I am not really going to devolve into the personal attack, name calling thing. Not my style.
If you have an actual argument that is supported by facts by all means present it. If you don't than that is cool. You do you.
Printable View
I am not really going to devolve into the personal attack, name calling thing. Not my style.
If you have an actual argument that is supported by facts by all means present it. If you don't than that is cool. You do you.
Have you provided any links? Surely, since you googled this information you could've provided links for other posters to follow your path to information in your post. Akin to citing a source. You've cited no source. Therefore, you've stated no facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
And so far, the only thing you've done is prove that you are racially motivated to find statistics that fit your agenda. I think that's what Sonatine and Larry Laffer are trying to point out, if ever so crudely by resorting to name calling and calling you a racist.
lol @ calling him a racist.
For the period 2008–12—
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000)
Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).
The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137
Like I said, this is a poverty issue.
Yes, pretty much what I think about this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCR
I don't see what 1979 has to do with any of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by varys
The controversial black-men-shot-by-cops stories of the past 4 years have all involved males who weren't adults (or weren't alive) in 1979.
The bottom line is that there is a glorification of violence in the black community, and the lack of two-parent families and the poverty also aren't helping matters.
But it's not just the poverty. There are lots of really poor white towns (you see plenty of them driving through Nevada), and despite the prevalence of bad drug problems and little opportunity, violent crime is very low.
Unfortunately, I believe that violence in the black community is cultural, but it's politically incorrect to say so.
Bill Cosby was one of the few black people speaking out about that, but then it turned out he was a rapist, so no one is going to listen to him anymore.
Ok. That doesn't support the narrative that police are unfairly targeting blacks due to systemic racism. This supports the narrative blacks are disproportionately violent criminals because they are disproportionately poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by lewfather
You can argue that blacks are disproportionately poor because of systemic racism, but that has nothing to do with the police, and throwing a jihad against police isn't going to solve any of this.
In fact, there really is no evidence at all supporting the "police unfairly targeting blacks due to racism" angle. All there is is CNN selectively showing videos of cops shooting blacks (and ignoring the 2x as many videos of them shooting whites) and building a false narrative from this.
Before the prevalence of cell phones with cameras & video capabilities the narrative was how hard & scary police work was being put in life threatening situations every hour of every day. All we, as the public, had to go by was what was reported in court or police reports & it was pretty reasonable to believe this kind of stuff & probably easy for other police officers to believe it as well.
Since the advent of easy video it's become very apparent that the police are just full of shit. What we're seeing on these videos in no way resembles what they put in a police report or testify to in court & these were always thought to be factual. If police are more than willing to write pure fiction in a police report when they know they are being videotaped why would anyone think all these past incidents or those not being videotaped nowadays were/are being reported properly?
So you think you know all you need to know about police work because you see a 20 second youtube click every once in a while, that of course has been selected exactly because it shows you exactly what whoever edited it wants you to believe??Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
You have no idea what it is like having your job being dealing with the absolute lowest scum of society day in and day out, year after year. I have a feeling that if most of us actually were a police officer for a couple years we would find we would start thinking and reacting to situations a lot differently than we think we would.
I am not saying every police officer is perfect, or the system is perfect. Lets be honest. There probably arent enough qualifed people in the country that have the correct psychological makeup to be a good police officer who are willing to do the job for $45k/year, so there is always going to be be bad police officers who make bad decisions. All else being equal, given how violent and criminal our society is, police as a whole probably do about as well as to be expected.
I am just saying the entire narrative of police having institutionalized racism against black people is a false narrative, and we need to stop drinking the kool-aid the media is pouring for us, and realize we are being manipulated by higher powers that have their own ends, and those ends have nothing to do with fixing any of the problems in our society today.
Thanks for missing the point.
Carry on.
Perhaps she was practicing for the TPD's centennial celebration of the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
AIU usually has an interesting, fact based analysis, this one's no exception.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqXN4Gsmd0M
Hear both sides.
For those that didn't watch
7 person jury found him not guilty of manslaughter. Two were black, good enough for me.
Trevor Noah's a fuckin liar and gets pwned @ 9 min.
Tamir Rice is mentioned, he was shot because he had a toy gun.
What's never mentioned is that year 23 whites killed with toy gun vs 5 blacks.
Oh and the officer isn't white, but close enough, wtf.
Trevor Noah smh
Jon Stuart with Trump as pres. would be GOLD.
It's about time for a comeback imo.
Well that was quick.
The bolded part seems to indicate that Officer Yanez will not face a civil suit in the matter.Quote:
The mother of Philando Castile has reached a nearly $3 million settlement with the city of St. Anthony over all civil claims related to the fatal shooting of her son by one of the city’s police officers during a traffic stop last summer.
The agreement was announced Monday morning in conjunction with the city. It was negotiated by Valerie Castile’s attorneys, Robert Bennett and Glenda Hatchett.
http://www.twincities.com/2017/06/26...ment-in-death/
Not altogether surprising it was settled so soon after this verdict. 3 million birds in the hand are worth 6 million in the bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by wrenchjockey
yanez was never going to face a civil lawsuit.
any lawyer would tell you that you sue the municipal government.
You sue the cop you got what? his mortgage?
Here. I fixed your post. Journalism 101 dictates that if a police officer is not white and does not have a white sounding name, you never actually say his name or show any pictures. The narrative is that white police officers shoot black victims. Anytime reality interferes with that narrative you just leave out the details.Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryLaffer
YW
Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardHere. I fixed your post. Journalism 101 dictates that if a police officer is not white and does not have a white sounding name, you never actually say his name or show any pictures. The narrative is that white police officers shoot black victims. Anytime reality interferes with that narrative you just leave out the details.Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryLaffer
YW
LoL
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryLaffer
red repping you has gotten boring.
Larr, you really don't know what you are talking about. Shocker I know.
Suing a municipality under Sec 1983 is almost impossible to succeed. You have to show a policy or practice under Monell. So, its easier to just sue the cop and the insurance or a dept agreement with defend and likely indemnify the officer.
Stick with what you know.
:wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by verminaardHere. I fixed your post. Journalism 101 dictates that if a police officer is not white and does not have a white sounding name, you never actually say his name or show any pictures. The narrative is that white police officers shoot black victims. Anytime reality interferes with that narrative you just leave out the details.Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryLaffer
YW
The narrative is that *white racist voter-protected* police shoot *minority* victims. That's why Jeff Sessions is pushing to gut federal oversight of badly behaving local police deparments.