• 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!

Study: Black Americans 3 times more likely to be killed by police

vanceen said:
Obviously they aren't all justified. But it still doesn't follow that a reduced number of police killings will result in a lower percentage of blacks among those killed.
Click to expand...

It does if you assume the unjustified killings will be the majority of those that are stopped. This is the intention of the protestors. To stop unjustified killings.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Nice attempt at diversion, but "So what?".

I did use the terms "conservative", "middle of the road" (AKA "centrist"), and "liberal", and that is because I recognize that there are more "shadings" of political belief than those proclaimed by "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Republican Party’)" and "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Democratic Party’)", and also because I recognize that the world's political spectrum is a whole lot wider than the US political spectrum is.
Click to expand...

Cant imagine what any of that has to do with your view that those who commit homicide or violent crime are the victims.
 
uptower said:
And that wouldn't go down if the police were less brutal?
Click to expand...

No they would still be 26% of the victims. A lower overall # of victims but still accounting for 26% of the total.

uptower said:
George Floyd for example would still have been killed? Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Philando Castile? That notion beggars belief.
Click to expand...

Only because you don't comprehend the concept of percentages.
 
dixon01767 said:
No they would still be 26% of the victims. A lower overall # of victims but still accounting for 26% of the total.



Only because you don't comprehend the concept of percentages.
Click to expand...

The whole point is that the brutality includes victims who shouldn't have died. Who wouldn't have died if the police were less brutal. Lower the brutality rate, lower the rate of those who died needlessly. It's so simple it barely qualifies as math.
 
vanceen said:
Obviously they aren't all justified. But it still doesn't follow that a reduced number of police killings will result in a lower percentage of blacks among those killed.

Even if you assume that the higher proportion of black deaths per capita is 100% due to simple racism (which is debatable to say the least), there's still no reason to think that killings of blacks will decrease more than killings of non-blacks (the majority of deaths at the hands of the police).
Click to expand...

Look is this an argument that the police shouldn't try less brutality?
 
uptower said:
Look is this an argument that the police shouldn't try less brutality?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I'm just challenging your assumption, which seems to be that unjustified killings happen only to (or even mainly to) black people. That is not in evidence, and it is far from obvious.

If cops were trained better, Walter Scott might still be alive. But the white guy that the cops shot while he was crawling along a hotel hallway in his underwear would also be alive. Everyone would benefit.
 
uptower said:
The whole point is that the brutality includes victims who shouldn't have died. Who wouldn't have died if the police were less brutal. Lower the brutality rate, lower the rate of those who died needlessly. It's so simple it barely qualifies as math.
Click to expand...


26 out of 100 or 260 out of a thousand is still 26%
 
dixon01767 said:
Cant imagine what any of that has to do with your view that those who commit homicide or violent crime are the victims.
Click to expand...

Since that is not MY view (it's your invention), your post is unintelligible.
 
dixon01767 said:
26 out of 100 or 260 out of a thousand is still 26%
Click to expand...

Why can't it change? Why is it set in stone? Is it as immutable a law as gravity?

It is common sense that if police were less excessive toward people of color (remember that figure is double their representation of the population and in some areas a lot higher than 26%) that the 26 out of a hundred would drop to 24, or 20, or 10 who knows? Even if this apparently immovable percentage doesn't drop with better policing - and remember the OP points out the death rate is still three times higher - then the sheer number will still drop and it's still a win. To those who see fewer deaths at the hands of the police as a win.

Either way the cops need to do a bit less guns blazing and more community policing. It sounds less glamourous and not as 'tough,' but it works in many places that have a lower crime rate, less police brutality and where people of color needn't live in fear of a routine stop.
 
vanceen said:
Of course not. I'm just challenging your assumption, which seems to be that unjustified killings happen only to (or even mainly to) black people. That is not in evidence, and it is far from obvious.

If cops were trained better, Walter Scott might still be alive. But the white guy that the cops shot while he was crawling along a hotel hallway in his underwear would also be alive. Everyone would benefit.
Click to expand...

Not 'only' but disproportionately, which has been demonstrated with the figures we've seen. And yes, everyone would benefit, but at the moment there's still a racial disparity of 3 to one regarding who gets killed by cops.

I ask again, does this mean the police shouldn't even try less brutality? That nothing needs to change?
 
Mycroft said:
They are probably three times more stupid when they deal with the police. You know...resisting, fighting, shooting, running, etc.
Click to expand...

It's a reflection of the rate at which young black men commit violent crimes.

They muddy the waters much the same way they do with immigration, by including LEGAL immigration stats with illegals, and proposing that opposing ILLEGAL immigration is the same as opposing all immigration... here they throw in justifiable shootings with the George Floyd style deaths.

In the case of deaths by police, once to remove the violent criminal assaults, and armed confrontations and get down to the George Floyd-style deaths, where the suspect dies while presenting no threat to the police, it turns out that young white men die at a rate equal or higher to young black men.
 
uptower said:
Why can't it change? Why is it set in stone? Is it as immutable a law as gravity?
Click to expand...


