don’t face that action.
In this instance all races were fired in proportion to their rate of breaking protocols, 100% each.
I can’t explain it any simpler than that.
[Post edited 27 Apr 2021 3:46]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
I know you write this stuff thinking it’s a clever take on the situation, but all it shows is how much your opinions are just parroted nonsense from the populist American right wing led by people like Ben Shapiro.
The particular view you’ve just repeated has been debunked so many times it’s not even really worth doing so again. But in case anyone is actually interested in discovering the reality rather than the nonsense I’ll just leave the link to the explanation and they can find out for themselves why it’s such complete rubbish. And I’ve also left a link which spells out in simple terms why your ‘police contact’ point is so spectacularly misguided.
You are digging your hole ever deeper. From the Washington post's own comments "Overall, the majority of the people who have been shot and killed by police officers in 2015 and 2016 were, based on publicly available evidence, armed with a weapon and attempting to attack the officer or someone else." And then add "But an independent analysis of The Post’s data conducted by a team of criminal-justice researchers concluded that, when factoring in threat level, black Americans who are fatally shot by police are no more likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police." Which does not say they were posing less of a threat but the same threat to the Police or soemone else and that was why they were shot.
For an opposition view using actual data rather than opinions of "a policy-oriented activist collective associated with the Black Lives Matter protest movement " try this.
You are digging your hole ever deeper. From the Washington post's own comments "Overall, the majority of the people who have been shot and killed by police officers in 2015 and 2016 were, based on publicly available evidence, armed with a weapon and attempting to attack the officer or someone else." And then add "But an independent analysis of The Post’s data conducted by a team of criminal-justice researchers concluded that, when factoring in threat level, black Americans who are fatally shot by police are no more likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police." Which does not say they were posing less of a threat but the same threat to the Police or soemone else and that was why they were shot.
For an opposition view using actual data rather than opinions of "a policy-oriented activist collective associated with the Black Lives Matter protest movement " try this.
It includes actual statistics and numbers of those killed and those doing the killing.
They were two of the most mind numbing, intellectually devoid links I had the misfortune of reading.
It’s like someone telling their maths teacher Pythagorean theorem doesn’t work and giving a Logan Paul YouTube video as proof.
I can’t think of a single logical reason that anyone would use something as stupid and senseless as population adjustment unless they wanted to deceive.
A bit like saying “Roy Keane was targeted by refs for being Irish, he got 5 times as many yellow cards as the rest of the team so the proof is clear.”... the rate of which he broke the laws of the game bizarrely seem like an irrelevance.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
It’s not clever nor is it “a take” on anything. It’s literally the hard data, devoid of opinion or bias. Simply the correct calculation when looking at any sort of specific rate.
It isn’t parroted from anyone, it’s basic mathematics. If they have said it also, it’s probably because it’s factual and the only way to look at that kind of data.
There is nothing to debunk. This is data from the FBI database. All races are killed in proportion to their serious crime rate. It’s that simple.
You do not, repeat, do not - work out any sort of a “rate” with regards to police brutality by looking at population demographics. It is one of the most ridiculous trains of thought one can have and one many left wing sites and “journalists” thought very basically about and ran with it... and thus it has bred posts such as yours.
I read your links and they are again doing the nonsensical thing of population adjustment. It’s crime rate not population that is the calculation, the police don’t randomly kill the population - they kill people involved in police contact. Surely you know this? It really isn’t a complex thing. Completely basic.
............
I’ll try and explain this as simply as I can by taking it away from the emotive subject of police killings, as some are too entrenched in their views they cannot see what they are saying makes absolutely no sense.
For example. 100 staff in an office (take this as population). 90 white, 10 black (take this as population split).
10 people break office protocols at the Xmas party. 5 black and 5 white (take that is as crime rate). All are subsequently fired (take that as police killings).
Now what you are suggesting is that in this instance the office is targeting black people because it fired 50% of the black workforce and only 4.5% of the white workforce and saying that black people are 10 times more likely to get fired.
But that isn’t the case is it, that’s patently false. Because they were all fired for a reason, and both races faced the same punishment. All were treated the same, equally and fairly.
In order to prove that, you take the total pool of protocol breakers (10) and deduce your % from that.... not the total workforce, because if you behave you don’t face that action.
In this instance all races were fired in proportion to their rate of breaking protocols, 100% each.
I can’t explain it any simpler than that.
[Post edited 27 Apr 2021 3:46]
Your example shows that if you actually have read the attachments and the links within them, you have not understood them.
