Causing suffering to others is not an easy thing to do. Very few people are born without empathy and most understand other people's suffering on a visceral level.
To be able to systematically abuse, exploit and enslave other people requires serious damage to the soul/psyche (whichever term you prefer).
Trauma of the kind that combat typically results in, can be a constant companion for veterans and the suffering is often visited on family and communities.
It can take generations for the wounds to a family to heal if a father is lost or a father returns home with uncontrollable feelings of rage and despair and fear. Many returning men cannot be the fathers that they would like to be.
In the same way, there is no doubt that the emotional damage inflicted on white people during earlier times is still with us.
Many were obliged to mistreat or kill others during the colonial period, slavery and the countless wars since, simply to put food on the table for their families.
How do we deal with the coarsening of values, brutality, rage and simple loss of humanity that our history gifts us?
I am not white and I don't hold the peculiar institution that was abolished over 150 years ago against anyone living today.
I am opposed to those that deny the effects of history on the current situation.
There always is a need to carefully delineate problems within our community that are within our purview to solve and those that stem from structural racism within our society. BOTH are factors.
People that continue to say that the cause is either all one or the other are in error. And, there are crowds on both sides that do.
"I am opposed to those that deny the effects of history on the current situation."
Agreed. I am also opposed to those that deny the negative effects of unending charity and legal racism (this is history as well) on the current situation. The first has had almost zero positives and the second, while a little better, has not accomplished much positive while promoting more racism and hatred.
What is legal racism from your perspective? Are you really one of those Trump people, living in the la-la land of racial resentment that believe that blacks enjoy any real advantage in the hiring process?
Does it do me any good to acquire statistics that prove the contrary of your belief so that you can dismiss it and say that was not the personal experience of your first cousin?
Forcing companies to hire based on skin color comes to mind. So does college admissions based on skin color.
Produce all the statistics that you want - to those that were denied a job or admission because they weren't black it won't matter one iota.
"There always is a need to carefully delineate problems within our community that are within our purview to solve and those that stem from structural racism within our society. BOTH are factors."
How can you determine which is your responsibility and which stems from structural racism of the past? And how does that change your approach to solving the problem?
No need for a drawn out philosophical based
Interchange here, Mr. P
Those elements of life involving family, management of resources, you know, things that I can control as an individual.
The other is composed of equality in treatment by public institutions within this society, availability of equal opportunity in education, employment. Equal treatment under law enforcement and criminal justice systems. This includes both patent and LATENT violations.
Not trying to engage in a philosophical debate. You said that the effects of history are still being felt to this day. I was wondering how that fact would change your approach to solving the problems in the black community.
Well, Mr. P, I can only speak for myself. But if I could do it because the 'effects' were of adverse nature, we as a group must work harder than the typical white guy on the street to acquire any sort parity.
You are only allowed to enter the marathon only after others have had an essential head start. This history of structural disadvantage is no fault of our own. We have going have to run harder, with a greater sense of purpose and allowing for fewer distractions.
That is the basic outline, I have discussed this concern in a hub written 4 years, if you really want to know and care to look.
http://hubpages.com/politics/One-Progre … ca-Part-II
My suggestion , Get over the fact that slavery affected no one alive today , either as a slave owner nor as a slave . I truly believe that threads like this one are nothing more than " baiting calls " for liberal apologists , controversy birthers and immature attention seekers .
The first step is to stop acting as if slavery, empire and war have only been done by white people. Every other race and nearly every ancient civilization have participated in these actions. That way you won't feel the need to single out whites as if they are the only race who have damaged their "soul" or "psyche."
The second step is to realize that white nations were the first to abolish slavery and whites risked their lives enforcing the abolition of slavery. That way you'll realize that your "soul" or "psyche" isn't as damaged as you think it is.
The third step is to stop blaming yourselves for crimes committed by your ancestors. It's foolish to think the sins of the father pass down to the son. It's an antiquated and religious meme that has no bearing on your actual "soul." Or if you're going to do that, why stop at Europeans and Americans? Why not go further to helping Egyptian descendants get over slavery and empire? Or helping humans get over our ancestors' extinction of Neanderthals? Or the extinction of countless other species that our ancestors had a hand in killing off?
I wouldn't disagree with any of that. But the question I was asking was how do we deal with the fallout from slavery and colonialism among white people (which means primarily in the US and Europe).
I would be delighted if you start a thread about the fallout of the Egyptian empire.
Or are are you simply trying to avoid dealing with stuff that is a little too close for comfort?
I find it hard to understand the importance of 'victimhood' in US culture. It has a resonance well beyond the actual meaning of the word.
Perhaps it is just too difficult to bear other people's suffering, if only for a moment?
I'm open to suggestions.
You were asking how to deal with the "emotional damage, coarsening of values, brutality, rage and simple loss of humanity" that is part of white history. I gave you a 3-step process on how to do just that:
1) stop thinking whites were the only race to engage in such actions (avoids resentment, relieves collective guilt)
2) take some pride in some of the more noble actions your ancestors took (relieves collective guilt, restores collective pride)
3) stop blaming white descendants for the crimes of their white ancestors (stops guilt entirely)
What part are you having trouble with?
Yes, I'm aware you're focusing on whites in the US and Europe. Why stop there? Why focus on whites in the US and Europe? Why focus on whites specifically?
