• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How many until we're even?

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,651
Reaction score
55,264
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The suspect apparently was sitting in the driver's seat of a car when Snyder pulled up, Belmar said. Snyder couldn't see the man's hands and apparently ordered him to show them. The man pulled a gun and fired. McGuire said Snyder was struck once.
St. Louis County police officer shot while answering disturbance call has died | Law and order | stltoday.com

The shooting occurred shortly after noon as Owen, 53, and another deputy responded to a 911 call from a woman reporting a burglary at an apartment building in the 3200 block of West Avenue J-7, authorities said.

As Owen checked the rear of the apartment building, a gunman appeared and shot him.
L.A. County sheriff's sergeant is killed in Lancaster shooting; suspect is in custody - LA Times

Police said Steil was pursuing a suspect who shot the officer with a short-barrel shotgun on Sept. 12 at 7 Mile and Hayes. Other officers tackled and arrested the suspect, who is expected to face additional criminal charges today in light of Steil's death, which the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office has ruled a homicide.
Man charged with murder after Detroit officer dies of wound

Inmate Cleveland Cunningham stabbed Bettis at the dining hall in Atmore's William C. Holman Correctional Facility on Sept. 1. Prison officials report Cunningham stabbed Bettis in retaliation for being denied an extra tray of food during the afternoon meal.
Alabama corrections officer, decorated veteran dies after being stabbed by inmate | AL.com

McCrory’s office said that when Brackeen encountered Fenner, “an altercation ensued” and both men fired gunshots. After Fenner fled, officials said that local, state and federal agencies have been working to find Fenner, at one point announcing a $10,000 reward for information in the case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/14/fugitive-accused-of-killing-north-carolina-police-officer-arrested-in-rhode-island/?utm_term=.1c7c0a63203f

These are just the cops who got killed by shooting or stabbing in the last month. It doesn't include cops who got injured but lived. It doesn't include cops who got run over by drunk drivers or died some other way.

How many more cops have to die before BLM and their toadies figure it's "even"? How many more have to die before the armchair quarterbacks understand that a cop yelling at someone to show their hands isn't "escalating the situation"?

Most of the time cops don't know the person they are engaging. They don't know if the person has a warrant or has a mental health issue or is on drugs. Because of that they take steps to keep themselves and the person they are engaging safe. That might well include ordering the person to stand still or get on the ground. It might involve handcuffing the person or putting them in a patrol car until they get the situation sorted out. That isn't "escalating" the situation. It isn't a violation of anyone's rights. It's prudent and practical police procedure.
 
20150320_copsmillion1.png
 

So your take is that the cops deaths are all fine and dandy because there are less of them than there were in the 20's?

Do you think that a cop who orders someone to put their hands up or keep their hands out of their pockets is escalating the situation and violating that person's rights?

Do you think that a cop should be allowed to handcuff someone they detained? Do you think a cop should be allowed to tell someone to lay down on the ground with their hands out? These are all things that some people perceive as cops escalating engagements thus prompting the engaged party to do stuff like run or fight.

Do you think a cop should have to fully explain his purpose for initiating an engagement before he takes any of the steps mentioned above? If so, do you believe that the person he is engaging should be allowed to ignore any and all police commands until they litigate their side of the story on the street corner?

Basically, do you have any input to this discussion other than some chart that doesn't even address the topic?
 
So your take is that the cops deaths are all fine and dandy because there are less of them than there were in the 20's?

no, he's saying that the number of cops who are killed is significant compared to the number of black folks who get killed by cops. the graph shows less than 0.5 officer fatalities per 1,000,000 residents in the latest data point.
 
no, he's saying that the number of cops who are killed is significant compared to the number of black folks who get killed by cops. the graph shows less than 0.5 officer fatalities per 1,000,000 residents in the latest data point.

So we need to increase the number of cops that get killed to even things up?
 
So we need to increase the number of cops that get killed to even things up?

uh...no? what are you referring to?

wouldn't it make more sense to decrease the number of non-cops that are killed?
 
So your take is that the cops deaths are all fine and dandy because there are less of them than there were in the 20's?
I'm trying to bring some true perspective to your alarmism.

Do you think that a cop who orders someone to put their hands up or keep their hands out of their pockets is escalating the situation and violating that person's rights?