Let’s say 10% of police being called to violent crimes ends up in the perpetrator being shot (it’s nowhere near that; but for arguments sake and ease of reading).
Police get called to 100 of these cases over the course of a week. So we can expect around 10 will end up in a police shooting that week.
Whilst 90% of the population is white and 10% black (again for ease of reading)... it turns out that 60 of the 100 perpetrators are white and 40 are black.
Normal logic states that 6 police killings will be white and 4 police killings will be black regardless of population (10% of each crime), because they are reacting to these specific 100 criminal activities, so it’s irrelevant what the wider population is. It’s the crime rate that matter.
Lisa’s logic however, states only 1 of 40 black crimes should end up in a killing “because they only make up 10% of the population” and 9 of the 60 white crimes should end up in a killing.
It’s that nonsensical thinking that people bend to make any narrative they want; even though in reality it shows the complete opposite of what they claim.
Whether they know this or not is unclear. But it’s mind numbingly stupid at best, and incredibly sly and calculating at worst.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Your example shows that if you actually have read the attachments and the links within them, you have not understood them.
Imagine my surprise,
I have read them. They are adjusting for population.
That’s idiotic. It’s doing exactly the same as my office example in saying that black employees are 10 times more likely to be fired when they clearly aren’t. All races were treated equally.
So it’s false.
The author of that “piece” Wesley Lowery, clearly skipped the maths part of school... or any sort of learning establishment.
The actual data of course states that while African Americans make up only 12% of the population, they commit 37% of the nations total serious violent crime rate.
The rate in which crime is committed is disproportionate to their population rate, so naturally police contact will also appear disproportionate if using population as a comparison. Which is why it’s stupid to do so. You use the crime rate.
[Post edited 26 Apr 2021 15:47]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Let’s say 10% of police being called to violent crimes ends up in the perpetrator being shot (it’s nowhere near that; but for arguments sake and ease of reading).
Police get called to 100 of these cases over the course of a week. So we can expect around 10 will end up in a police shooting that week.
Whilst 90% of the population is white and 10% black (again for ease of reading)... it turns out that 60 of the 100 perpetrators are white and 40 are black.
Normal logic states that 6 police killings will be white and 4 police killings will be black regardless of population (10% of each crime), because they are reacting to these specific 100 criminal activities, so it’s irrelevant what the wider population is. It’s the crime rate that matter.
Lisa’s logic however, states only 1 of 40 black crimes should end up in a killing “because they only make up 10% of the population” and 9 of the 60 white crimes should end up in a killing.
It’s that nonsensical thinking that people bend to make any narrative they want; even though in reality it shows the complete opposite of what they claim.
Whether they know this or not is unclear. But it’s mind numbingly stupid at best, and incredibly sly and calculating at worst.
Lisa’s logic says nothing of the sort.
Read the whole article which quite clearly states your actual argument and goes on to prove why it’s nonsense.
I have read them. They are adjusting for population.
That’s idiotic. It’s doing exactly the same as my office example in saying that black employees are 10 times more likely to be fired when they clearly aren’t. All races were treated equally.
So it’s false.
The author of that “piece” Wesley Lowery, clearly skipped the maths part of school... or any sort of learning establishment.
The actual data of course states that while African Americans make up only 12% of the population, they commit 37% of the nations total serious violent crime rate.
The rate in which crime is committed is disproportionate to their population rate, so naturally police contact will also appear disproportionate if using population as a comparison. Which is why it’s stupid to do so. You use the crime rate.
[Post edited 26 Apr 2021 15:47]
No. They state that basic argument but go on to develop it using your nonsense about police interactions and prove why that isn’t relevant. They actually state your argument and refute it.
Try reading the whole thing and the data sets on which it is based rather than cherry picking bits that you think support your case.
Read the whole article which quite clearly states your actual argument and goes on to prove why it’s nonsense.
It contains a picture and everything to help you.
I read it. Its not an article, it’s a leftist author twisting data he doesn’t understand to create a senseless conclusion devoid of any mathematical or logical principles.
It’s mind numbingly stupid. It’s stating that police kill the population at random and there are no mitigating circumstances.
Your logic is clearly stated both in the silly article and your own initial post. You said clearly that black men are shot at 2.5 times the rate of white men. You also used population split to demonstrate that.
That’s false.
They are shot in proportion to their serious crime rate, as are all races. You do not use population for the simple reason that it’s incredibly stupid and intentionally misleading to do so.
[Post edited 26 Apr 2021 15:57]
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.