I don't feel the need to make a thread about the fallout of the Egyptian empire. If you're so inclined, you could copy and paste your speech and replace "whites" with "Egyptians." Or "Asians." Or "Africans." Or "Arabs." Or "Polynesians." Or "Native Indians." See the pattern?
I'm not sure why you think I'm avoiding anything. I've given you a simple 3-step process for you to follow and you chose to ignore it. If you're open to suggestions, my suggestion is for you to stop ignoring that process.
Personally, none of this is too close to me. I've never participated in the enslavement, mistreatment or killing of others. Or are you suggesting I should feel guilty or emotionally damaged for the potential crimes of my ancestors in some undefined moment in the past?
I don't have a problem bearing other people's suffering, but whose suffering are you talking about here? We are not in colonial times. Slavery in the US and Europe ended centuries ago. Maybe you should be making a thread about the slavery currently going on in certain Asian, Arab and African countries?
I really don't see why it is a problem to focus on white people in the US and America. I think we are on safer ground when it comes to knowing what we are talking about.
I asked the original question for a variety of reasons but mainly because it is obvious there are massive continuing issues with real life consequences.
A lot of people still seem to think it is excusable for police to kill disproportionate numbers of black people, for example.
Many believe that it is reasonable for police to identify black people as especially dangerous and in need of greater control and a more violent response.
When black people establish a democratic movement to challenge these perceptions it is immediately denounced as a terrorist group by many whites.
When you come across staggeringly irrational assertions, like this, there is no choice but to start digging into history and also people's psyches to get a sense of what is going on.
Why do white people feel under attack when the facts tell a completely different story?
I doubt anyone has a complete answer.
Personally, I suspect that the whole 'get over it' attitude is central to understanding the strangeness of what is going on. And at the core of that is a desperate rejection of reality because it is painful for one reason or another.
The real problem isn't on focusing on the historical damages of white people in the US or Europe (however, it is curious that the only race that is ever scrutinized in this manner is whites). The problem is focusing on the historical damages of any race, anywhere. Nobody alive is responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. How do we deal with the coarsening of values, brutality, rage and simple loss of humanity that our history gifts us? We stop acting as if we're responsible for our racial histories.
I'm glad you brought up rejection of reality. I'm all for accurate interpretations of reality, so let's take this one claim at a time. We'll start with this one:
A lot of people still seem to think it is excusable for police to kill disproportionate numbers of black people, for example.
Do you have evidence that the police are actually unlawfully killing disproportionate numbers of black people?
The Guardian was the first to start collecting data on cop killings in the US. Includes all ethnicities with comparisons.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i … s-database
Many of those killed were unarmed, worth digging through.
This mentally ill guy was killed in his own home:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/18/us/da … man-video/
Living in a nice suburban home is no protection.
So you haven't actually gone through the numbers to determine disproportionality in shootings. You just think it's disproportional.
This recent study claims that police are more likely to shoot whites than blacks, and 20% less likely to shoot a black suspect when lethal force might have been justified: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upsho … hone-share
This is despite the fact that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than other demographics: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … s/table-43
And perhaps more pertinently, the fact that 40% of police officer homicides are done by blacks: https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2011/officers … sly-killed
Note that the study also did not take into account how compliant blacks are when dealing with law enforcement. If you are non-compliant with the officer's instructions, for instance by refusing to exit your vehicle, you can be arrested for obstruction. If you resist that arrest, you will be further escalating the use of force. That alone might explain the 15-20% disparity in use of force by police. However, as previously mentioned, the disparity in shootings is actually favoring blacks in that they are shot less often compared to whites.
One thing worth noting with the unarmed category found in data like The Guardian's. Unarmed means the suspect did not have a weapon during the altercation. Incidents where the suspect takes control of the officer's weapon, fashions a weapon out of another instrument or simply beats the officer with his fists are all considered "unarmed." There are also unarmed incidents where the suspect drives off in his vehicle and prompts a high-speed car chase. All of these scenarios can be reasonably justified uses of lethal force, yet they are included under the unarmed category.
Out of curiosity, why do you think all the videos we see where it strongly suggests excessive use of force features black males being mishandled by the police? Everyone these days has a cell phone and appears eager to video tape these things. It seems strange to me, if whites are more likely to have lethal force used against them wouldn't we have some evidence of this?
Because it's not newsworthy?
Because it's primarily blacks taking the videos and they don't care if a white is being mistreated?
Because no big names/movement is pushing White Lives Matter?
Because whites neither expect nor receive special treatment when they misbehave?
Just thinking "out loud", trying to figure out why what's happening is happening. Because there really ARE more whites that have lethal force used against them.
OK. Thinking out loud also. If there is a higher percentage, does that percentage directly correlate to the percentage of white males in the population?
I will say I find it hard to believe a person prone to video tape violence would only choose to do it if the victim was the 'right color'. It would also go a very long way toward hastening public support if it was proven that the police brutality and violence was wide spread. Do you think those pushing BLM would be so ignorant as not to be aware of this? Or so callous that they would willfully ignore it?
You're just saying that.
Why would police abuse against anyone not be newsworthy?
Most of the abuses against blacks most probably occur in black communities, it is not that blacks are necessarily witnesses to such police abuse of white citizens.
Who needs big names, has the problem risen to the level in white communities where they should be concerned? If it did we would certainly be hearing more about it. White folks have cell phone cameras as well.