Do you think that a cop should be allowed to handcuff someone they detained? Do you think a cop should be allowed to tell someone to lay down on the ground with their hands out? These are all things that some people perceive as cops escalating engagements thus prompting the engaged party to do stuff like run or fight.

Do you think a cop should have to fully explain his purpose for initiating an engagement before he takes any of the steps mentioned above? If so, do you believe that the person he is engaging should be allowed to ignore any and all police commands until they litigate their side of the story on the street corner?

Basically, do you have any input to this discussion other than some chart that doesn't even address the topic?
Rhetorical questions, I'm pointing out that cop deaths in the US have declined dramatically, that yer basis of "getting even" is a BS argument. The fact is that cops will always be in danger, that is what the job entails, but the fact is that far more people are killed by cops, often unjustified, than cops have been murdered.
 
I'm trying to bring some true perspective to your alarmism.

Rhetorical questions, I'm pointing out that cop deaths in the US have declined dramatically, that yer basis of "getting even" is a BS argument. The fact is that cops will always be in danger, that is what the job entails, but the fact is that far more people are killed by cops, often unjustified, than cops have been murdered.

"often unjustified"? No. The vast majority of incidents where someone is killed by a cop are totally justified and THAT is what I'm getting at.

If a cop stops someone and that someone decides to fight the cop, disobey the cops instructions, flee from the cop or otherwise resist the engagement it is that person that is escalating the situation and the more they escalate the more likely it is that the cop will use force to control the engagement.

There is an incredibly warped perspective these days regarding engagements between the cops and the general public that is perpetuated by precisely the kind of thinking you are exhibiting.
 
St. Louis County police officer shot while answering disturbance call has died | Law and order | stltoday.com


L.A. County sheriff's sergeant is killed in Lancaster shooting; suspect is in custody - LA Times


Man charged with murder after Detroit officer dies of wound


Alabama corrections officer, decorated veteran dies after being stabbed by inmate | AL.com


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/14/fugitive-accused-of-killing-north-carolina-police-officer-arrested-in-rhode-island/?utm_term=.1c7c0a63203f

These are just the cops who got killed by shooting or stabbing in the last month. It doesn't include cops who got injured but lived. It doesn't include cops who got run over by drunk drivers or died some other way.

How many more cops have to die before BLM and their toadies figure it's "even"? How many more have to die before the armchair quarterbacks understand that a cop yelling at someone to show their hands isn't "escalating the situation"?

Most of the time cops don't know the person they are engaging. They don't know if the person has a warrant or has a mental health issue or is on drugs. Because of that they take steps to keep themselves and the person they are engaging safe. That might well include ordering the person to stand still or get on the ground. It might involve handcuffing the person or putting them in a patrol car until they get the situation sorted out. That isn't "escalating" the situation. It isn't a violation of anyone's rights. It's prudent and practical police procedure.

You mean like shooting a guy lying on the ground with his hands in the air?

Or shooting a guy with his hands in the air walking back to his stalled car?
 
You mean like shooting a guy lying on the ground with his hands in the air?

Or shooting a guy with his hands in the air walking back to his stalled car?

There are cases where the cops are wrong. It's tragic when that happens but it's also exceedingly rare. Basing a "social justice" movement on such rare occurrences is manipulative and, perhaps, drives even more people to make really bad decisions when dealing with cops.
 
"often unjustified"? No. The vast majority of incidents where someone is killed by a cop are totally justified and THAT is what I'm getting at.

If a cop stops someone and that someone decides to fight the cop, disobey the cops instructions, flee from the cop or otherwise resist the engagement it is that person that is escalating the situation and the more they escalate the more likely it is that the cop will use force to control the engagement.

There is an incredibly warped perspective these days regarding engagements between the cops and the general public that is perpetuated by precisely the kind of thinking you are exhibiting.
It is "justified"...by review boards, it is "justified" because cops are rarely charged by grand juries, yet :

The think tank’s researchers tracked allegations of misconduct involving nearly 11,000 police officers in the U.S. from April 2009 through December 2010. They found that 3,238 of those cases resulted in criminal charges, and 1,063—or 33% of those charged criminally—resulted in convictions. In felony cases against the general public in 2009 in the country’s 75 largest counties, 66% were convicted, according to the Justice Department’s research arm, the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
 
There are cases where the cops are wrong. It's tragic when that happens but it's also exceedingly rare. Basing a "social justice" movement on such rare occurrences is manipulative and, perhaps, drives even more people to make really bad decisions when dealing with cops.
Do you seriously believe that since 1865 we have had a fair understanding of black/police interactions?
 
