Another unarmed black man shot

cullennz said:
Lying prostrate at the cops feet to appease the cops ego while begging for your life to make them feel superior would probably be a good way to go
Click to expand...

You still get shot then and the officer who does it gets cleared of all charges. See the recent Florida shooting.
 
Bikewer said:
I had not heard previously that the individual had been shot in the head. This raises an interesting bit that feeds into my proposed scenario:

The Tulsa police are armed with Glock pistols (as are many departments across the country). There have been numbers of incidents across the country involving the Glock design where individuals have been shot while officers were "holding them at gunpoint".

The "safe-action" trigger design of the Glock is such that it's very resistant to accidental discharge, as long as one keeps one's finger off the trigger. People are supposed to be drilled that one does not finger the trigger until one actually intends to fire.
The scenario is that the officer has the finger on the trigger (disengaging the trigger safety) and even a relatively slight startle reflex (or stumble)....Boom.
A "high" shot under these circumstances is common. The individual in this case was a big guy... Hard to imagine the officer was aiming at his head.

If she had her finger on the trigger... "ready"....And the other officer fired his Taser...

Arguably accidental discharge. But also....Culpable manslaughter.
Click to expand...
Except that her lawyer is saying she meant to shoot. So going the negligent discharge route seems harder.
 
Brainster said:
You really think so? Sheesh, good thing you're not a cop or we'd have bodies strewn across the landscape. All I'm saying is it backs up the claim that he was acting erratically even before the cops arrived. Easy, Clint.
Click to expand...

Shooting should be the first step in treating all emotionally disturbed people.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It is quite likely sexism does play a roll and cops shoot men in situations that they don't shoot women. It is all about perceived threat and men no matter their behavior are scarier than women like blacks are scarier than whites.
Click to expand...

There's an important difference as I'll show. Men commit a lower percentage of crime than their percentage representation in homicides by police. For example:

In 2014, more than 73% of those arrested in the US were males.[47] Men accounted for 80.4 percent of persons arrested for violent crime and 62.9 percent of those arrested for property crime.
Click to expand...

But, as Brainster pointed out, over 95% of people killed by police are male. So it is reasonable to conclude that police are reacting more aggressively towards a male suspect than a female suspect. That's not to say that extra aggression isn't justified, however, because it's perhaps true that male suspects display more aggression than female suspects, on average.

In terms of race, from the data I've seen, blacks commit roughly the same percentage of crime as their percentage representation in homicides by police. So no additional factors based on race are required to explain the data. There does not seem to be a difference in the probability that police will use deadly force against a black suspect in comparison to a white suspect. The differences in homicide rates is adequately explained by the difference in crime rates.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't a problem with the aggressiveness or competence of police. As a society, we might believe that the rate of homicides by police is far too high. And, considering that blacks will bear the brunt of that, given their far higher rate of confrontations with police, it is rational for blacks to be more sensitive to the issue. But that doesn't mean it is an issue of racism. It might be an issue where different racial groups have different preferences, but it's not due to racism per se.

As a man, I suppose I should be concerned about high levels of police aggressiveness too, since I am disproportionately likely to be killed by police compared with roughly half of the population. I'm not concerned, however, for two reasons. One, the risk is so low that it's not really on my radar screen; and two, I actually believe that decreasing police aggressiveness will result in higher crime and an increase, on net, of my risk of being injured or killed due to an act of violence. Based on the statistics I've seen, I think black men should reach a similar conclusion.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
There's an important difference as I'll show. Men commit a lower percentage of crime than their percentage representation in homicides by police. For example:



But, as Brainster pointed out, over 95% of people killed by police are male. So it is reasonable to conclude that police are reacting more aggressively towards a male suspect than a female suspect. That's not to say that extra aggression isn't justified, however, because it's perhaps true that male suspects display more aggression than female suspects, on average.

