The news the MSM ignores because it does not fit the narrative

[ErickAA]

Actually if you look at statistics, per potentially violent encounter black cops are much more likely to shoot a white suspect than the other way around. There are no stories because the media doesn't report them. The stories that are reported and blow up are the ones that the MSM and other race baiters stir up with the express goal of increasing racial tension.

I don't have time to dig up the statistics now, and I don't think you care anyways, you have already made up your mind that the media is representing the situation accurately, when it couldn't be further from the truth. But when I have time I may go through this.

I remember there was an actual academic peer-reviewed study done that showed that in any given encounter statistically cops were LESS likely to shoot a black suspect than a white one. Of course all the race baiters just waived it off saying flawed methodology, and the media completely ignored it. There are no such studies indicating that white cops are going after and killing black suspects. I guarantee you that if the data did support this narrative that study would be out there, but it doesn't.

So you can't find statistics to back up your claim, which means They must be suppressing it, which means it must be true. That's exactly the kind of logic I would expect from a senior member of Team Sexual Assault of Children.

Here's the non-peer reviewed paper you're talking about-

https://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/ha...ved-shootings/

http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...nap-story.html

No, I said I didn't have time. I was out all day and still busy. It would take 5 minutes of googling to find the data. I know it wouldn't change your mind (or anyone else) anyways, so I am not in any hurry. The way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief. This goes for left and right leaning persons.

Anyways, if there was actually any hard data to support the narrative police were racist against blacks, especially white police, you can guarantee it would be published and featured prominently, considering the radical leftist bent of people that do such research. The complete lack of data supporting this narrative is damning in itself. All we have is the MSM cherry picking stories that support their narrative and ignoring the ones that don't.

[ErickAA]

So you can't find statistics to back up your claim, which means They must be suppressing it, which means it must be true. That's exactly the kind of logic I would expect from a senior member of Team Sexual Assault of Children.

Here's the non-peer reviewed paper you're talking about-

https://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/ha...ved-shootings/

http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...nap-story.html

No, I said I didn't have time. I was out all day and still busy. It would take 5 minutes of googling to find the data. I know it wouldn't change your mind (or anyone else) anyways, so I am not in any hurry. The way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief. This goes for left and right leaning persons.

Anyways, if there was actually any hard data to support the narrative police were racist against blacks, especially white police, you can guarantee it would be published and featured prominently, considering the radical leftist bent of people that do such research. The complete lack of data supporting this narrative is damning in itself. All we have is the MSM cherry picking stories that support their narrative and ignoring the ones that don't.

So what is your response to there actually being a study showing blacks are no more likely to be killed by police than whites given proper controls. Just to hand waive it away by some arbitrary criteria?

[Tellafriend]

Headlines around the web.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/


In the fiscal year 2017, 521 Somali citizens were deported, according to the most recent report from ICE. A spokeswoman for the agency said there were five chartered flights to Somalia that year.

Refugee Admission numbers for FY2017

January 20, 2017 (Inauguration Day), refugee admissions for FY2017 stood at 30,122. Trump had every legal right to stop the admissions right there under the 110,000 CEILING Obama proposed.

March 16, 2017: As of this date we admitted 38,106 refugees. (Trump lowered ceiling to 50,000 by September 30th.) This was supposed to be the first day of a 120-day moratorium so they could make sure “extreme vetting” was in place.

September 30, 2017: 53,716 admitted (this is 15,610 refugees since the supposed, original, moratorium began and 23,594 since Trump was inaugurated).

Notice how we skipped over the debate on whether mass immigration is wanted, needed or good for America. The Jewish groups framed the debate so one would assume we need non white immigration, well we don't.
Same link

Middle East expert Pipes: I now believe it is a “purposeful conspiracy to replace Western civilization with Islam”
As ISIS collapses, will Europe face another wave of Syrian immigrants?

ISIS is a minor issue today; the major question is how the powers now present in Syria will resolve matters among them. I am pessimistic and expect many more refugees will be spilling out of Syria.

If so, how can Europe deal with this radicalized humanity?

Europeans should take control of their borders while urging Middle Eastern migrants to head toward Saudi Arabia and other wealthy states with whom they share a culture.

We previously posted a recommendation from Pipes in which he said Muslim refugees should be taken care of in their own “culture zone.”

Yep it's a Jewish conspiracy and look what an expert on Islam recommends.
Then there's a link to Al Franken's state Mn. and there's some pro Somali crap and look at the most read and one could safely assume it's black on white crime out of control.

From https://www.hias.org/blog/israels-la...wed-opposition

Omg they're so cute, how could Israel just kick them out.

Living conditions for the estimated 38,000 Africans seeking asylum in Israel have never been easy. On Wednesday, November 29, a committee in Israel’s Knesset (parliament) voted to make their lives even harder.

Already grappling with the inherent uncertainty of having no permanent legal status, this population, many of whom have been waiting years for an asylum hearing, now faces arguably the most direct threat to its future in the Jewish state.

Specifically, the recently proposed measures would make it more difficult to move freely or find work within Israel, and, pending the potential closure of the Holot detention center later this spring, allow the government to either imprison Eritrean and Sudanese nationals or deport them to a third country such as Rwanda.

“There has always been a campaign of social and political marginalization on the part of the Israeli government,” explained Sivan Carmel, country director for HIAS Israel, “but this is an escalation.”

“For the amount of time and resources the government has committed to creating an impossible existence for individuals—people who are simply searching for safety—surely it could have resolved the situation in a fair and humane way within Israel, such as geographic dispersion throughout the country. Deportation is not the answer.”

Ahead of a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Rwandan President Paul Kagame last month, HIAS Israel was one of seven leading Israeli human rights organizations which urged President Kagame not to accept refugees forced out of Israel.

The groups wrote in part, “we trust in you, and the people of Rwanda, that you will not agree to this denial of liberty. We hope and trust you will not agree that African refugees are caged and traded in this way.”

Write your Congreesman, tell them you do not accept this blatant racism from a country that recieves so much foreign aid. That's so f racist.

DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH

FAGGOTS

[FPS_Russia]

Peter Sweden tweeted there has been a massive leak in Sweden which shows the ethnicity of people sent to prison in the last 10 yrs. The MSM in Sweden is freaking out.

Why, just tell the truth


Rape's pretty much legal.

[gimmick]

No, I said I didn't have time. I was out all day and still busy. It would take 5 minutes of googling to find the data. I know it wouldn't change your mind (or anyone else) anyways, so I am not in any hurry. The way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief. This goes for left and right leaning persons.

Anyways, if there was actually any hard data to support the narrative police were racist against blacks, especially white police, you can guarantee it would be published and featured prominently, considering the radical leftist bent of people that do such research. The complete lack of data supporting this narrative is damning in itself. All we have is the MSM cherry picking stories that support their narrative and ignoring the ones that don't.

So what is your response to there actually being a study showing blacks are no more likely to be killed by police than whites given proper controls. Just to hand waive it away by some arbitrary criteria?

If you clickety click those links that DirtyB posted, you will find out that there is no peer reviewed study.

You know the way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief.

What you had was a working paper written by an economist based entirely on volunteered police reports. It's roughly worth fuck all.

[Tellafriend]

So what is your response to there actually being a study showing blacks are no more likely to be killed by police than whites given proper controls. Just to hand waive it away by some arbitrary criteria?

If you clickety click those links that DirtyB posted, you will find out that there is no peer reviewed study.

You know the way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief.

What you had was a working paper written by an economist based entirely on volunteered police reports. It's roughly worth fuck all.

So, do you live in the ghetto amongst these animals? Or do you just wish the rest of us would so you don't feel so guilty?

[gimmick]

If you clickety click those links that DirtyB posted, you will find out that there is no peer reviewed study.

You know the way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief.

What you had was a working paper written by an economist based entirely on volunteered police reports. It's roughly worth fuck all.

So, do you live in the ghetto amongst these animals? Or do you just wish the rest of us would so you don't feel so guilty?

The fuck you on about mong?

[Tellafriend]

So, do you live in the ghetto amongst these animals? Or do you just wish the rest of us would so you don't feel so guilty?

The fuck you on about mong?

[ErickAA]

So what is your response to there actually being a study showing blacks are no more likely to be killed by police than whites given proper controls. Just to hand waive it away by some arbitrary criteria?

If you clickety click those links that DirtyB posted, you will find out that there is no peer reviewed study.

You know the way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief.

What you had was a working paper written by an economist based entirely on volunteered police reports. It's roughly worth fuck all.

The data being worth fuck-all is your subjective opinion. I certainly think it is worth more than a biased MSM cherry picking stories that support their narrative and ignoring ones that don't. Yet, many people are perfectly ok with just taking for granted the media is objectively telling it like it is because they are telling them a story they already believe to be true.

Probably 90%+ social scientists are hard left leaning. And between all of them they can't find any data to massage to support any narrative police are targeting blacks and murdering them. That should tell a person who was being intellectually honest something. Of course, it is a rare person who is actually intellectually honest.

[gimmick]

If you clickety click those links that DirtyB posted, you will find out that there is no peer reviewed study.

You know the way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief.

What you had was a working paper written by an economist based entirely on volunteered police reports. It's roughly worth fuck all.

The data being worth fuck-all is your subjective opinion. I certainly think it is worth more than a biased MSM cherry picking stories that support their narrative and ignoring ones that don't. Yet, many people are perfectly ok with just taking for granted the media is objectively telling it like it is because they are telling them a story they already believe to be true.

Probably 90%+ social scientists are hard left leaning. And between all of them they can't find any data to massage to support any narrative police are targeting blacks and murdering them. That should tell a person who was being intellectually honest something. Of course, it is a rare person who is actually intellectually honest.

Yea still not a peer reviewed study. That's like the only requirement for it to be a peer reviewed study. There are no shades or grades to it. It either is or it isn't and in this case it is not.

One day it could be a peer reviewed study. Then it will be a very weak study. Like i said it is based entirely on volunteered police reports. It is the equivalent of asking the officer responsible of the shooting did he do anything shady. That is objectively retarded basis for a study.

[mulva]

so people are against verm because of his cited cases or because what he says isn't true?. obv there is plenty of truth between the lines of what he says. regardless if his legwork is subpar.

[donkdowndonedied]

So you can't find statistics to back up your claim, which means They must be suppressing it, which means it must be true. That's exactly the kind of logic I would expect from a senior member of Team Sexual Assault of Children.

Here's the non-peer reviewed paper you're talking about-

https://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/ha...ved-shootings/

http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...nap-story.html

No, I said I didn't have time. I was out all day and still busy. It would take 5 minutes of googling to find the data. I know it wouldn't change your mind (or anyone else) anyways, so I am not in any hurry. The way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief. This goes for left and right leaning persons.

Anyways, if there was actually any hard data to support the narrative police were racist against blacks, especially white police, you can guarantee it would be published and featured prominently, considering the radical leftist bent of people that do such research. The complete lack of data supporting this narrative is damning in itself. All we have is the MSM cherry picking stories that support their narrative and ignoring the ones that don't.

So after reading this I went and read some of these links. Basically in a given encounter, blacks have only a small (~2%.. actually check for yourself) difference in being killed. So the idea that cops tend to kills blacks more often seems to not be supported very strongly. Yes, there is a bias but it is minor.

Where this falls apart though is that blacks are stopped and have far more encounters with police. A black guy is 2.7x more likely to be killed by a cop, but thats because they're likely to have 2.7x more encounters with cops.

So it is likely that yes cops are racist, but it doesn't really play out in the number of lethal encounters. In that regard, it would seem that perhaps BLM has it completely wrong.

This is a bit surprising to me, but not really. I never really was behind BLM or whatever, but all for police accountability. Unlike a lot of government loving rightwingers, I actually really truly believe we need to keep an eye on police. THere is no other position in society that has a greater disparity of power and education/experience.

I also look at how the Ferguson police depart operated. I look at civil forfeiture and so forth. Police really do need to be held accountable and not given some huge amount of power. It is nonsense. They retire in their 50s and are the most entitled group of government employees you will *EVER* encounter.

[Tellafriend]

[ErickAA]

The data being worth fuck-all is your subjective opinion. I certainly think it is worth more than a biased MSM cherry picking stories that support their narrative and ignoring ones that don't. Yet, many people are perfectly ok with just taking for granted the media is objectively telling it like it is because they are telling them a story they already believe to be true.

Probably 90%+ social scientists are hard left leaning. And between all of them they can't find any data to massage to support any narrative police are targeting blacks and murdering them. That should tell a person who was being intellectually honest something. Of course, it is a rare person who is actually intellectually honest.

Yea still not a peer reviewed study. That's like the only requirement for it to be a peer reviewed study. There are no shades or grades to it. It either is or it isn't and in this case it is not.

One day it could be a peer reviewed study. Then it will be a very weak study. Like i said it is based entirely on volunteered police reports. It is the equivalent of asking the officer responsible of the shooting did he do anything shady. That is objectively retarded basis for a study.

Ok. It isn't a peer reviewed study. I was mistaken on that. That doesn't change the fact of dishonest media coverage portraying a false narrative.

[ErickAA]

No, I said I didn't have time. I was out all day and still busy. It would take 5 minutes of googling to find the data. I know it wouldn't change your mind (or anyone else) anyways, so I am not in any hurry. The way human psychology works people make up their minds using completely emotional criteria. If data supports their emotional state then they support it. If data doesn't than it is ignored. It is a very rare person whom a preponderance of evidence against what they believe would actually change their belief. This goes for left and right leaning persons.

Anyways, if there was actually any hard data to support the narrative police were racist against blacks, especially white police, you can guarantee it would be published and featured prominently, considering the radical leftist bent of people that do such research. The complete lack of data supporting this narrative is damning in itself. All we have is the MSM cherry picking stories that support their narrative and ignoring the ones that don't.

So after reading this I went and read some of these links. Basically in a given encounter, blacks have only a small (~2%.. actually check for yourself) difference in being killed. So the idea that cops tend to kills blacks more often seems to not be supported very strongly. Yes, there is a bias but it is minor.

Where this falls apart though is that blacks are stopped and have far more encounters with police. A black guy is 2.7x more likely to be killed by a cop, but thats because they're likely to have 2.7x more encounters with cops.

So it is likely that yes cops are racist, but it doesn't really play out in the number of lethal encounters. In that regard, it would seem that perhaps BLM has it completely wrong.

This is a bit surprising to me, but not really. I never really was behind BLM or whatever, but all for police accountability. Unlike a lot of government loving rightwingers, I actually really truly believe we need to keep an eye on police. THere is no other position in society that has a greater disparity of power and education/experience.

I also look at how the Ferguson police depart operated. I look at civil forfeiture and so forth. Police really do need to be held accountable and not given some huge amount of power. It is nonsense. They retire in their 50s and are the most entitled group of government employees you will *EVER* encounter.

I am sure policing can and should be improved. From what I can tell though, most of the cities that have come under scrutiny and had police reforms crime has increased substantially directly as a result of these reforms.

The problem from what I understand is that the tactics that are the most effective in stopping crime before it starts are the tactics that the BLM crowd are so opposed to, and that is proactive policing, which is pulling suspicious people over for minor shit and checking them out, so basically profiling. So there is every expectation that as policing becomes more and more politicized, police departments are going to get less and less effective. Certainly seems to be the case in Baltimore and Chicago right now.

[donkdowndonedied]

The problem from what I understand is that the tactics that are the most effective in stopping crime before it starts are the tactics that the BLM crowd are so opposed to, and that is proactive policing, which is pulling suspicious people over for minor shit and checking them out, so basically profiling. So there is every expectation that as policing becomes more and more politicized, police departments are going to get less and less effective. Certainly seems to be the case in Baltimore and Chicago right now.

There are lots of problems. Often this "proactive" stuff just gets poor kids in the system when they very well might have avoided it all their life. Probation and all the fees. Or tickets that people really can't afford. I don't think anyone is well served by that shit.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm always interested in seeing the truth even if we don't like it.

Chicago is not that violent of a city BTW. Thats some myth from what I see.. always brought out by the right as some cesspool of liberalism when I don't think the murder rate even cracks the top 20 cities. It isn't a safe place, but it isn't specifically worse than other bad cities. Baltimore, yes.

[splitthis]

Too drunk didnt read, but think FPS is on some kind of watchlist and verminnerd is an FPS wannabe.

[ErickAA]

The problem from what I understand is that the tactics that are the most effective in stopping crime before it starts are the tactics that the BLM crowd are so opposed to, and that is proactive policing, which is pulling suspicious people over for minor shit and checking them out, so basically profiling. So there is every expectation that as policing becomes more and more politicized, police departments are going to get less and less effective. Certainly seems to be the case in Baltimore and Chicago right now.

There are lots of problems. Often this "proactive" stuff just gets poor kids in the system when they very well might have avoided it all their life. Probation and all the fees. Or tickets that people really can't afford. I don't think anyone is well served by that shit.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm always interested in seeing the truth even if we don't like it.

Chicago is not that violent of a city BTW. Thats some myth from what I see.. always brought out by the right as some cesspool of liberalism when I don't think the murder rate even cracks the top 20 cities. It isn't a safe place, but it isn't specifically worse than other bad cities. Baltimore, yes.

This is from Wikipedia.

Chicago homicides/year

2010: 436[101]
2011: 435[101]
2012: 516[102]
2013: 441[33]
2014: 432[33] or 416[103]
2015: 468[103]
2016: 762[104]

2016's surge in murders and shootings, coupled with a decline in gun seizures, led former Police Superintendent John Escalante to express concerns in March 2016 that officers might be hesitant to engage in proactive policing due to fear of retribution. Officers anonymously reported to the Chicago Sun-Times that they have been afraid to make investigatory stops because the Justice Department and American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois have been scrutinizing police practices. Data of the supposed pullback was reflected with an 80 percent decrease in the number of street stops that officers made since the beginning of 2016. Dean Angelo has claimed that part of the problem is politicians and groups like the ACLU who don't know much about policing, and yet are "dictating what police officers do".[151][152][153]

-By all accounts murder seems to be an exponentially increasing problem in Chicago, and political scrutiny of the police department seems to be part of the problem. I am sure for cities above a certain population threshold Chicago is extremely high on the murder rate list. If you just do "murder rate" most of the cities are going to be small ones that have randomly had a lot of murders in a given year, so saying Chicago is relatively safe because it isn't in the top 20 for murder rate isn't really being honest. The fact that St. Louis and Baltimore are big cities that are also high in murder rate actually says a lot about how bad the crime situation really is in these cities.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

Too drunk didnt read, but think FPS is on some kind of watchlist and verminnerd is an FPS wannabe.

I think you are right and yeah verminnerd wants to be just like him. Definitely weird guys all around.


Also can you explain your avatar? Is that a black girl? Is she in the garden of eden?

[DirtyB]

So after reading this I went and read some of these links. Basically in a given encounter, blacks have only a small (~2%.. actually check for yourself) difference in being killed. So the idea that cops tend to kills blacks more often seems to not be supported very strongly. Yes, there is a bias but it is minor.

Where this falls apart though is that blacks are stopped and have far more encounters with police. A black guy is 2.7x more likely to be killed by a cop, but thats because they're likely to have 2.7x more encounters with cops.

So it is likely that yes cops are racist, but it doesn't really play out in the number of lethal encounters. In that regard, it would seem that perhaps BLM has it completely wrong.

This is a bit surprising to me, but not really. I never really was behind BLM or whatever, but all for police accountability. Unlike a lot of government loving rightwingers, I actually really truly believe we need to keep an eye on police. THere is no other position in society that has a greater disparity of power and education/experience.

I also look at how the Ferguson police depart operated. I look at civil forfeiture and so forth. Police really do need to be held accountable and not given some huge amount of power. It is nonsense. They retire in their 50s and are the most entitled group of government employees you will *EVER* encounter.

I am sure policing can and should be improved. From what I can tell though, most of the cities that have come under scrutiny and had police reforms crime has increased substantially directly as a result of these reforms.

The problem from what I understand is that the tactics that are the most effective in stopping crime before it starts are the tactics that the BLM crowd are so opposed to, and that is proactive policing, which is pulling suspicious people over for minor shit and checking them out, so basically profiling. So there is every expectation that as policing becomes more and more politicized, police departments are going to get less and less effective. Certainly seems to be the case in Baltimore and Chicago right now.

How brave of you to volunteer other people to be constantly harassed by the police.