There are cases where the cops are wrong. It's tragic when that happens but it's also exceedingly rare. Basing a "social justice" movement on such rare occurrences is manipulative and, perhaps, drives even more people to make really bad decisions when dealing with cops.

Isolated incidents are not isolated because of the news. People don't realize that often these "isolated incidents" aren't indicative of a national, but a LOCAL problem. The police aren't a national force. They are local. But the SJWs just want the world to burn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

From the article you linked to, here's the crux of the argument you seem to be making -

Police say there is a reason so few officers are charged.

“The reason is because it’s usually justified,” said William Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations. “Basically, that the officer acted in self-defense or the defense of another person.”

But critics say there are harms if officers aren’t charged when there is sufficient evidence.

“It’s one factor that enters into the perception of African Americans that the police are not on their side,” said Samuel Walker, a professor emeritus of criminal justice at University of Nebraska. “Shootings are really the tip of that iceberg, and all of that is where the anger came from in Ferguson.”

The argument is that more cops should be charged even if they don't end up getting convicted. That's ridiculous and dangerous. The idea that "there are harms if officers aren’t charged when there is sufficient evidence" might sound good on paper but what's happening is that some video posted on Facebook which only shows part of the engagement or even just an opinion about the engagement is considered to be "sufficient evidence" by parts of the general public. That's not the way things work and with good reason. Anecdotal evidence, whether video, oral or written, only makes up part of the evidence package. If there is other physical and witness evidence that clarifies or nullifies the anecdotal evidence that also needs to be considered. It's part of the "due process" part of things and applies to cops every bit as much as it applies to you and me.

As the professor in the quote says, it's a perception issue and until that perception changes the problems are going to continue. It's my contention that changing that perception requires understanding the cop perspective too and that just isn't happening.
 
From the article you linked to, here's the crux of the argument you seem to be making The argument is that more cops should be charged even if they don't end up getting convicted.
WTF? Cops should be charged if there is evidence of crimes, the point is that in the past their was bias in favor of police for many reasons, that is changing because there is now more evidence of police criminality.

That's ridiculous and dangerous. The idea that "there are harms if officers aren’t charged when there is sufficient evidence" might sound good on paper but what's happening is that some video posted on Facebook which only shows part of the engagement or even just an opinion about the engagement is considered to be "sufficient evidence" by parts of the general public. That's not the way things work and with good reason.
Yer completely mischaracterizing the comment, it is harmful when cops get away without charges when they commit crimes, it leads to less legitimacy of police departments.

Anecdotal evidence, whether video, oral or written, only makes up part of the evidence package. If there is other physical and witness evidence that clarifies or nullifies the anecdotal evidence that also needs to be considered. It's part of the "due process" part of things and applies to cops every bit as much as it applies to you and me.
A truism.

As the professor in the quote says, it's a perception issue and until that perception changes the problems are going to continue. It's my contention that changing that perception requires understanding the cop perspective too and that just isn't happening.
BS, the police perspective as ruled forever, the change, the shift, is due to more cameras capturing what has been going on forever.
 
Do you have a people killed by police per million by year? What is the ratio of police to population today compared to then?
Justifiable homicides by police, as far as those reporting them (and most don't) are increasing since 2000 at a faster rate than population increases.
 
There are cases where the cops are wrong. It's tragic when that happens but it's also exceedingly rare. Basing a "social justice" movement on such rare occurrences is manipulative and, perhaps, drives even more people to make really bad decisions when dealing with cops.

The question is whether its actually exceedingly rare. You assume it is. But statistically.. the color of your skin has been shown to have a LARGE influence in how you are treated by our police and justice departments. These statistics are well established and are prevalent particularly for African americans.

Its hard for white folks to understand the reactions of minorities to what you perceive as "rare events". To white folks.. it appears like a large overreaction.

but I have a little perspective as a parent of an interracial child. My son gets racial crap spewed at him on an almost daily basis. Someone makes a statement, a joke, posts something on facebook etc. If EVERY single time one of his class mates did or said something racial towards him I reacted and responded to it.. ... I would be in the school office everday. Heck... I would have to camp out there. so my son just deals and so do we. Its how things are.

However, every once in a while something happens that's SO bad.. so egregious that I have to go to the school and speak up. and rattle some cages.

Now.. I know that it seems to the administration that I am overreacting because "well its an isolated incident". But the truth is... its really not. Its just part of a much larger problem.. a systemic problem.

And that is a large part of whats going on here. African americans deal with a lot of crap from the police. The statistics all show that. From stop and frisks, traffic stops, all the way to longer sentences for crimes that white people get less sentence or more leniency.
its the way it is.. its the way its been. And now we have situations where a black man.. can be lying on the ground.. his hands in the air.. cooperating fully.. explaining the situation.. .and bang.. he gets shot.

and the general response is "oh well".

its not surprising at all.. at how mad the African community is. In fact.. with the number of events occurring... the African American community has been greatly restrained.
 
Justifiable homicides by police, as far as those reporting them (and most don't) are increasing since 2000 at a faster rate than population increases.

I've seen that there is an increase recently but I haven't seen it done in a per capita comparison.
 
The question is whether its actually exceedingly rare. You assume it is. But statistically.. the color of your skin has been shown to have a LARGE influence in how you are treated by our police and justice departments. These statistics are well established and are prevalent particularly for African americans.

...

sorry for chopping so much of your quote out but my post put the whole thing over the character limit.

This reply opens up a WHOLE lot of room for discussion and I hope that any resulting commentary will be as substantive as the reply warrants.

First off, I won't deny that skin color can and does influence a number of social dynamics. That happens all the time and all over the world. However, chalking it up 100% to racism is, IMHO, myopic. It's human nature and react to traits which are different than those we see in ourselves. While skin tone is one of those traits it's certainly not the only one. Height, weight, posture, apparel, verbal communication, physical abnormalities, perceived attitude and myriad other things also influence the social dynamic. People will draw opinions about big, burly, bald white guys with tattoos. They'll draw opinions about tall, skinny women and disheveled pudgy women with three grubby kids in tow. I've heard plenty of comments regarding black males who don't "talk black" or are light skinned. You're not going to avoid that kind of stereotyping because it's human nature. That being said, I can certainly understand how a black kid feels the burn of a racial comment. After all, he can't change his skin and I'd imagine that a lifetime of "can I touch your hair" would grate on anyone.

As you said, those issues are something you just have to deal with. They have to get dealt with the same way someone with a thick accent or a noticeable physical characteristic has to deal their difference. You build up and emphasize your other traits so that once someone notes that initial difference they can't help but notice that it's a very minor difference when taken in the context of your whole person. I won't make any bones about it, that's a tall order and it's a lifetime commitment but it's one we all have to make if we want to succeed in life. Unfortunately, a lot of people struggle with that commitment. They find it easier to succumb to the negative stereotype than to overcome it. In some cases we end up with entire communities that have succumbed to their stereotype. "White trash" and "ghetto" are two such examples.

Second, you mention a "systemic problem" with race. My perspective is that the term is a crutch and that the "system" is only biased to the extent that the participants in that system allow it to be. In years past there were "systemic" barriers to success for Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese and others. Just 70 years ago Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps just because they were Japanese. Such is the nature of a "melting pot". It seems that things don't get melted together without a good bit of heat. In all those cases, however, the aggrieved segment of society overcame the bias, integrated and thrived. I'd suggest that, on the whole, Blacks have also overcome the "systemic bias", integrated and thrived. The exception is a few pockets where that process has stalled. Perhaps we'd be better off to look at the "system" where those pockets exist rather than presuming the entire judicial system to be flawed.
 
This reply opens up a WHOLE lot of room for discussion and I hope that any resulting commentary will be as substantive as the reply warrants.

First off, I won't deny that skin color can and does influence a number of social dynamics. That happens all the time and all over the world. However, chalking it up 100% to racism is, IMHO, myopic. It's human nature and react to traits which are different than those we see in ourselves. While skin tone is one of those traits it's certainly not the only one. Height, weight, posture, apparel, verbal communication, physical abnormalities, perceived attitude and myriad other things also influence the social dynamic. People will draw opinions about big, burly, bald white guys with tattoos. They'll draw opinions about tall, skinny women and disheveled pudgy women with three grubby kids in tow. I've heard plenty of comments regarding black males who don't "talk black" or are light skinned. You're not going to avoid that kind of stereotyping because it's human nature. That being said, I can certainly understand how a black kid feels the burn of a racial comment. After all, he can't change his skin and I'd imagine that a lifetime of "can I touch your hair" would grate on anyone.