Because as long as blacks are more likely to be involved in violent crime, they will more likely be involved in deadly encounters with the police.
 
uptower said:
Not 'only' but disproportionately, which has been demonstrated with the figures we've seen. And yes, everyone would benefit, but at the moment there's still a racial disparity of 3 to one regarding who gets killed by cops.

I ask again, does this mean the police shouldn't even try less brutality? That nothing needs to change?
Click to expand...

I answered that question explicitly once, and implicitly several times. Why do you ask it again? Do you think that there is no point in reducing police brutality unless it reduces the proportion of black people who suffer from it?

Yes, there is a disparity, and that is a problem. But there is no reason on the face of it to think that reducing unjustified killings will reduce the proportion of unjustified killings of blacks.
 
dixon01767 said:
Because as long as blacks are more likely to be involved in violent crime, they will more likely be involved in deadly encounters with the police.
Click to expand...

With equal correctness, that could be written as

Because as long as -blacks- _poor people_ are more likely to be involved in violent crime, they will more likely be involved in deadly encounters with the police.

Mind you, I am fully aware that some people REALLY do want to ignore the socioeconomic aspects and concentrate on the amount of melanin people have in their skin. Possibly because it's much easier to tell what "colour" someone is than whether or not they are poor (and, besides, the odds of a poor person looking like those who want to concentrate on the amount of melanin in peoples' skins mean that it just might not be the amount of melanin in someone's skin is a 100% absolute, infallible, positive, guide to whether or not they are a drug crazed, murderous, rapist who can be shot on sight).​
 
dixon01767 said:
Most people wouldnt consider those who commit homicide or violent crime to be the victim. Precisely the opposite. I guess a canadian centrist is equivalent to an American leftist.
Click to expand...

Leftists tend to find ways to excuse socially deleterious actions.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
With equal correctness, that could be written as

Because as long as -blacks- _poor people_ are more likely to be involved in violent crime, they will more likely be involved in deadly encounters with the police.

Mind you, I am fully aware that some people REALLY do want to ignore the socioeconomic aspects and concentrate on the amount of melanin people have in their skin. Possibly because it's much easier to tell what "colour" someone is than whether or not they are poor (and, besides, the odds of a poor person looking like those who want to concentrate on the amount of melanin in peoples' skins mean that it just might not be the amount of melanin in someone's skin is a 100% absolute, infallible, positive, guide to whether or not they are a drug crazed, murderous, rapist who can be shot on sight).​
Click to expand...


I think you make a good point there, in your inimitable fashion. I would be very interested to see a breakdown of police killings by income of the victim.​
 
vanceen said:
I think you make a good point there, in your inimitable fashion. I would be very interested to see a breakdown of police killings by income of the victim.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting, indeed, unfortunately those sort of statistics are not kept.

It's like "race". In Canada, the census form does not ask about "race", but does ask about "ethnicity". In the US, the census form does not ask about "ethnicity" but does ask about "race". That means that, in Canada a "White South African" and a "Black South African" get lumped into the same demographic while in the US a "Black Canadian" and a "Black Nigerian" get lumped into the same demographic.
 
dixon01767 said:
Because as long as blacks are more likely to be involved in violent crime, they will more likely be involved in deadly encounters with the police.
Click to expand...

when a demographic that is less than 5% of the population, is responsible for more than 50% of the most serious felonies, that group will have higher incidents of lethal encounters with law enforcement than say a group that makes up 5% of the population and is only responsible for 2% of the most serious felonies
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
They are also 2.44 times more likely to be "involved in poverty" - which you don't want to admit.
Click to expand...

this is what i dont get

why does poverty "justify" crime?

look at alabama, mississippi, louisiana.....all poor states with huge gluts of poverty....hell you can throw west virginia and a few others in there also

the crime in the lower income/poverty areas is nowhere near what it is in urban areas....

and the jobs are just as scarce....and the ability for blacks to get those jobs is probably EVEN WORSE

so again....why is poverty your go to answer?

imo it has little to do with poverty, and a lot to do with opportunity....ability to join gangs....areas where cops really dont want to patrol

and so when they do get caught, it is usually for more than a slap on the wrist....and they panic, and the fighting, running, and resisting starts....and that is where the real issues start
 
TurtleDude said:
when a demographic that is less than 5% of the population, is responsible for more than 50% of the most serious felonies, that group will have higher incidents of lethal encounters with law enforcement than say a group that makes up 5% of the population and is only responsible for 2% of the most serious felonies
Click to expand...

You mean that "Asians" (the closest American demographic group to 5% that I could find) are responsible for more than 50% of the most serious felonies?

Wow!! I never knew that before.
 
gdgyva said:
this is what i dont get

why does poverty "justify" crime?
Click to expand...

Poverty no more "justifies" crime than age, sex, race, religion, or national origin does.

