Another NYC police officer is dead
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
You won't find any network stating that fact except Fox. It would destroy the racist white cops meme. It's also interesting that the Baltimore officer charged with the stiffest crime, second degree murder, is black. But Marc Lamont Hill was on tv this morning calling this a racist crime.
Numbers is not the item in question. PC would not be involved. Numbers don't upset the elitist liberals.
Look at the Boston Marathon trial. All kinds of words written about the younger was swayed by the older brother. Most of us have forgotten that they assignated a policeman sitting in his car for no reason.
Was he ambushed? The article I read doesn't make it sound so. It's a tragic event. Naturally, the media won't get to exercised over this. What does the preceding mean? The media (Fox News in this instance) reported it, what else are they supposed to do? You struggle to accurately characterize anything.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/0...ortedly-dies-from-injuries/?intcmp=latestnews
You are confusin two different posts. The Fox reference dealt with the issue that the media is ignoring the fact that white men are killed by police far more often than black men. That fact doesn't fit the media narrative of racist white cops.
As for the media getting exercised about it, I can guarantee if two cops had killed another black man rather than the reverse, it would be national news and repeated over and over again.
As for the media getting exercised about it, I can guarantee if two cops had killed another black man rather than the reverse, it would be national news and repeated over and over again.
By percentages that isn't true.
Also, you are ignoring the specifics of the cases. Have we heard about every black man that has been killed by cops? Doubt it. But we heard about Michael Brown because he was unarmed and supposedly had his hands up when shot. (we since learned that wasn't true, but that's what got all the attention, not just because he was black)
The choking in NY wasn't just because he was black, but because again, there was an unarmed black man killed by police. This time choked to death.
In SC, we heard about it not just because he was black, but because once again there was an unarmed black man killed by the police. This time shot in the back while running away.
In Baltimore we heard about it not just because he was black, but because once again there was an unarmed black man killed by the police. This time his spinal cord was severed either during the arrest or after he was already in custody.
If there are white people getting killed by police in similar circumstances and we aren't hearing about it, then shame on everybody. But to say that these cases are solely because the victims were black is overly simplistic.
That's mere speculation. There have been scores of black men killed by police that have NOT been on national news. But if you're that good at speculation, perhaps you could share Wednesday's power ball numbers.
I simply made the correct observation that only Fox News will report the simple fact that far more whites are killed by police than blacks. In fact, whites are killed at a higher rate. When black activists blame racist white cops, the media parrots the party line. They never challenge nor cite these actual stats that disprove the activists claims. In fact, more whites are killed as a percentage of those that commit violent crimes than blacks.
More importantly, an unarmed white man was killed by a black police officer recently. Did you see that fact in the nighly news? I have read several news accounts of the police officer killed in NYC that didn't even mention that the killer was black.
As you can see in the linked article, blacks commit nearly 40% of all violent crimes. Yet, blacks were only 33% of the victims of killings by police officers as compared to whites.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439
Last edited:
Not sure where you're getting your data ... this came from one of the links in the article you posted.
------------------
The US Bureau of Justice Statistics says there were 2,931 “arrest-related deaths” from 2003 to 2009. That includes car chases, shootouts and so on. The casualties are nearly always male, and men aged 25 to 34 are most likely to die.
Some 41.7 per cent of the casualties were white and 31.7 per cent were black.
Since black people only make up about 13 per cent of the US population, and nearly 63 per cent of Americans are white, blacks were disproportionately likely to be killed.
-------------------
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2014/11/25_fc_felix.jpg
Divide the deaths by the average population and there were more than three black deaths at police hands per million people compared to about one in a million for whites.
The FBI also has some figures on this but it is very incomplete, with only a fraction of America’s 17,000 law enforcement agencies submitting data, so the numbers should probably be seen as the bare minimum.
We haven’t been furnished with the original data by the feds, so we’re relying on secondhand reports from the US media.
Vox.com says there were 426 “felons killed by police” in 2012, and 31 per cent of the victims were black – a disproportionately high percentage, and very similar to the Bureau of Justice figures.
The website ProPublica also looks at FBI figures but concentrates on young men aged 15 to 19 and finds that black people in this age group are 21 times more likely to be killed by the police.
When it was white officers who did the killing, the casualties were black nearly half (46 per cent) the time.
Finally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collect figures for deaths caused by “legal intervention”, which includes police killings but leaves out executions.
From 2010 to 2012, black people were two to three times more likely to be killed by legal intervention.
Does any of this mean that this “fact”, which has been very widely circulated on the internet, is true?
The CDC stats for fatalities at the hands of the police are much more accurate since they account for all deaths. The last year of available stats from the CDC establish the fact that while 123 blacks were killed in 2012 by police, 326 whites were killed. Since blacks account for approximately 40% of violent crimes and whites about 31%, whites are disproportionately being killed by the police.
Like most libs, you are citing disparate analysis stats that are so flawed as to be useless. You can't look at the black population of 13% and judge police killings in that context. It has to be based on the far more relevant crime stats. The sad fact is that blacks account for roughly 40% of all violent crimes. That is why they interact with police much more often than the 13% figure would indicate.
http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/policekillings.jpg
NYPD cop assignated and another black v white cop in Baltimore, how many protests will we see. Would you speculate on that?
Like most conservatives, you believe that the blacks deserve their plight and apparently deserve to be killed. And that all cops are infallible.
Your stats are the ones that are so flawed as to be useless. You stated that you had no agenda or emotional involvement and would let the facts guide your judgement, and yet, very predictably, you ignore all data and facts and twist everything to fit your preconceived notions.
What difference does it make what percentage commit violent crimes? If they are being killed in the process of a violent crime, then fine.
However, what crime do we have in which the punishment is immediate execution by police?
Is selling second hand cigarettes a violent crime?
Is making eye contact with a cop a violent crime?
Is running from a cop because you owe child support a violent crime?
None of those 3 were in the act of any violent crime, and that's just 3 cases that show how your statistic is completely meaningless and baseless.
What is classified as violent crime? Domestic violence? If so, here is where that statistic is likely flawed. Let's take a small town where everybody knows everybody and the redneck husband and wife are fighting again. The police get called, the small town police squad already know these people on a first name basis because Billy Bob and he played football together in HS, and his sister used to babysit for Mary. So, the police show up, tell Billy Bob and Mary to calm down, act as mediators for a little while, and then leave with no charges being filed.
Move that to an inner city. Nobody knows anybody, there is a domestic violence call, the police show up, and the black husband is immediately arrested and taken to jail and becomes part of the statistics, where as in the dozen or so times the police visited Billy Bob and Mary, there was never a charge and Billy Bob never becomes part of the statistics.
Actually, you can pretty much remove "blacks" from your statistics in the first place, because there have been studies done that show that blacks and whites are about equally likely to engage in the same crimes (like drug use), but the blacks are arrested far more. Again, urban versus small-town/rural probably skew those numbers. Cops show up in a big city and immediately make an arrest ... in a small town, they are probably more likely to say "keep it at home and out of view" if it's something innocuous like weed. (they wouldn't do that for heroine and meth)
To my point, there is this story yesterday www.wboy.com/story/28971660/fairmont-man-arrested-after-threatening-police. You put this in a big city, instead of a small town, and this guy is likely dead. At the very least, he did far more to provoke police than any of the 3 cases I referenced.
Studies have also shown that blacks are twice as likely to be pulled over for traffic stops. Studies have also shown that those in the same socio-economic class are equally likely to engage in the same types of crimes, although it's harder to find large pockets of whites condensed in a small area than it is for blacks.
I have tried to stop with the name calling, but you are an (*****). You have gone off the deep end.
There are so many fun and non-PC sarcastic comments I could make with this thread. I just don't think it would translate and someone would actually think I was being serious.
I get sick of seeing you jackwagons that ignore everything that doesn't fit your viewpoint and only accepting what does. You even jumped all over me one time for being a "liberal" for correctly analyzing data that was provided. Call me whatever you want, but when the data is right in front of you and you start name calling and pidgeonholing just because you don't like what the data indicates ... that shows a lack of critical and objective thinking.
I get sick of looking at data, citing what the data shows and then being called "liberal" or "oh yeah, you're really bipartisan" or being accused of having an agenda and everything else that goes with it just because you guys don't like what the data shows.
I supplied multiple different data points from several different sources that all reach the same conclusion and tri-state comes back with "Like most libs, blah blah blah" It pissed me off, I responded inappropriately. Because I did that, probably everything else in my post will get ignored (clearly that's the only thing that resonated with you), and that's on me.
There's plenty of room for you to look in the mirror too.
LOL. You should see/hear all the things I DON'T say, for that very reason. It would help if there was a "sarcasm" font.
and blacks are disproportionate involved in violent crime. Hence the numbers. What percentage of black children are fatherless? Therein lies the problem.
Here we go with the name calling. Unlike you I take all sides into account and if you check my all my posts you would see that to be the truth. Your bogus non partisan claim is that you are "lukewarm" on the Clintons. That's a real "hoot". I'm sure the truth will come out at election time. You will fall "lockstep" right into line. I ALSO have provided you with FACTS and DATA that you totally ignore if it does not FIT YOUR NARRATIVE.
I think what Whitetail wants is for police to stop patroling in high crime neighborhoods. This would result in less stops and fewer arrests. It most certainly would result in fewer deaths at the hands of the police. Then the stats would "even" out. So what if violent crime increases dramatically. What's important is the stat line.
That's odd. You'd think that if "black lives matter" that we'd see non-stop coverage of the fact that 90% of black men are killed by other black men ..... and yes, many of those victims were unarmed. To suggest there are not pathetic double standards constantly applied is obscenely obtuse.
So do the "black lives matter" when other black men are the ones who take those black lives?
Apparently not because I don't see the rioting and mass coverage in these neighborhoods when a black male snuffs out another black male .......... and that occurs 900% more frequently.
Whitetail, here is some data for you to digest. I also might suggest that you try to spend some time in places like Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland , Detroit and many others. And please don't just take the tour bus. I have been to all these cities and many more and It was NOT to sight-see.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wG1IbusMYGsRxkzmjpfD47E6E1MoDqFA6Y4RL8oG7ME/pub?output=html
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wG1IbusMYGsRxkzmjpfD47E6E1MoDqFA6Y4RL8oG7ME/pub?output=html
You're something else. You start with the name calling, have done it on my posts rather consistently, but then cry now?
When did I ever make that claim? I've spoken out consistently on the Clintons, particularly Hilary.
I don't know where you get this from. I've stated repeatedly and consistently that both parties are corrupt and that neither party has gotten my vote in quite a long time, and aren't likely to anytime soon.
Specifically what and when?
There's not a single accurate statement in anything you wrote. Talk about going off the deep end.
The vast majority of whites are killed by other whites too, what the hell does that have to do with police killings?
Are all black males sworn to serve and protect? Talk about obscenely obtuse.
I apologize for the gross generalization statement regarding conservatives.
Beyond that ... this is typical of what you do. You hold on to ONE stat that could possibly fit your agenda and ignore everything else. Then you go into a series of statements that attempt to change the subject or deflect onto something else. Or, as is the case here, make a statement that has absolutely nothing to do with what somebody actually said.
You: Do you like dogs
Me: Yes, I've always had dogs
You: Have you ever had cats?
Me: No
You: Oh, so you're saying you hate cats. Hey everybody WhiteTail hates cats!!
One stat? I have simply argued that your use of disparate impact is fatally flawed. If you don't consider who is actually committing the crimes and thus has more interaction with the police, the statrs are irrelevant. Blacks making up 13% of the population doesn't mean they should account for 13% of all stops and arrests and that any percentage higher than 13% is discrimminatory. Just as Asians stop and arrest stats doesn't reflect their percentage of the population, they fall well below.
Another fact. There is a higher percentage of police patrols in high crime neighborhoods. The residents of that neighborhood will be stopped and arrested at higher rates. To ignore these realities is simply not sound reasoning and will lead to wrong conclusions.
As I stated before, it has been shown that crimes are consistent among blacks and whites based on economic factors. Meaning that the very poor are as equally likely to commit crime regardless of ethnicity. What you have in inner cities are large concentrations of very poor, so it stands to reason there would be higher crime, regardless of race. However, you are hard pressed to find the very large concentrations of white poor like you do with blacks in the inner city .
Also, the numbers you use are going to be skewed in the first place because the default position of police in inner cities is more likely to be to make an arrest, where in rural communities and small towns that isn't necessarily the case. Marijuana use is about the same between white and black communities, but the arrest and incarceration rate for blacks is significantly higher.
Your data from the CDC is flawed because they only identify 4 races: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, and White. Therefore Hispanics would add to the numbers of whites
I will give you the fact that you have somewhat been negative on the Clintons. The term "lukewarn" was mine and was not a quote from you. I sometime misuse marks for emphisis.
I refrained from name calling in my 9:04 post even though I was tempted to do so. If you think I did, what was the name?
You started name calling with "Jackwagons" with your 9:49 post.
I gave you data in my 11:22 post
My perception is that you will NEVER vote for a Repub and that's based on your comments.
Also, I challenge you to show me ONE statement that was not accurate.
Last edited:
One last shot. Again, blacks commit 40% of all violent crimes thus they are far more likely than whites to have violent exchanges with police. Routine traffic stops and simple Mary Jane arrests don't typically lead to violence. Thus, the stat that 140 black men died at the hands of the police vs. 323 whites is not out of whack. And, the example you used of inner city concentrations further proves my point. Those concentrations of white, high crime areas don't exist which means that proactive policing will lead to more stops and arrests in heavily black communities. The alternative is to stop being proactive which will lead to more crime.
Somewhat been negative? Find one positive statement. You default to "somewhat negative" because of your attempt to paint me as partisan and not based on anything I've actually said.
You may not have in this thread, but you have in others.
First, I couldn't open that file. Second, you made the accusation that I ignored data you provided at 10:57, which I'm pretty sure is close to 1/2 hour BEFORE any attempt at providing any data. So you can't bring that up now as an example.
I'm just as unlikely to vote for a democrat as I am a republican. The last time I did vote for either for president was Bush1, and that was when he ran against Clinton. I hated Clinton, I watched the debates and he pretty much dodged every question, and it was clear how much of a liar he was from the start. "I never inhaled", give me a f'n break. I've given him credit for having a balanced budget, but also given him blame for allowing the GLB act to be passed in 1999. People try giving him credit for the economy, but the economy was driven by the internet boom which had nothing to do with him.
If either party produces a candidate that looks like it might be able to bring the parties closer together, I might vote for them. I have made that exact statement before and I don't care which party they come from. Fiscally, I fall more in line with Republicans, socially, I fall more in line with Democrats. Truth be told, I most closely align with Libertarians nearly across the board.
This will make the second time that I've shown that every statement you've made about me wasn't accurate.
OK, In viewing your comments, I formed an opinion. You view yourself in a different way. Fair enough since I also view myself differently then others who post here. Many here think I hate Obama. I don't, I just don't like the many outright lies he has been caught in. I don't like many of his programs and I really get pissed off about his race baiting. You may have missed the many posts WHERE I have given him credit on several fronts like Iraq and keeping boots off the ground in other areas. I also have not joined in on not giving him credit on the economy because he is the President and like it or not, to the victors go the spoils. In the end, we both mostly default to our basic beliefs. Mine, moderate to conservative and Repub leaning. Yours,moderate to liberal and Dem leaning. Peace....
Fair enough.
I know you aren't saying that I made an assertion on your Obama stance, but I haven't, and honestly our opinions on him pretty closely align with mine. I don't agree on the race baiting. There is a racial bias in this country (that extends beyond just black and white) and any discussion that doesn't begin with that as a premise is a dishonest discussion IMO. We may disagree on that, that's fine. The ACA totally missed the mark in my opinion, but I'm not going to be overly critical just yet because it's a pretty big change and we can't expect it to be perfect right out of the gate.
And to be fair, I can probably see how you formed your opinion. I get fed up with partisanship. If people are too critical or make an overly biased statement, I will counter it. On this board, at this time, it seems that the majority of those come from the conservative camp. That may be because of the population of the board, but I think it's more likely that it's just because we are in the middle of a democratic presidency. If a republican is elected, I kind of expect this board to swing and be dominated by overly critical posts of that republican president. When/if that happens, I'll most likely behave exactly the same and continuously be mislabeled as conservative.
What gets me frustrated is to have somebody tell me over and over that I'm one thing or another, especially after explaining over and over what I am. But, as I said, I can see why you formed your opinion the way you did.
No hard feelings. Come by my motorhome at a football game this fall and we'll have a beer and laugh over all of this complete nonsense.