.

Yeah.. sorry but that's a bit of a diversion to claim that racism is "myopic". There are good studies that fairly recently showed that there is deep seated racism in this country that had nothing to do with height, weight, posture. apparel.. etc.

The study involved sending out resumes to over a thousand employers. There were differences in education level etc.. and the main difference was the name on the resume. Either a white sounding name.. or a black sounding name.

What they study found was that if the resumes were equal (education, experience etc)... the resume with the black sounding name was much less likely to get a call back. something like 1/3 less.

In fact.. in one study they compared resumes that were similar except the resume with the white sounding name HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD. while the resume with the black sounding name did not. and the white sounding name STILL got significantly more call backs .

Its hard to "emphasize your other traits"... in a situation where you don;t even get an interview just because the employer "thinks" you might be black.

That's the reality.

And it also brings up an issue because whenever race is brought up.. the white majority immediately rushes to deny that racism exists. Or if it exists its rare, or that its of little consequence because.. "you just emphasize other traits". Just as you did with your post.

and this :

I won't make any bones about it, that's a tall order and it's a lifetime commitment but it's one we all have to make if we want to succeed in life.

No its not one that we all have to make. that's the issue.

The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller.

"While one may have expected that improved credentials may alleviate employers' fear that African-American applicants are deficient in some unobservable skills, this is not the case in our data," the authors write. "Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability."

See.

My perspective is that the term is a crutch and that the "system" is only biased to the extent that the participants in that system allow it to be

the above research shows that is not true. that even getting better education.. did not raise the ability to be employed if you were perceived to be African American.. as much as it did if you were perceived to be white.

Perhap.. instead of thinking that racism and discrimination are isolated "pockets"... we need to address the system issues that are very prevalent and well documented.
 
Yeah.. sorry but that's a bit of a diversion to claim that racism is "myopic". There are good studies that fairly recently showed that there is deep seated racism in this country that had nothing to do with height, weight, posture. apparel.. etc.

The study involved sending out resumes to over a thousand employers. There were differences in education level etc.. and the main difference was the name on the resume. Either a white sounding name.. or a black sounding name.

What they study found was that if the resumes were equal (education, experience etc)... the resume with the black sounding name was much less likely to get a call back. something like 1/3 less.

In fact.. in one study they compared resumes that were similar except the resume with the white sounding name HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD. while the resume with the black sounding name did not. and the white sounding name STILL got significantly more call backs .

Its hard to "emphasize your other traits"... in a situation where you don;t even get an interview just because the employer "thinks" you might be black.

That's the reality.

And it also brings up an issue because whenever race is brought up.. the white majority immediately rushes to deny that racism exists. Or if it exists its rare, or that its of little consequence because.. "you just emphasize other traits". Just as you did with your post.

and this :



No its not one that we all have to make. that's the issue.



See.



the above research shows that is not true. that even getting better education.. did not raise the ability to be employed if you were perceived to be African American.. as much as it did if you were perceived to be white.

Perhap.. instead of thinking that racism and discrimination are isolated "pockets"... we need to address the system issues that are very prevalent and well documented.

I'm not sure what study you're referring to but it sounds like discrimination was based on the name, not the race. Did they submit any applications for a white guy named Jamal? Did they get results for applications with names like Xi and Vijay?
 
I'm not sure what study you're referring to but it sounds like discrimination was based on the name, not the race. Did they submit any applications for a white guy named Jamal? Did they get results for applications with names like Xi and Vijay?
REALLY? that is your response?
Come now.

Now you are just being silly. Its this persistent willingness for folks to be obtuse about this issue.. which is part of the problem
 
REALLY? that is your response?
Come now.

Now you are just being silly. Its this persistent willingness for folks to be obtuse about this issue.. which is part of the problem

Where's the study? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the results. On the other hand, maybe people are putting undue emphasis on race as a discriminatory factor.
 
Where's the study? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the results. On the other hand, maybe people are putting undue emphasis on race as a discriminatory factor.

Here is the synopsis of the study:

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

I don't know if you have a subscription that will allow you to download the full study.

And yes.. you are being purposely obtuse about the results.
 
Back
Top Bottom