Your last reason was the dumbest, we are not talking about justifiable police detainment here. We are talking abuse in these encounters. It is not about free passes when one mis-behaves. I should not be surprised that within as rigid a rightwing thought process as I have ever witnessed that you have yet to figure out what is going on?
I can't help it if whites choose to remain silent under these circumstances as we are not there to record. The issue is not of white people but police abuse and black cops, indoctrinated by a system that has the edges of an oppressive nature, can be just as big a problem. We choose to speak to the issue while others remain silent, that is not fault of BLM.
It has less to do with video not being recorded and more to do with what's newsworthy. How often do you hear about a white suspect being shot in the media? How long does that coverage last? Now compare that to something like Michael Brown's shooting or Trayvon Martin's, both of which do not have video footage of the shootings as far as I'm aware. The media doesn't care to cover white victims of police shootings because it's not newsworthy and most white people won't raise an eyebrow.
Now that I think about it, what about the coverage of police officers who died doing their jobs? I don't know any of their names and media coverage is sparse. The only significant coverage was the recent deliberate targeting of police officers in Dallas, which is extraordinary enough to merit coverage. But overall we don't see or expect significant coverage when police officers die, it's just accepted.
Heaven forbid, however, a police officer using his gun to stop a perpetrator who was beating him and trying to take control of his weapon. That merits month-long coverage across several networks and city riots. Why? Because the 'victim' was black.
The reality is that most police shootings are justified: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest … nder-fire/
In 74 percent of all fatal police shootings, the individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands, according to an analysis of actions immediately preceding the shootings, which draws on reports from law enforcement agencies and local media coverage. These 595 cases include fatal shootings that followed a wide range of violent crimes, including shootouts, stabbings, hostage situations, carjackings and assaults.
Another 16 percent of the shootings came after incidents that did not involve firearms or active attacks but featured other potentially dangerous threats. These shootings were most commonly of individuals who brandished knives and refused to drop them.
The 5 percent of cases that are often second-guessed include individuals who police said failed to follow their orders, made sudden movements or were accidentally shot. In another 4 percent of cases, The Post was unable to determine the circumstances of the shootings because of limited information or ongoing investigations.
This entire narrative is built on the 5% that are second-guessed judgements made up of accidents, failures to comply and sudden movements.
Accidental shootings are, well, accidental. They will happen but are not based on racial prejudice.
As I alluded to earlier, failure to comply with officer commands can lead to an escalation of force. Depending on the circumstances, this escalation of force can be justified or not.
I didn't mention sudden movements, but here is a video that highlights why it is absolutely justified to react with lethal force to a sudden or suspicious movement (this is not graphic but it is highly unsettling): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIQ75B_04sM
There's plenty of video footage like the above of police officers getting shot or killed in the line of duty, but we don't see them. Why? It's not newsworthy or the public doesn't particularly care. For that reason we shouldn't limit ourselves strictly to video evidence of the events because they're not equally distributed or available. Fortunately there's other means of evidence.
On that subject, it would be immensely helpful to have body cams on all police officers. It would protect innocent civilians from police brutality, and it would exculpate law-abiding police officers from accusations of excessive force or inappropriate conduct. I can't think of any significant drawbacks to this implementation.
Addressing only the claim that more whites than blacks are shot by police; I think the argument is weak.Primarily because whites comprise about 63% of the population and blacks 12%. A decade of statistics shows that 2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. That tells me that blacks are disproportionately shot.
More whites but disproportionally more blacks...based on population alone.
Given that a high percentage that are shot are poverty stricken, let's add that factor. Given that a high percentage are inner city, add that one as well. Given that a high percentage have police records, stick that in, too.
Does it again change the picture? Don't know, but my bet is "yes".
This is what happens whenever the statistics and studies paint a picture of reality that is not in accord with the worldview of the right.
The Guardian interactive allows you pick out this stat: Young black men were nine times more likely than other Americans to be killed by police officers in 2015
That is pretty striking and points to a serious issue. Looking at the reasons for this in any realistic way would lead you to conclude that racism is at core of the problem.
Black kids have fewer opportunities, are more harshly treated by authorities, relentlessly demonised by media and cops are either scared witless of the skin color or don't think it conveys a right to life, so they shoot.
But what do we get from right wingers? Cast doubt on the stats, find justifications for at least a few of the killings...
Ultimately, it is about right wingers covering themselves, as best they can, from the notion that their attitudes are the prime drivers of the slaughter.
"...But what do we get from right wingers? Cast doubt on the stats, find justifications for at least a few of the killings......"
But are the doubts valid? When stats like those that Mr. Popo and Wilderness provide contradict the stats that you support, how do you decide which are right? Mr. Popo's most recent stat offering, (above), is not just from biased Right-wing sources, so how do you determine your stats are right and his are wrong?
The Guardian is not shy about its leanings, so couldn't Mr. Popo or Wilderness challenge the credibility of your source also? Did the Guardian's stats offer any explanation for that " 9 times more likely" determination?
Is this what happens whenever the statistics and studies paint a picture of reality that is not in accord with the worldview of the Left?
So, gA, what was the wilderness' evidence that challenged the 'mad' rightwinger view. All I see was his opinion.