In terms of race, from the data I've seen, blacks commit roughly the same percentage of crime as their percentage representation in homicides by police. So no additional factors based on race are required to explain the data. There does not seem to be a difference in the probability that police will use deadly force against a black suspect in comparison to a white suspect. The differences in homicide rates is adequately explained by the difference in crime rates.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't a problem with the aggressiveness or competence of police. As a society, we might believe that the rate of homicides by police is far too high. And, considering that blacks will bear the brunt of that, given their far higher rate of confrontations with police, it is rational for blacks to be more sensitive to the issue. But that doesn't mean it is an issue of racism. It might be an issue where different racial groups have different preferences, but it's not due to racism per se.

As a man, I suppose I should be concerned about high levels of police aggressiveness too, since I am disproportionately likely to be killed by police compared with roughly half of the population. I'm not concerned, however, for two reasons. One, the risk is so low that it's not really on my radar screen; and two, I actually believe that decreasing police aggressiveness will result in higher crime and an increase, on net, of my risk of being injured or killed due to an act of violence. Based on the statistics I've seen, I think black men should reach a similar conclusion.
Click to expand...

well put. if those statistics (which I believe I've seen supported elsewhere) are correct then I'm actually surprised there isn't some indication of police racism in them, hopefully trending down over time but I'd expect there still to be some.

http://www.snopes.com/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks/ seems to forget to adjust for crime rate as you have:

"The grim trend has carried over into 2016. Of the 1,034 people killed and tracked by Burghart's Fatal Encounters database so far this year, 215 were black while 338 were white, so thus far in 2016 black Americans have been three times more likely than whites to die in interactions with police."

seems to me they would need to rephrase it to 'three times more likely to be in a fatal interaction with police'

I can't find a quick source to determine if their rate of crime is three times higher?

Of course, it is much easier to see the result of many other factors, some of which may involve racism and injustice being a seemingly disproportionate number of black people being gunned down by police as 'police are racist' than to actually try and determine the truth by statistical analysis
 
Last edited:
DreadNiK said:
well put. if those statistics (which I believe I've seen supported elsewhere) are correct then I'm actually surprised there isn't some indication of police racism in them, hopefully trending down over time but I'd expect there still to be some.

http://www.snopes.com/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks/ seems to forget to adjust for crime rate as you have:

"The grim trend has carried over into 2016. Of the 1,034 people killed and tracked by Burghart's Fatal Encounters database so far this year, 215 were black while 338 were white, so thus far in 2016 black Americans have been three times more likely than whites to die in interactions with police."

seems to me they would need to rephrase it to 'three times more likely to be in a fatal interaction with police'
Click to expand...

Except that in this case, why should the group of unarmed people being shot include a higher proportion of blacks than the group of armed people?

Most police shootings *are* probably justified; the unjustified shootings are the problem - these are more likely to involve unarmed people.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It is quite likely sexism does play a roll and cops shoot men in situations that they don't shoot women. It is all about perceived threat and men no matter their behavior are scarier than women like blacks are scarier than whites.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Women commit hardly any violent crimes, therefore they're not perceived as a threat and hardly ever are shot by the cops. Same with rich people. The people shot by the cops never seem to be wearing Armani suits and driving Beemers.
 
DreadNiK said:
well put. if those statistics (which I believe I've seen supported elsewhere) are correct then I'm actually surprised there isn't some indication of police racism in them, hopefully trending down over time but I'd expect there still to be some.

http://www.snopes.com/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks/ seems to forget to adjust for crime rate as you have:

"The grim trend has carried over into 2016. Of the 1,034 people killed and tracked by Burghart's Fatal Encounters database so far this year, 215 were black while 338 were white, so thus far in 2016 black Americans have been three times more likely than whites to die in interactions with police."

seems to me they would need to rephrase it to 'three times more likely to be in a fatal interaction with police'

I can't find a quick source to determine if their rate of crime is three times higher?

Of course, it is much easier to see the result of many other factors, some of which may involve racism and injustice being a seemingly disproportionate number of black people being gunned down by police as 'police are racist' than to actually try and determine the truth by statistical analysis
Click to expand...

What's the likelihood of men being shot by the cops verses women? I bet it's at least ten times higher than the disparity between blacks and whites.
 
Fudbucker said:
What's the likelihood of men being shot by the cops verses women? I bet it's at least ten times higher than the disparity between blacks and whites.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make the disparity between black and white less relevant.

What colour are the women?
 
DreadNiK said:
well put. if those statistics (which I believe I've seen supported elsewhere) are correct then I'm actually surprised there isn't some indication of police racism in them, hopefully trending down over time but I'd expect there still to be some.
Click to expand...

I believe the inherent racism of police is more than offset by their fear of being found out to be racist, which can be career-ending or worse, if it is publicized in the media. I suspect that the biggest fear any police officer has right now, besides being shot himself, is shooting an unarmed black person.

http://www.snopes.com/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks/ seems to forget to adjust for crime rate as you have:

"The grim trend has carried over into 2016. Of the 1,034 people killed and tracked by Burghart's Fatal Encounters database so far this year, 215 were black while 338 were white, so thus far in 2016 black Americans have been three times more likely than whites to die in interactions with police."

seems to me they would need to rephrase it to 'three times more likely to be in a fatal interaction with police'
Click to expand...

Yes, well I've found that people who write for Snopes have little understanding of either math or logic.

I can't find a quick source to determine if their rate of crime is three times higher?
Click to expand...

The wiki page on race and crime is chock full of useful facts:

Despite making up just 13% of the population, African Americans committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, African American people committed 52% of homicides. [39] In 2013, African Americans accounted for 52.2% of all arrests for murder, and Whites accounted for 45.3% [40]

The "National Youth Gang Survey Analysis" (2011) state that of gang members, 46% are Hispanic/Latino, 35% are black, 11.5% are white, and 7% are other race/ethnicity.[41]

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, the black arrest rate for robbery was 8.55 times higher than whites, and blacks were 16 times more likely to be incarcerated for robbery than non-Hispanic whites. Robberies with white victims and black offenders were more than 12 times more common than the reverse.

...

For instance, Hindelang's analysis found that both the NCS and UCR estimated that 62% of robbery offenders were black in the United States in 1974.[46]:327 A 2004 National Crime Victimization Survey report which analyzed carjacking over 10 years found that carjacking victims identified 56% of offenders as black, 21% as white, and 16% as Native American or Asian.[47][48][49]
Click to expand...
 
Seems like unarmed blacks get killed at higher rates than unarmed whites, by the police.

As a white man, I can attest to cops treating me usually with courtesy, respect, and friendliness.

I doubt many blacks can say the same.

White Privilege? Perhaps.
 
Dr. Keith said:
For non-felons over the age of 21 it is nearly impossible to be refused. Despite our massive incarceration rate I still think most people are non-felons.

ETA: I agree that cops are far more paranoid than they should be. See my conversation with sunmaster14 in this thread.
Click to expand...
That's funny: I know three people who were "declined." Non-felons, non-criminals.

Beanbag
 
This is another one of those totally sucky events. Undercover cops see guy roll a joint(blunt) in a car. Pretend they aren't dying to bust the guy for that alone. See a gun and decide to leave (because the guy/situation was so dangerous :rolleyes: ) and come back with vests that ID them as cops.

Attempt an arrest for something that even they admit was not a high priority arrest and end up shooting the guy dead.

I saw the videos they have now released. Even though you cannot see the situation clearly, it does look for all intents like the man had his hands at his side.

So, a bogus arrest and over-reactive cops. I know, I can hear all the arguments now, it was the victim's fault, the gun was illegal (because he was a convicted felon) whatever. Ignore the fact the arrest was unnecessary in the first place. Ignore the fact the victim had serious mental problems. Ignore the fact they didn't give the wife the chance to try to intervene. Ignore the fact the man was backing up and there is no clear evidence he pointed the gun at anyone. Ignore the fact they made no effort to deescalate the situation.

And instead give all the benefit of the doubt to the officer that pulled the trigger.

It's no wonder there have been 3 days of protest with police like that.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
Do you think the way you treat them may have something to do with it?
Click to expand...

Probably, but I've been full of yessir, nosir, three bags full sir, & while most interactions were good, a significant number were quite bad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom