Help me understand something

[WVPATX]

The media is ablaze regarding police killings of black men. Riots are breaking out. There have been 4 national stories reported recently:

1. Trayvon Martin was killed by a Hispanic. No police involved.
2. The police killing in Ferguson had nothing to do with race (as determined by the DOJ) and the shooting was justified, according to the DOJ.
3. The man that died in Brooklyn was not based on race. A black police officer was on the scene supervising the actions taken.
4. The Baltimore death looks bad, for sure. But we still don't know the cause of death.

But according to the most recent national latest from 2012, over 300 whites were killed by police and just over 100 blacks were killed. Doesn't seem out of whack to me.

 

[mule_eer]

You forgot the Cleveland police shooting of a 12 year old. That cop managed to warn the kid and fire off several shots before the car was completely stopped. Another was the police shooting of a man in Walmart who was going to buy an air gun. Let's also not forget the shooting of the 50 year old in SC, but the video at least got that cop charged.

Part of the outrage is based on the defense of some of these shootings. The incident in Cleveland was insane, the shooter was dismissed from another police department because he couldn't handle the stress. He still hasn't been charged with anything.

 

[WVPATX]

You forgot the Cleveland police shooting of a 12 year old. That cop managed to warn the kid and fire off several shots before the car was completely stopped. Another was the police shooting of a man in Walmart who was going to buy an air gun. Let's also not forget the shooting of the 50 year old in SC, but the video at least got that cop charged.

Part of the outrage is based on the defense of some of these shootings. The incident in Cleveland was insane, the shooter was dismissed from another police department because he couldn't handle the stress. He still hasn't been charged with anything.

I did forget about those two. But what about the white men shot by cops, in fact many more than black men? The facts are that cops make mistakes. But I Don't think for a moment that cops, or at least the vast majority, are targeting black men. 125 black men killed by cops in 2012. Over 8,000 killed by other black men. No one is talking about that sad fact.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You forgot the Cleveland police shooting of a 12 year old. That cop managed to warn the kid and fire off several shots before the car was completely stopped. Another was the police shooting of a man in Walmart who was going to buy an air gun. Let's also not forget the shooting of the 50 year old in SC, but the video at least got that cop charged.

Part of the outrage is based on the defense of some of these shootings. The incident in Cleveland was insane, the shooter was dismissed from another police department because he couldn't handle the stress. He still hasn't been charged with anything.

So it's clear that cops make mistakes but in a lot of these cases it's an urban area with a very diverse force, administration, etc. Let's assume for a second that the cops are bad, in order for them to not be charged, the leadership in the force, the state's attorney, and the electoral leadership basically all need to be in cahoots.

Does that seem more likely or does it seem more likely that we might not be getting all of the story and the narrative we are being given supports an agenda not consistent with the facts. There is a reason these guys aren't getting charged and convicted.

Like you, on the surface, several of these seem cut and dry. When more information has come out, I can understand. I'm also able to admit that I'm wrong when new information is presented to me. Most people make up their minds and are more likely to then ignore pertinent information if it doesn't fit with their emotionally charged rush to judgement on less than all of the information.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

The media is ablaze regarding police killings of black men. Riots are breaking out. There have been 4 national stories reported recently:

1. Trayvon Martin was killed by a Hispanic. No police involved.
2. The police killing in Ferguson had nothing to do with race (as determined by the DOJ) and the shooting was justified, according to the DOJ.
3. The man that died in Brooklyn was not based on race. A black police officer was on the scene supervising the actions taken.
4. The Baltimore death looks bad, for sure. But we still don't know the cause of death.

But according to the most recent national latest from 2012, over 300 whites were killed by police and just over 100 blacks were killed. Doesn't seem out of whack to me.

You have to WANT to actually understand for anybody to help you understand. You clearly don't, you just want to spin the conversation in different directions. You've left out a lot of examples in your 4 cases, but I'm assuming you already know that and did it intentionally because it doesn't fit your agenda.

"4. The Baltimore death looks bad, for sure. But we still don't know the cause of death." This can't possibly be an actual thought in your head, can it? There is no question what the cause of death was.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

When more information has come out, I can understand. I'm also able to admit that I'm wrong when new information is presented to me.

This is what makes you different from most.

Let's assume for a second that the cops are bad, in order for them to not be charged, the leadership in the force, the state's attorney, and the electoral leadership basically all need to be in cahoots.

Here's what bothers me with all of this. There are no statistics kept on police killings. We hear about them all the time these days, but there are no national statistics kept. That seems to be a problem.

I agree that it doesn't seem plausible that everybody would be in cahoots on all those levels, but how many of them get to that level in the first place? In SC, without the bystander video, the official story would have been very different than the actual, and it seems as if the black officer would have been complicit in the cover-up/planting of evidence. Without bystander video, how many other cases would there be like that and would those cases ever make it past the leadership in the force.

To me, there clearly seems to be an issue, but it also seems nearly impossible to quantify how severe the issue is.

I also want to clarify that I do believe that the overwhelming majority of police are great, well-meaning people, that honestly got in it to serve their community. But there is clearly an issue with some. How many? What can we do about it?

 

[WVPATX]

You have to WANT to actually understand for anybody to help you understand. You clearly don't, you just want to spin the conversation in different directions. You've left out a lot of examples in your 4 cases, but I'm assuming you already know that and did it intentionally because it doesn't fit your agenda.

"4. The Baltimore death looks bad, for sure. But we still don't know the cause of death." This can't possibly be an actual thought in your head, can it? There is no question what the cause of death was.

By cause of death I am referring to police culpability. My agenda is to let facts guide not emotion. 125 blacks killed by cops and nearly three times as many white. Doesn't seem like an epidemic to me but they don't fit with your agenda.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

By cause of death I am referring to police culpability. My agenda is to let facts guide not emotion. 125 blacks killed by cops and nearly three times as many white. Doesn't seem like an epidemic to me but they don't fit with your agenda.

I don't have an agenda, you're the one that attempts to separate everything out by race. I don't care about race, and I honestly don't care which cases the media chooses to cover and which ones they don't. There are situations where police should use lethal force and there are situations where they shouldn't. Anytime lethal force was used where it shouldn't have been, it needs to be investigated, regardless of the race of anybody involved.

If your agenda is honestly to let facts guide and not emotion it certainly isn't evident in your cherry picking of cases to emphasize.

 

[WVPATX]

I don't have an agenda, you're the one that attempts to separate everything out by race. I don't care about race, and I honestly don't care which cases the media chooses to cover and which ones they don't. There are situations where police should use lethal force and there are situations where they shouldn't. Anytime lethal force was used where it shouldn't have been, it needs to be investigated, regardless of the race of anybody involved.

If your agenda is honestly to let facts guide and not emotion it certainly isn't evident in your cherry picking of cases to emphasize.

I presented facts. Ferguson had nothing to do with race. New York had nothing to do with race. We still do not know about Baltimore. Yet we're told that black men are being targeted by police officers. Meanwhile a police officer gets stabbed 12 times in Houston yesterday by a black individual trying to get revenge. She will likely lose her arm. But that did not make the news. The race baiters and agitators have an agenda and you seem to be oblivious to that agenda.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I presented facts. Ferguson had nothing to do with race. New York had nothing to do with race. We still do not know about Baltimore. Yet we're told that black men are being targeted by police officers. Meanwhile a police officer gets stabbed 12 times in Houston yesterday by a black individual trying to get revenge. She will likely lose her arm. But that did not make the news. The race baiters and agitators have an agenda and you seem to be oblivious to that agenda.

Black men, age 15-19, are 21 times more likely to get killed by police than whites.
"The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police."

Of course, there are also hundreds of police killings that weren't reported to the national database either. So even those facts aren't comprehensive and it could sway the numbers in either direction if it were comprehensive.

You say Ferguson had nothing to do with race, New York had nothing to do with race ... those aren't facts. You don't know that for sure.

You aren't letting facts guide anything, you are going into the whole thing talking about "race baiters" and what the media reports ... which are really irrelevant to the problem involving people getting killed by police. People are getting killed. Whether the media reports it or not, those people are still dead.

"Yet we're told that black men are being targeted by police officers". Again, you aren't being guided by facts, devoid of emotion, you are out to prove that this isn't true.

A police officer was stabbed 12 times in Houston, but it didn't make the news? How did you find out about it? It's awful that that happened, but was that black man sworn to protect and serve the police? That is the difference. It's terrible that that happened, and it shouldn't happen, and I hope that person gets the punishment they deserve, so I'm not excusing anything. However, the difference, and the outrage is that the police are supposed to serve and protect.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I presented facts.

But not all the facts ... why would that be?

 

[WVPATX]

Black men, age 15-19, are 21 times more likely to get killed by police than whites.
"The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police."

Of course, there are also hundreds of police killings that weren't reported to the national database either. So even those facts aren't comprehensive and it could sway the numbers in either direction if it were comprehensive.

You say Ferguson had nothing to do with race, New York had nothing to do with race ... those aren't facts. You don't know that for sure.

You aren't letting facts guide anything, you are going into the whole thing talking about "race baiters" and what the media reports ... which are really irrelevant to the problem involving people getting killed by police. People are getting killed. Whether the media reports it or not, those people are still dead.

"Yet we're told that black men are being targeted by police officers". Again, you aren't being guided by facts, devoid of emotion, you are out to prove that this isn't true.

A police officer was stabbed 12 times in Houston, but it didn't make the news? How did you find out about it? It's awful that that happened, but was that black man sworn to protect and serve the police? That is the difference. It's terrible that that happened, and it shouldn't happen, and I hope that person gets the punishment they deserve, so I'm not excusing anything. However, the difference, and the outrage is that the police are supposed to serve and protect.

Once again your statistics are very misleading. You're not telling us what percentage of black males ages 15 to 19 are committing crimes vs. their white counterparts . Again from 2012 which are the last to stats available, over 300 white men were killed by police and 125 black men were killed by police. You are using the same flawed disparate analysis stats that all liberals try to use . One of your fellow liberals posted yesterday that 90% of the police stops in New York City were with minorities and they were not committing 90% of the crimes. I posted actual crime stats from New York City that demonstrate minorities were in fact committing 90% of the crimes .
Disperate analysis that Liberals love to use is meaningless.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Once again your statistics are very misleading. You're not telling us what percentage of black males ages 15 to 19 are committing crimes vs. their white counterparts . Again from 2012 which are the last to stats available, over 300 white men were killed by police and 125 black men were killed by police. You are using the same flawed disparate analysis stats that all liberals try to use . One of your fellow liberals posted yesterday that 90% of the police stops in New York City were with minorities and they were not committing 90% of the crimes. I posted actual crime stats from New York City that demonstrate minorities were in fact committing 90% of the crimes .
Disperate analysis that Liberals love to use is meaningless.

You're changing the topic. What difference does it make what percentage are commiting crimes? What crime in the US has a sentence of immediate execution by the police?

But, since you want to go down that road, the amount of crime committed by blacks would have to be 21 times the amount committed by whites for my stat above to be irrelevant. If you can show me an non-biased statistic that supports that notion, I will concede your point.

 

[WVPATX]

In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops — and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.
Police shootings, nationwide, are down dramatically from what they were 20 or 30 years ago. The CDC reported that in 1968, shootings by law enforcement — called “legal intervention” by the CDC — was the cause of death for 8.6 out of every million blacks. For whites the rate was was .9 deaths per million
By 2011, law enforcement shootings caused 2.74 deaths for every million blacks, and 1.28 deaths for every million whites. While the death-by-cop rate for whites has held pretty steady over these last 45 years, hovering just above or below the one-in-a-million level, the rate for blacks has fallen. In 1981, black deaths by cop stood at four in a million, but since 2000 has remained just above or below two in a million.
So what’s driving this notion that there is now an “epidemic” of white cops shooting blacks when in the last several decades the numbers of blacks killed by cops are down nearly 75 percent?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops — and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.
Police shootings, nationwide, are down dramatically from what they were 20 or 30 years ago. The CDC reported that in 1968, shootings by law enforcement — called “legal intervention” by the CDC — was the cause of death for 8.6 out of every million blacks. For whites the rate was was .9 deaths per million
By 2011, law enforcement shootings caused 2.74 deaths for every million blacks, and 1.28 deaths for every million whites. While the death-by-cop rate for whites has held pretty steady over these last 45 years, hovering just above or below the one-in-a-million level, the rate for blacks has fallen. In 1981, black deaths by cop stood at four in a million, but since 2000 has remained just above or below two in a million.
So what’s driving this notion that there is now an “epidemic” of white cops shooting blacks when in the last several decades the numbers of blacks killed by cops are down nearly 75 percent?

Why are you using CDC and not UCR?

 

[WVPATX]

Something wrong wit the CDC?

 

[TarHeelEer]

Black men, age 15-19, are 21 times more likely to get killed by police than whites.

This is a useless statistic. Crime and violence are perpetuated throughout some of black society as acceptable behavior. Not every black is going to act the same as each white, when confronted by police. Each situation has to be handled individually.

 

[countryroads89]

The media is ablaze regarding police killings of black men. Riots are breaking out. There have been 4 national stories reported recently:

1. Trayvon Martin was killed by a Hispanic. No police involved.
2. The police killing in Ferguson had nothing to do with race (as determined by the DOJ) and the shooting was justified, according to the DOJ.
3. The man that died in Brooklyn was not based on race. A black police officer was on the scene supervising the actions taken.
4. The Baltimore death looks bad, for sure. But we still don't know the cause of death.

But according to the most recent national latest from 2012, over 300 whites were killed by police and just over 100 blacks were killed. Doesn't seem out of whack to me.

The biggest thing for me personally is: I hate it that I live in a country where an unarmed man running from a police officer was shot in the back 5 times (shot at 7 times). You can change the color of the officer and you can change the color of the unarmed man running away (and choose any combination of the above), and I would still hate it. I hate it that I live in a country where an unarmed man (Eric Garner) and father of 5 children was not being aggressive, in fact he was backing away, was placed in a chokehold by a police officer that took his life.

Both of these instances happened to be captured on video camera and were shared for the entire nation to view. Both of these instances happened to have a black man as the one that lost their life at the hands of a non-black police officer. Right, wrong or indifferent, agree or disagree, the blacks in this country are fed up with black men losing their lives at the hands of police officers. They are expressing how they feel (sometimes incorrectly). We as a nation owe it to them to at least listen and try to make changes.

 

[TarHeelEer]

We as a nation owe it to them to at least listen and try to make changes.

Ok, what changes? What changes are going to change the perception of "thugs" (using Obama's term) and allow police to treat everyone equally? What changes are going to allow the black male in an urban area grow up with an adult male role model teaching him a positive moral code where he never ends up confronting police in the first place? What changes are going to have said black male not father children until he is married, and not perpetuate this endless horrific cycle?

The 22 trillion dollars we have spent on poverty programs to date haven't seemed to work.

 

[WVPATX]

The biggest thing for me personally is: I hate it that I live in a country where an unarmed man running from a police officer was shot in the back 5 times (shot at 7 times). You can change the color of the officer and you can change the color of the unarmed man running away (and choose any combination of the above), and I would still hate it. I hate it that I live in a country where an unarmed man (Eric Garner) and father of 5 children was not being aggressive, in fact he was backing away, was placed in a chokehold by a police officer that took his life.

Both of these instances happened to be captured on video camera and were shared for the entire nation to view. Both of these instances happened to have a black man as the one that lost their life at the hands of a non-black police officer. Right, wrong or indifferent, agree or disagree, the blacks in this country are fed up with black men losing their lives at the hands of police officers. They are expressing how they feel (sometimes incorrectly). We as a nation owe it to them to at least listen and try to make changes.

Every police shooting should be investigated. Bad cops should be charged and arrested. But the race baiters and the media are claiming this is an epidemic and that is simply untrue. This kind of rhetoric is going to get people, including cops killed. Tell the story, but tell the whole story. Marc Lamont Hill, a leading black thought leader, is now saying that cops are occupiers in black neighborhoods. I guess his alternative is for cops to leave the neighborhood to its own devices. If this kind of rhetoric becomes pervasive in the media, it will destroy whatever relationship exists between cops and the black community. And more lives will be lost.

 

[countryroads89]

Ok, what changes? What changes are going to change the perception of "thugs" (using Obama's term) and allow police to treat everyone equally? What changes are going to allow the black male in an urban area grow up with an adult male role model teaching him a positive moral code where he never ends up confronting police in the first place? What changes are going to have said black male not father children until he is married, and not perpetuate this endless horrific cycle?

The 22 trillion dollars we have spent on poverty programs to date haven't seemed to work.

I don't claim to have all the answers. If I did, I wouldn't be typing on this message board. I certainly think we could improve education in urban areas (and not just throw money at it). If more people volunteered as sports coaches, mentors, big brothers, etc. that would go a long way at providing positive influences in lives.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

If more people volunteered as sports coaches, mentors, big brothers, etc. that would go a long way at providing positive influences in lives.

I saw a story recently, might have been on Real Sports, where police in Compton (I think, memory is hazy) actually started a pop warner league and coach in that league. It has helped to humanize everybody in the neighborhood. Crime has gone down, and when there is crime, people aren't so reluctant to talk to the police officers about it because they know them.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Something wrong wit the CDC?

We are talking about crime, are we not? Why use the Center for Disease Control rather than the Uniform Crime Reporting program in the FBI?

I don't go to the FBI for statistics on herpes outbreaks.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

This is a useless statistic. Crime and violence are perpetuated throughout some of black society as acceptable behavior. Not every black is going to act the same as each white, when confronted by police. Each situation has to be handled individually.

You are right and you are wrong, in my opinion. It isn't a useless statistic. However, you are right in that a statistic like that alone isn't going to tell the whole story. No statistic is, and I totally agree that each situation needs to be handled individually.

But, let's assume that this statistic is correct. That doesn't mean that cops are targeting black kids, necessarily, but it's something that needs to be looked at and the root cause identified. Maybe that root cause is solved easily "look, guys, when a cop approaches you, just comply with what he wants and you won't get killed", but maybe it isn't easily solved and it is more a result of PTSD within the police community. If that's the case, we need better counseling and screening.

I can't imagine seeing what cops see every day, particularly in big cities, and it not having a psychological effect of some kind.

I don't believe for a second that people join the force so they can go kill people indiscriminately. And I'm not even saying that that's happening, but why are black youths 21 times more likely to get killed by police than white youths? Or utes, as Vinnie would say.

 

[WVPATX]

We are talking about crime, are we not? Why use the Center for Disease Control rather than the Uniform Crime Reporting program in the FBI?

I don't go to the FBI for statistics on herpes outbreaks.

Because not all police department send reports to the FBI. But all deaths are reported to the CDC. The FBI readily acknowledges their shortcomings in national reporting.

 

[mneilmont]

Damn. this is confusing. White says there are no stats kept. Tristate quotes facts based on stats kept by FBI and/or CDC.

White says you are right and wrong; but it is not a useless statistic; a stat is not going to tell the whole story; no stat is; you are wrong; BUT LESS ASSUME YOUR STAT IS RIGHT??? Wishy washy much?

"There are no stats kept on police killings". Really? Those stats are kept if the killings are reported. How can a killing influence stats if it is not reported and the body of evidence is hidden?

In my opinion, White is correct. And then he changed positions. It is difficult to be wrong when you take both sides of the argument. He is correct that race should not make a difference. There should be no distinction identified. People/persons are killed. Bury the dead and try the killer. Forget about race, all it can do is confuse you. What are you supposed to do if you have a higher ratio of one race killed? Are we supposed to kill more of the other race to balance it? Keeping count is definitely not leading to fewer of the those killed in the disproportionate race.

What is the solution that is being searched for by keeping score?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

"There are no stats kept on police killings". Really? Those stats are kept if the killings are reported. How can a killing influence stats if it is not reported and the body of evidence is hidden?

I admit that was a stupid way to word what I was trying to say, and what I said was flat wrong. What I meant was that there is no central database in which all police departments participate that track police killings, and particularly whether they are considered justified or not.

White says you are right and wrong; but it is not a useless statistic; a stat is not going to tell the whole story; no stat is; you are wrong; BUT LESS ASSUME YOUR STAT IS RIGHT??? Wishy washy much?

I really don't know what you weren't able to follow about that post. The statistic is correct (assuming it was compiled using reputable sources) but no statistic is ever going to tell the whole story when people are involved. Particularly not the motivations.

In my opinion, White is correct. And then he changed positions. It is difficult to be wrong when you take both sides of the argument.

I've never switched positions.

What is the solution that is being searched for by keeping score?

None. Which was my point with WVPATX from the beginning. By approaching it the way he was, he was trying to support an agenda, rather than examine facts and try to find a solution.

 

[mneilmont]

I admit that was a stupid way to word what I was trying to say, and what I said was flat wrong. What I meant was that there is no central database in which all police departments participate that track police killings, and particularly whether they are considered justified or not.



I really don't know what you weren't able to follow about that post. The statistic is correct (assuming it was compiled using reputable sources) but no statistic is ever going to tell the whole story when people are involved. Particularly not the motivations.



I've never switched positions.



None. Which was my point with WVPATX from the beginning. By approaching it the way he was, he was trying to support an agenda, rather than examine facts and try to find a solution.

I forgot my close.

Lou: Who is on 2nd?
Bud: No, Who is on 1st. What is on 2nd.

That could only leave, What is his name for 3rd

Abbot & Costello skit was not a bit confusing, they should have been here.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I forgot my close.

Lou: Who is on 2nd?
Bud: No, Who is on 1st. What is on 2nd.

That could only leave, What is his name for 3rd

Abbot & Costello skit was not a bit confusing, they should have been here.

I'll be sure and type slower for you from now on.

 

[WVPATX]

I admit that was a stupid way to word what I was trying to say, and what I said was flat wrong. What I meant was that there is no central database in which all police departments participate that track police killings, and particularly whether they are considered justified or not.



I really don't know what you weren't able to follow about that post. The statistic is correct (assuming it was compiled using reputable sources) but no statistic is ever going to tell the whole story when people are involved. Particularly not the motivations.



I've never switched positions.



None. Which was my point with WVPATX from the beginning. By approaching it the way he was, he was trying to support an agenda, rather than examine facts and try to find a solution.

No, I was trying to point out the agenda of the race baiters and the media. There is no epidemic of cops killing black men. Yet we have riots that the media happily cover. Bad cops should be prosecuted. Bad killings occur. But to claim that there is a war on black men simply isn't true and I provided facts to back up that statement. Raw numbers not percentages.

 

[mneilmont]

The media is ablaze regarding police killings of black men. Riots are breaking out. There have been 4 national stories reported recently:

1. Trayvon Martin was killed by a Hispanic. No police involved.
2. The police killing in Ferguson had nothing to do with race (as determined by the DOJ) and the shooting was justified, according to the DOJ.
3. The man that died in Brooklyn was not based on race. A black police officer was on the scene supervising the actions taken.
4. The Baltimore death looks bad, for sure. But we still don't know the cause of death.

But according to the most recent national latest from 2012, over 300 whites were killed by police and just over 100 blacks were killed. Doesn't seem out of whack to me.

White, what is the agenda you refer to? The only agenda that I can decipher as being used is by the media. I believe you are suggesting Tristate is suggesting race, and I cannot detect that at all.

Blacks make up about 12% of the population. Police have more confrontations with that 12% than they do with the other 88%. That would suggest something with pure numbers, however you have got to have more facts about the confrontations than what are given. How many became confrontational rather than a simple report - by race. That info is not provided.

Stop introducing race into everything. A murder is a murder. Rape is rape. Let's have equal treatment for all under the law. Stop hiding behind the new prejudices introduced into the law with a hate component. Disregard hate and substitute intent, which has always been there.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Raw numbers not percentages.

Raw numbers are meaningless without the percentages.

Let's take a hypothetical case.
1000 muslims were killed by police and 1000 christians were also killed by police.
What does that mean? The same number of christians and muslims were killed by police, so it would seem pretty balanced. No problem, nothing to see here, move along.

Then let's say that where this happened, the population is 95% muslim and 5% christian. Would that not indicate that christians were over-represented in the killings? They accounted for 50% of the deaths but make up only 5% of the population.

 

[mneilmont]

I'll be sure and type slower for you from now on.

Don't offer stupid into the conversation. Slower typing and using crayons. Adds nothing to your offerings.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

That would suggest something with pure numbers, however you have got to have more facts about the confrontations than what are given. How many became confrontational rather than a simple report - by race. That info is not provided.

Stop introducing race into everything.

Hmmm, that seems to be the exact point I was making with the post above and the statistic.

I'm not the one that introduced race into this thread. It was done within the first sentence of the first post.

 

[WVPATX]

Hmmm, that seems to be the exact point I was making with the post above and the statistic.

I'm not the one that introduced race into this thread. It was done within the first sentence of the first post.

My whole post has been about the fact that black men are not being hunted by white police officers. Are there bad cops? Yes, and they should be prosecuted. It is not a racist post. And percentages are highly misleading. Blacks make up 13% of the population but commit crimes at a much higher percentage. Black communities experience crime at a higher percentage than other communities. Police go where the crimes are being committed. Disparate impact is deeply flawed. The raw numbers demonstrate that whites are killed by police at nearly a 3-1 ratio.

 

[mneilmont]

No, I was trying to point out the agenda of the race baiters and the media. There is no epidemic of cops killing black men. Yet we have riots that the media happily cover. Bad cops should be prosecuted. Bad killings occur. But to claim that there is a war on black men simply isn't true and I provided facts to back up that statement. Raw numbers not percentages.

Tri, what is the agenda that he feels you have? Is he suggesting a race agenda - racist? He went a hell of a long way around to get to some point. There is where I became confused. What does he read into your offering that I didn't? He seems to be a bit defensive and thin skinned, and then he comes back with double talk to cover up what he was attempting to make as an issue. I appreciate MOST of your offerings and do not have difficulty understanding where you are going.

 

[WVPATX]

Tri, what is the agenda that he feels you have? Is he suggesting a race agenda - racist? He went a hell of a long way around to get to some point. There is where I became confused. What does he read into your offering that I didn't? He seems to be a bit defensive and thin skinned, and then he comes back with double talk to cover up what he was attempting to make as an issue. I appreciate MOST of your offerings and do not have difficulty understanding where you are going.

I'm confused as well. My guess is that liberals think all conservatives are racist. It's usually used to stifle debate.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Tri, what is the agenda that he feels you have? Is he suggesting a race agenda - racist? He went a hell of a long way around to get to some point. There is where I became confused. What does he read into your offering that I didn't? He seems to be a bit defensive and thin skinned, and then he comes back with double talk to cover up what he was attempting to make as an issue. I appreciate MOST of your offerings and do not have difficulty understanding where you are going.

Who said it was a racist post?

You told me not to bring race into it. I merely pointed out that the entire thread was about race, which WVPATX confirmed again above.

"The media is ablaze regarding police killings of black men." The very first sentence of the thread ... but I'm the one that brought race into it? Looney.

 

[WVPATX]

Who said it was a racist post?

You told me not to bring race into it. I merely pointed out that the entire thread was about race, which WVPATX confirmed again above.

"The media is ablaze regarding police killings of black men." The very first sentence of the thread ... but I'm the one that brought race into it? Looney.

You certainly implied I was making a racist post. Obviously, the entire subject has been about race so race will be a part of any discussion on this topic. Nothing new or strange in that fact.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

You certainly implied I was making a racist post.

I did no such thing.

Obviously, the entire subject has been about race so race will be a part of any discussion on this topic.

How could that be if I'm the one that introduced race into it?