Hey there bud. Did I give Wilderness to much credit? It is true that he only ventured his opinion that additional considerations would present different stats, but do you think his opinion was wrong? Do you think Mr. Popo's stats were wrong? Do you find the Guardian's stats more credible than Mr. Popo's?
This is not a new topic for us, and as usual, facts, truth and reality all have to pass through each of our prisms of perspectives and life experiences. It struck me that Mr. Popo's previous Blue Lives Matter video link is ample proof that allowing the sensationalism of an event to form our perception is too often a mistake.
That is not to say there may not be an issue to address, but it is to say that the Left is as guilty of ignoring or disputing what does not conform to their beliefs as they proclaim the Right to be.
Funny enough, outside of government data the only sources I've cited have been the Guardian and the Washington Post, both of which are left leaning.
I don't have a problem using their databases. They're quite comprehensive and seem to be accurate, though they unnecessarily include things like accidental car crashes or off-duty officers killing spouses in self-defense, which aren't representative of legal interventions.
The main problem is people's interpretation of the data is flawed. They see a "9 times more likely" disparity and invariably conclude it must be racism. They don't even bother thinking about the blatant cofounding variable of rate of crime, let alone of the variables that affect rate of crime, like poverty, education etc. which do not affect all races equally. It's not a left or right wing issue, it's an issue of statistical literacy.
The Guardian basically barfed the data into an article and included quotes of activists calling it an "epidemic": https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … -black-men
Most of the top comments pointed out that without the rate of crime the information is meaningless and is thus misleading. They even recommend a more balanced article from Channel 4's FactCheck: http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac … rime/19439
It's a funny world we live in where the comments in an article have more insight than the article itself.
The Guardian interactive enables us to derive a similar stat between genders. Allow me to transpose it to your post:
"Men were twenty four times more likely than other Americans to be killed by police officers in 2015.
That is pretty striking and points to a serious issue. Looking at the reasons for this in any realistic way would lead you to conclude that sexism is at core of the problem.
Men have fewer opportunities, are more harshly treated by authorities, relentlessly demonized by media and cops are either scared witless of the gender or don't think it conveys a right to life, so they shoot."
Try to find what's wrong with the above conclusions. I'll wait. Bear in mind that this shooting discrepancy between men and women is almost 3x as large as the discrepancy between young black men and other Americans, and 12x as large as the discrepancy between blacks and other Americans overall.
Lol. You should write a treatise on strategies of denial.
Never focus on the issue at hand.
Deflect attention to irrelevant issues that are deeply emotive for your tribe.
Pick out stats that are meaningless just to muddy the waters.
Ever thought of PR work?
As much as I like hearing vapid insults, I'd rather hear an explanation. Why were men twenty four times more likely than women to be killed by police officers in 2015?
I don't see why you can't answer that for me, given the severity of the problem.
Because men were the most likely to have the lethal confrontation with police officers because their crime rates are higher. But that does not excuse unjustified shootings or police abuse in any case regardless and that is the topic of discussion here.
There is still an 'attitude' problem that I picked up from Wilderness on a thread where the Travon Martin shooting was discussed. I hear that from the hard right that a 17 year old boy could basically be executed by this flunkie, cop wanna-be named Zimmerman. I am still P.Oed acknowledging the virtual cheer from the right wing community calling Zimmerman a hero and defining all young black men as thugs that earn a bullet due to the fact of their very existence. Zimmerman was told to stand down by the proper authorities and had no business stalking the boy as he had neither the traditional accouterments of law enforcement nor did he idntify himself. Why could the boy not consider himself in danger being stalked by this creep for no reason? Of course, since he was just a black thug armed with 'skittles' and a soda, he was not allowed to take his own safety into account when confronted by any white man.While, Zimmerman may have had the need to use a weapon to subdue Martin, his poor judgement and trigger happy attitude, common among right wing gun, nuts created a tragedy where there need not have been one. I will be so bold to say that the 'Zimmerman' factor colors the attitudes of far too any whites and law enforcement officers who stubbornly continue to remain tone deaf to this issue.
Shooting a 12 year old boy with a toy gun only seconds after confrontation in Cleveland.
Shooting a man in St. Paul multiple times when he reached for his identification, completely oblivious to the fact that there was a woman and a minor child in the car. What was his excuse? I panicked.
A cop shooting a fleeing black man in the back after discharging his weapon several times over a traffic stop in South Carolina. The dead man was unarmed.
Leaving a dead body in a Ferguson Mo. street for over. 5 hours after having been shot by police. While this may have been ajudicated as a justified shooting, the fact that the officer did not call an ambulance or attempt any first aid on the scene demonstrates that Black lives do not matter. Such disregard and disrespect for the community should not be tolerated.
It is not just a problem that can be attended to by the fine points of the law, but an attitude problem. The same attitude found among reactionary rughtwing Trump supporters and as a result, they can never have our support at any level.
But, maybe I am taking to the wrong person, for a Canadian, you virtually embrace the reactionary AMERICAN political right's rationale on all things
That's pretty well stated. And even to those who believe whites (or any ethnicity) suffer similar fates at similar rates, or those who don't think black lives matter; common sense should tell them that allowing law enforcement to reach lethally beyond the bounds of the law endangers all of us. What happens to our neighbor today can easily happen to any of us tomorrow.
Claiming the dead citizen had a record is no excuse to turn a blind eye. I know several people who may appear seedy by police history. Everyone takes a few wrong turns in life. That is no excuse to not mourn and protest their extermination, if it happens.
Congratulations, Credence, you found the cofounding variable. Now you need to apply that cofounding variable to your analysis of police shootings by race and see if that doesn't remove the disparity altogether. That was the point of my little analogy.
No, that does not excuse unjustified shootings, and I never said it does. To remind you, the actual topic is "How Do We Help White People Get Over Slavery and Empire." Within that umbrella topic we've reached several other topics and several other claims, including unjustified police shootings. For you to now expect the topic of discussion to be limited to only one particular topic of unjustified shootings by police is silly. If there is merit in understanding relevant topics to further the discussion, they should be brought up. Even though statistical literacy is not the main topic of discussion, it is fundamental in understanding the topic, and so it should be discussed.
As it happens, I am responding to a specific claim by Will, which I quoted and will do so again here:
"Young black men were nine times more likely than other Americans to be killed by police officers in 2015. That is pretty striking and points to a serious issue. Looking at the reasons for this in any realistic way would lead you to conclude that racism is at core of the problem."
The problem with this claim should be obvious. Will is using a statistic of overall shootings among black men to support a claim of unjustified shootings among black men. This is fallacious because it assumes that any disproportionality in shootings must be unjustified and based on racism. I made an analogous claim using genders to illustrate that this isn't necessarily the case and is unlikely to be the case because not all demographics commit crimes at the same rate, thus they should not be expected to be shot at the same rate.
Now this doesn't mean that there are no unjustified shootings among men relative to women, or among blacks relative to whites. It just means that the rate of unjustified shootings is not 9x the American average.
Once you take the relevant cofounding variables into account, you realize that the main problem does not lie with unjustified police shootings; it lies with the factors disproportionately affecting black communities, like education, poverty, and culture, that lead to greater rates of crime. Because you refuse to make that connection, you're doing the black community a disservice. You're making it harder to identify the root cause of the problem and fix it. Instead, you're attacking a relative non-issue and creating racial tensions and tensions among police and civilians.
Now I want to make it explicitly clear that the fact that the main problem does not lie with unjustified police shootings does not mean that unjustified police shootings do not exist. There will always be unjustified police shootings. There psychopathic cops who abuse their power. Those are cases like the South Carolina shooting. They're inexcusable. They're also a fraction of all cop shootings, and should not be treated as significant problems.
There are also cops who make mistakes. It's not an easy job and cops are human. So are response callers. As tragic as it is, the cops who shot Tamir Rice were never relayed the information that it was probably a toy gun. They might approach that situation differently had they known it was a child and that the gun was probably fake.
Could have they done this differently? Sure. They could have approached him neutrally (not driving the car into the gazebo area in a threatening manner) and calmly asked him to drop his weapon/raise his hands. But let's say they do all of that and Tamir then points the gun at them. Are they allowed to shoot, or do they need to wait to be shot at first? And how many seconds do you think they need to wait? Keep in mind that a gun being fired happens in a fraction of a second, and that you can't tell that it's a fake gun at a glance.
Either way, police who shoot people unjustifiably or who don't administer first aid should be taken to court and punished. But knowing that these events are a very small fraction of cops and knowing that less than 5% of police shootings are potentially unjustified just means that this hysteria about unjustified police shootings is unwarranted, overblown and misguided at best.
If you wish to gain an understanding on basic statistical literacy and how the problem is being exacerbated by the media and public perception, I'm more than happy to educate you. But maybe I'm also talking to the wrong person. Maybe I'm talking to a person who thinks that statistical literacy is a right wing neo-Nazi racist Trump rationale.
It's sad, really. The type of mischaracterization you engage in is exactly the sort of thing that's pushing people like me away from the left. You've accurately labeled the rise of Trump as reactionary. Ever wonder what it's reacting to? It's reacting to the left's ridiculous lumping of everyone that doesn't agree with you as "right wing Trump supporting racist Nazis." It's reacting to the left's silencing of speech and treatment of opposing view points as thought-crimes and wrong-think. In many ways you are partly responsible for Trump's success. Congrats.
Ok, Mr. P, let's get to the point here.
I don't have any argument about the more frequent shootings of blacks not totally based on racism but upon locale and crime related factors, fine.
Since we are talking about 'shootings', I see this, my point and aspect, as relevant to this conversation? I did not imply that the conversation be limited, but it IS a factor that deserves discussion within the general theme.
I follow your reasoning about Will's point, I agree that the logic of your argument supports you in this instance.
It would be interesting to find that statistic to show the rate of police shootings determined as unjustified with a racial breakdown of the victims and compare the ratios. That is what I am getting at, such data may not be available.
There is no acceptable relationship between unjustified police shootings and generally higher crime rates that would support the more frequent use of lethal force by law enforcement officers within the black community. Unjustified is unjustified, period.
Is there a root cause of these sorts of shootings that you can blame the Black community for? All your community suggestions are well taken to reduce the necessity of black shooting deaths in confrontations with the police. Conservatives want to puta blanket explantion of black criminal behavior to absolve the police and its municipal masters of bearing any responsibility for the inappropriate use of force and that is what I resent about them. Your partner in crime, Wilderness, actually suggested that it would impose an unacceptable burden on law officers to be forced to have to wear a miniature camera while on duty, but they have pockets to carry their miniature donuts. You all do not want to properly delineate the issue, from the beginning.
Speak for yourself, I do not consider unjustified shootings a non-issue. Conservatives do because they want to reduce the entire debate to 'controlling Black thugs'. Part of that is avoiding practices that make law enforcement officers more accountable for their behavior on the job. Also, avoiding the issue of appropriate training of officers to keep these events at a minimum. Finally, proper training and screening to keep the racists and 'Dirty Harry' types off of the force. I will insist that those that abuse their discretion be prosecuted to the maximum extent making an example for the rest. So, leave your bigotry and biases at home and serve and protect everyone equally. A police officer has to be courageous, intelligent and compassionate, so if you don't have the mettle, get another job.
So, I say that the unjustified shooting are probably more rather than less prevalent, there is no reason for me to believe otherwise. How much abusive behavior escapes the glaring eye of the video camera?
The point with Tamir Riceis that the police procedure and behavior never gave the boy a chance. I question if that would have been the outcome for a little white boy in a similar circumstance?
What percentage of that 5 percent involve the Black community? There are too many mistakes, the biggest ones are those that fail to acknowledge that there remains a problem.
Like Wilderness always says, statistics are often used to promote a preconceived and inherently biased position.
The left is asking that the proper questions be put to police departments and municipal governments they answer to, the right is content in dismissing this topic as a non-issue, and shutting down further discussion.
Well, for the Black community, this is not going away.....
"I don't have any argument about the more frequent shootings of blacks not totally based on racism but upon locale and crime related factors, fine."
Even the way you phrase that is questionable. It's as if you think the disproportionality is primarily a result of racism. No, it's not "totally" based on racism, it's barely based on racism.
"I did not imply that the conversation be limited"
Then why bother telling me that the topic of discussion is "unjustified police shootings"? It's not the topic of discussion. Besides, I was explaining how to properly determine the rate of unjustified police shootings, you just missed the point.
"It would be interesting to find that statistic to show the rate of police shootings determined as unjustified with a racial breakdown of the victims and compare the ratios. That is what I am getting at, such data may not be available."
I've mentioned one such study several times in the thread: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upsho … e&_r=0
Police are more likely to shoot whites than blacks when not attacked first, and 20% less likely to shoot a black suspect when lethal force would have been justified.
"There is no acceptable relationship between unjustified police shootings and generally higher crime rates that would support the more frequent use of lethal force by law enforcement officers within the black community. Unjustified is unjustified, period."
Who do you think are more likely to be shot unjustifiably? Men or women? And why?
"Your partner in crime, Wilderness, actually suggested that it would impose an unacceptable burden on law officers to be forced to have to wear a miniature camera while on duty, but they have pockets to carry their miniature donuts. You all do not want to properly delineate the issue, from the beginning."
Was this poor phrasing or are you accusing me of not wanting to 'delineate' the issue? Try reading some of my earlier posts. You'll find that I advocated for body cams, not only to protect civilians but to protect police from false accusations.
I'm curious to know what my 'partner in crime' Wilderness thinks of body cams. He might have thought of something that I didn't.
"Speak for yourself, I do not consider unjustified shootings a non-issue."
Did I say unjustified shootings are a non-issue? Read again. There's a word just in front of non-issue that changes the meaning entirely.
Funny enough, I knew that statement would be misconstrued, which is why I put that word there to avoid any confusion. Yet here we are.
"The point with Tamir Riceis that the police procedure and behavior never gave the boy a chance."
What if he didn't reach for his toy gun and just put his hands in the air?
"What percentage of that 5 percent involve the Black community?"
The Washington Post study doesn't say; I'm guessing it's 30-40%, in line with crime rates. Why would it line up with crime rates? Again, who do you think are more likely to be shot unjustifiably? Men or women?
"Ultimately, it is about right wingers covering themselves, as best they can, from the notion that their attitudes are the prime drivers of the slaughter."
Either that or it is about PC left wingers covering themselves, as best they can, from the notion that young black males are, to a higher degree than other groups, the prime drivers of the slaughter.
Stats can be made to say whatever the compiler wants them to say. It is up to the reader to determine if they are valid or not, if all the pertinent factors are included and even if the basic arithmetic has been done correctly. Do you deny, for instance, that the location (inner city vs farm belt perhaps) plays a part? That past records of violations is not pertinent?
Or are we all expected to not question any stats you provide regardless of the completeness of them, because you like the result?
"Looking at the reasons for this in any realistic way would lead you to conclude that racism is at core of the problem."
OR...we could look at other factors that play a major part in it. Such as where it happens, the makeup of the population there, the records (both individual police and general population records for the area). We could actually try to find out what's happening and why rather than simply write it off to race.
You're more than happy to include population make up in the stats - why not the other factors? Why stop with just population rather than include other, very pertinent, factors? Because it ruins your conclusion that all white cops are racists, out to shoot black males?
Ironically the thread title uses the phrase: white people. Thats a whole group. It seems a contradiction to have a discussion on hypothetical rascism and name an entire group. I have just a gut feeling: personally I am Irish white mostly but all of my friends are mixed race or other races, therefore I am less rascist. Likewise if I lump groups as rascist in a particular political atmosphere, although I belong to that group it will appear that I am not rascist by taking that avenue. Oddly it has an appearence of being superior.
In a way, that's the point I'm trying to make. If we're going to talk statistics, that means a group - let's make the group as distinct as possible and as small as possible.
In the case at hand, are the number of cases of cops killing blacks (a great big group) nearly the same number as the cases of cops killing "young black men of the inner city with a police record" or even "young black men of the innter city with a police record and either armed or known to carry arms"? If this much smaller group has (nearly) all of the killings, does it not make sense to limit the group to "young black men of the inner city with a police record" and then try to figure out why and what a solution might be?
Of course it does,.but we have mounting evidence that there is a problem which should be addressed.
I am not unaware of most of what you point out and I do think there is a culture that many black youth buy into which, even if they aren't criminals, causes police to initially view them as such. Gangsta style behavior, etc. But, there is absolutely nothing I can think of which absolves one human being of guilt when they take the life of another if there is any other option available.
Police are paid to uphold our laws. Not be judge and jury. We pay them to serve and protect. Serve and protect all of us. It's a difficult job, I'm sure. But if one of them can't do that job they need to find another. If they won't do the job then they need to be held accountable.
Nobody is disputing that blacks are disproportionately shot relative to their population. What is being disputed is whether or not blacks are disproportionately shot unjustly relative to their population.
There are many factors you aren't taking into account that could cause these disparities on their own (time of day, population density, area etc.), but one of the main ones is rate of criminal behaviour, especially violent crime. Obviously, greater rates of violent crime will lead to greater instances of being shot at by police.
I don't think you'd blink twice if you were to hear than 95% of police shooting victims are men. That's a significant disproportionality, far more than the disproportionality blacks are facing. Yet it doesn't cause outrage because we know that men commit crimes at significantly higher rates relative to women.
As it happens, blacks commit crimes disproportionately relative to other racial demographics. This is why I linked FBI arrest data earlier: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … s/table-43
Note that despite being just 13% of population blacks are committing 30-50%+ of the violent crimes in that table.
Now this is just arrest data, so you might say it's the justice system disproportionately targeting blacks*. But this data matches up closely with victim polling data**: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
To revisit the claims in the NYT article:
1) whites are shot more often than blacks when the police fire without being first attacked
2) blacks are shot less often when it would be justified to do so (for instance, attempting to murder an officer)
3) blacks and white shooting victims were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon
And the Washington Post:
4) 95%+ of police shootings are justified
In light of the above, I can't see how anyone can conclude that blacks are being unjustly disproportionately shot at by police.
* Even though I bring this up, I can't imagine what the justification is for 52% of murder arrests being black. If blacks aren't disproportionately killing people relative to their population, that would mean that either:
- of the 4300 blacks arrested for murder, 3300 are actually innocent
- an additional 25000 white murderers are being ignored by police
I can't see either of these two possibilities being likely.
** Unfortunate that they stopped collecting such data in 2008. It seems to be politically incorrect to point out the fact that most perpetrators are minorities, enough to suppress that data entirely, but it's okay to paint white cops as racially motivated killers without evidence.
Not surprising they stopped collecting such data (although I imagine it is still available, just not collated) - it is most definitely not what the PC crowd wants to hear.
I have to say the thing that saddens me most is that some refuse to admit a problem while some overstate the problem. By doing so, they allow the problem to fester.
There is a problem. Now there may be factors which exacerbate it, which need to be factored in, but there is absolutely no excuse for excessive force by our police. Until we stop allowing police to not be held to the same standards of the law each of the rest of us are held to when it is broken the problem will persist.
There are racists on both sides of the argument, and they are typically the ones with the loudest voices, either claiming there IS no problem or that it is systemic, intentional violence by whites to kill blacks. Neither is true.
But we may differ in the definition of "excessive" force, for I do not expect police to take any risks with their lives (or the lives of the public) than necessary. I don't expect them to be shot before returning fire, I don't expect them to be shot at before firing.
Nor can police be held to the same standards as the rest of us: we are not in their position and are not charged with protecting the general population. Cops are sometimes required by their job to kill: the general population never is. Cops are required to arrest, using force if necessary; we aren't. Cops may be required to violently disable a speeding car: we aren't.
At the root, then, cops are required to be violent at times, but the citizen never is. We have a choice to run away from a mass murderer: a cop doesn't. The standards that fit a citizen don't work for a cop.
I agree that excessive force can be necessary. I think we may disagree on when it is not. If a situation is such that a reasonable person would not use excessive force, then a cop should not get away with it, just because they are a cop.
Also, I would put forth that if a cop uses excessive force well outside of the bounds of where it would be required they should be held to a stricter standard because they are in a position where a reasonable person might be compelled to allow it, where they wouldn't be so inclined if treated in the same manner by anaverage citizen.
Like I mentioned, our definition of "excessive force" is quite different. When a cop, for instance, is required to use deadly force, it is not "excessive"; it is the correct thing to do.
Watched a video yesterday where a woman was stopped for a traffic violation. She complained that she did nothing wrong, refused to give her license, and called the cop shop (not 911 - the cop shop). The cop waited patiently while she spoke to the station and complained again she did nothing wrong, then was transferred to dispatch and began the whole spiel all over - she did nothing wrong and was "afraid" to give her license out. All while the traffic cop is waiting patiently, with both he and the woman, and their cars, blocking traffic. Eventually he grabbed her and began to put handcuffs on, whereupon she began screaming "He's going to taze me!".
Was that excessive? She refused to cooperate, refused to provide a license, refused to do anything at all. Is it excessive that he arrested her? Was it excessive that he grabbed her and put cuffs on? Should he just let her go because she was "afraid" to give her license? I don't see it that way - the cop is charged with enforcing the law and that she doesn't want a ticket is not a reason not to do so. Commentors on the video complained that he "escalated" the situation: I'd say the woman did when she continued to refuse to cooperate, called the police station and demanded that she be let go because she didn't do anything.
I'm sorry. If you are going to give silly scenarios where the end result is someone getting hand cuffed for being an a** then we are talking about completely different things. I could care less if a person who has no respect for other drivers ends up hand cuffed because they need to be moved along.
I have already stated and I reiterate. There are times where excessive force is the only option. No one, absolutely no one that I know of is implying that a police officer should put himself or herself in grave danger. If excessive force is what a reasonable and clear headed person would deem the appropriate action then it is the appropriate action. Shooting first and then saying 'I was scared' or 'I don't know why I discharged my weapon' is not an excuse and should be dealt with with the full force of the law. Or, are you suggesting that all of our civil rights be set aside so that police officers can feel confident that whatever they do is acceptable and will not result in any type of punishment?
Those of you who insist that nothing is wrong and all is right in the world of our police force are ignoring clear evidence of a serious problem. Is it wide spread? I certainly hope not. But, pretending that it does not exist will cause it to spread.
Sorry - I did not get my point across. The video is an example of the foolishness of people in exclaiming that the cop was unreasonable and used excessive force. Not an example of excessive force.
But a part of the problem in my own mind is the very term "excessive force". It means different things to you and I and every time I see it I take it for what it means: the use of force over and above what is necessary or required. That's what the term "excessive" means, but I think you're using it to mean "force" in general, whether necessary, or excessive, or not. So I have a hard time understanding what is being meant.
Overall, I do think we're on the same page: that cops sometimes use excessive force (beyond what is necessary) but most of the time they do not. Oh, we may vary somewhat in just how much a cop should have to put up with, but it isn't a big difference (I think) - seems we both think he was entirely justified in handcuffing the woman in the video, for instance.
I thought I had been quite clear that I was not implying excessive force not force, in general.
LOL - isn't communication great?! "I was not implying excessive force not force, in general." If those words are what you meant to type then I'm completely lost, for they make no sense to me. Sometimes I just don't get it - the words go right over my head.
Argh. I had written something, went to correct it and it became discombobulated. Excessive force, mostly lethal force, is what I am talking about when I complain about police misconduct. But, excessive force can be very subjective; as in your instance where the woman was whining about being handcuffed.
Whew! Though I really was going senile (my wife tells me that).
While deadly force certainly results in worse results, I think it more common to see cops using excessive force when almost no force is called for. Getting carried away with a baton or taser, perhaps. Beating a person on the ground. Just getting carried away in the moment as anger or fear takes over.
We've seen statistics in this thread (I think this one) that actual excessive force in shooting someone is quite rare. But I do think that lesser force, but still excessive and greater than called for, is much more common and actually leads to greater problems because of that.
Of course there is a problem, just like there is a problem with vending machines killing people. The problem of unjustified police shootings is:
a) exacerbated by extensive media coverage and international campaigns like BLM
b) not disproportionately affecting blacks and minorities
If the Washington Post's analysis is correct less than 5% of shootings are unjustified. That's less than 50 unjustified shootings per year. Coconuts kill more people than that per year.
Of those 50 unjustified shootings, 15-20 are against blacks. Let's say that 50 different cops were involved in these shootings. You have 765,000 sworn officers in your country. Those 50 cops represent 0.006% of all police officers.
Is it really worth it having racial and police tensions increased to this degree because of 15-20 potentially unjustified shootings by 0.006% of the police? What number does it need to be for you to say that most cops aren't psychopaths and that this issue is not that significant?
I say this because compared to the annual numbers of black homicide victims the number of shootings by police is a drop in the ocean. Yet we don't see much being done to address that problem.
It is not just the shootings, but climate of abusive behavior. Where are your statistics as to the unjustified shootings, I would like to see this for myself?
Those stats come from the super right wing Trump supporting neo-Nazi Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest … nder-fire/
I would say stop thinking the sins of others are somehow your sins?
Someone freed the slaves but they didn't really want to.
Empapthy is given to a chosen few saints.
by SPomposello 6 years ago
My wife and I are an interracial couple, I'm italian and she's black/spanish mixed, and we live in NY. So I pretty much have no issues when it comes to different races and people. I work at a job that involves dealing with kids and teens who have behavior-related issues, most of these kids are of...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 3 years ago
Why does the mention of slavery anger some people? Is it ever appropriate to mention it?There were ugly comments when Michelle Obama mentioned the irony that slaves building the white house and then her living there. Some consider it racist. Some slaves were descendants of...
by VC L Veasey 3 years ago
Is The Confederate Flag A Symbol Of White Supremacy And Racism?
by Renee S 8 years ago
an African American president made it worse or better in your opinion?
by Susannah Birch 9 years ago
"Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority--but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a...
by Credence2 3 years ago
I thought that this article, attached, was most revealing. It might just show that this problem is not just a figment of left's imagination. A politically conservative Black man from a politically Conservative state, South Carolina, explains the points that I have trying to make for some...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|