There is a difference between "justifies" and "creates conditions conducive to".

gdgyva said:
look at alabama, mississippi, louisiana.....all poor states with huge gluts of poverty....hell you can throw west virginia and a few others in there also

the crime in the lower income/poverty areas is nowhere near what it is in urban areas....
Click to expand...

When there isn't anything worth stealing where they are, people tend to go to places where there are things worth stealing. There is a difference between "rural poor" and "urban squalor" you know.

gdgyva said:
and the jobs are just as scarce....and the ability for blacks to get those jobs is probably EVEN WORSE

so again....why is poverty your go to answer?
Click to expand...

It isn't my "go to" anything. It is a factor and it is a factor that applies across race. It is also a factor that those who want to blame everything on "Those Uppity _[Fill in the blank]_" really don't want to talk about.

gdgyva said:
imo it has little to do with poverty, and a lot to do with opportunity....ability to join gangs....areas where cops really dont want to patrol
Click to expand...

No one can question the "factual validity" of an opinion.

gdgyva said:
and so when they do get caught, it is usually for more than a slap on the wrist....and they panic, and the fighting, running, and resisting starts....and that is where the real issues start
Click to expand...

And when they are unarmed, unresisting, shot and killed when the police showed up to the wrong place (then the real issues start when the entire police administration and union hierarchy attempts to block any action being taken against the police officers involved on the grounds of "they were only doing their job").
 
jmotivator said:
It's a reflection of the rate at which young black men commit violent crimes.

They muddy the waters much the same way they do with immigration, by including LEGAL immigration stats with illegals, and proposing that opposing ILLEGAL immigration is the same as opposing all immigration... here they throw in justifiable shootings with the George Floyd style deaths.

In the case of deaths by police, once to remove the violent criminal assaults, and armed confrontations and get down to the George Floyd-style deaths, where the suspect dies while presenting no threat to the police, it turns out that young white men die at a rate equal or higher to young black men.
Click to expand...

I can't hear a thing, but my dog is going nuts.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Poverty no more "justifies" crime than age, sex, race, religion, or national origin does.

There is a difference between "justifies" and "creates conditions conducive to".



When there isn't anything worth stealing where they are, people tend to go to places where there are things worth stealing. There is a difference between "rural poor" and "urban squalor" you know.



It isn't my "go to" anything. It is a factor and it is a factor that applies across race. It is also a factor that those who want to blame everything on "Those Uppity _[Fill in the blank]_" really don't want to talk about.



No one can question the "factual validity" of an opinion.



And when they are unarmed, unresisting, shot and killed when the police showed up to the wrong place (then the real issues start when the entire police administration and union hierarchy attempts to block any action being taken against the police officers involved on the grounds of "they were only doing their job").
Click to expand...

has anyone on this site claimed the law enforcement agencies across the country are perfect, or even close to it?

when there are 800k members of that fraternity, it doesnt take a huge % to put numbers into perspective does it?

1% is 8000 officers....that is a crap load....i dont know any profession where 99% of the work force is really proficient, do you?

yet we seem to expect that from our LE departments....

so much of what they do is spelled out in manuals, and taught in academies....and yet when they are put into high stress situations, they panic, they make mistakes, and then like every other type of human being, they try to cover their asses

and again...we arent talking 50k LE officers making those mistakes.....we are talking maybe 500-1000 a year.....less than 1/10 of 1% of the total on the street

i cant condone the mistakes....i cant understand how some of these officers get through the training....yet they do....and they are weeded out as fast as we can

we are a society that needs to be regulated and policed....otherwise it will be anarchy and lawlessness....back to the wild west era

maybe a few member of BLM need to sit through the LA or NYC academy classes and see what is taught and maybe what changes could be made.....that then could go nationwide
 
Luce said:
I can't hear a thing, but my dog is going nuts.
Click to expand...

No dog whistles here, it just happens to be the case. The violent crime rate is high in impoverished communities, regardless of the predominant skin color of a given community. Since there is a high rate of violent crime in those communities there is a high rate of police activity and violent police response to violence in those communities.

When you remove the deaths due to armed altercations with the police, justifiable shootings, the disparity vanishes between races, and there is a very slightly higher chance of an unarmed white man dying to police brutality than a black man. That is just the facts.

What pisses me off is that progressives have moved from an actual virtuous, though misguided, attempt to eliminate POVERTY, which is the underlying problem to community violence, and have now tried to short circuit it and just make the problem about the Police, who are the men and women who are actually standing between law abiding citizens ion impoverished communities, who make up the vast majority, and the 2 bit criminals that prey on their communities.

And as the virtue signaling schmucks push the police out of poor communities the actual violence and death in those communities skyrockets. We've seen it for years in Chicago, and Baltimore where a unjustified death of someone in police custody lead to a backlash on policing in general, resulting in skyrocketing murder and crime rates. But you never hear any of those schmucks say a damn thing about the innocent dead they leave in their wake as they remove these communities' protection from violent crime.

As long as you refuse to see ALL of the underlying statistics you can only be part of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom