CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

[AdamSK]

Whaddayou talking about? Guy's use of English is superb.

I agree. Christian is clearly very proficient in English and I was unaware that he was not a native speaker until he said so. Apologies if that last post seemed to imply otherwise.

 

[Christian Klippel]

If the force per population is 2.5 times as high, and the force per arrest is only 1.3 times as high, what does that say about the arrest per population? The numbers clearly do reflect a higher arrest rate for blacks. Which, in your narrative, means blacks are more criminal. In the BLM narrative it means cops are racist.

Nope, that's not what my narrative(s) means. How did you say a while ago? "Please read them again and try again."

Greetings,

Chris

 

[AdamSK]

Nope, that's not what my narrative(s) means.

It's what you said, twice.

If the likelihood of use of force by police in general against blacks is 2.5 times as high than against non-blacks, one would expect that, if blacks were more criminal (as some allege), that the result of force during arrest against blacks would be higher than just those 30%, since more crimes should mean more arrests.

How comes a 2.5 times higher rate of encounters with the police involving force suddenly evaporates to only a 0.3 times higher rate of arrests? If blacks are more criminal, one would expect the arrest rate to track tghe 2.5 times figure more closely.

You made a similar point before about more white arrests ending in use of force - your narrative is that more crime should be reflected in more arrests, that more force means more aggressive criminals. And yet, for BLM folks, more crime or more violence would instead mean racist cops.

If your position is unfalsifiable using data, it's also unsupportable using data. If any possible statistic supports your position, then none of them do.

 

[jimbob]

It's what you said, twice.




You made a similar point before about more white arrests ending in use of force - your narrative is that more crime should be reflected in more arrests, that more force means more aggressive criminals. And yet, for BLM folks, more crime or more violence would instead mean racist cops.

If your position is unfalsifiable using data, it's also unsupportable using data. If any possible statistic supports your position, then none of them do.

No it isn't.

There is a population of people who are shot by police. There is another, far larger population of criminals, and most of those shot by police belong in both populations.

Let's concentrate on criminals for the moment:

Of the population of criminals, those who are armed are generally the most dangerous, and of those shot, blacks make up a smaller proportion of this population than the population of unarmed criminals shot by police.

For racial bias to not play a part, one would have to expect that unarmed black criminals tend to be more violent than white criminals, but somehow don't get hold of guns or if they are, they tend to be less violent than white armed criminals. This seems implausible, given documented institutional (and sometimes documented, personal) racism in many US police forces.

Reading comprehension issues? Here it is again, maybe this time it will sink in:

According to the number from the report, and the numbers you gave it is clear that black people are affected 2.5 times more, while after the "controlled for" it becomes 10% more white people involved in violent arrests. And also, after this "controlled for" the 2.5 times suddenly become only 30%.

This can mean only thing: blacks are picked out disproportionally more, while white people obviously are more agressive and nasty, otherwise they wouldn't have the 10% lead when it comes to violent arrests.

This really should be easy to understand.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: In fact, when the comparison is black vs. white people, it is actually 3.6 times. The 2.5 times is the overall rate, which obviously would include other non-white ethnicities:

I've found one of the articles that I was referring to earlier:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...c7a404-b3c5-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

Over the past year, The Post found that the vast majority of those shot and killed by police were armed and half of them were white. Still, police killed blacks at three times the rate of whites when adjusted for the populations where these shootings occurred. And although black men represent 6 percent of the U.S. population, they made up nearly 40 percent of those who were killed while unarmed.

I ETA:read interpret that as the Police will shoot armed people "on merit" but tend to have a lower threshold for shooting unarmed ETA:black people ETA:than for shooting unarmed white people .

And the DoJ report into policing in Ferguson which concluded that there was a disproportionate use of force against blacks.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...5/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

Some of the double standards are pretty astounding.

There is no reason to think that Ferguson PD was a particular outlier - its disparity index for vehicular searches was better than the average for Missouri

https://ago.mo.gov/home/vehicle-stops-report?lea=161

 

[BrooklynBaby]

The Treehouse has some stuff showing the eyeglasses Mr. Castile was known to wear and the shoes sitting on the ground in the crime scene photos appear to be a match to the glasses and shoes worn by the perp captured on CCTV in an armed robbery. The perp also stole Newport cigarettes and the woman doing the narration from the crime scene was clearly smoking Newports.

Nothing definitive here, but the evidence is mounting, and so far a lot of stuff matches, like facial hair, dreads in a bun, shoes, glasses, and cigarettes, and I'm unaware of anything that hasn't matched. I'm sure the cops up there already know whether or not he's the guy in the robbery.

 

[Dipayan]

The Treehouse has some stuff showing the eyeglasses Mr. Castile was known to wear and the shoes sitting on the ground in the crime scene photos appear to be a match to the glasses and shoes worn by the perp captured on CCTV in an armed robbery. The perp also stole Newport cigarettes and the woman doing the narration from the crime scene was clearly smoking Newports.

Nothing definitive here, but the evidence is mounting, and so far a lot of stuff matches, like facial hair, dreads in a bun, shoes, glasses, and cigarettes, and I'm unaware of anything that hasn't matched. I'm sure the cops up there already know whether or not he's the guy in the robbery.

So now we have two scenarios -

1. Mr. Castile actually was the robber. But the police did not know this at the time and shot him because he fit the description of the robber.

2. Mr. Castile actually wasn't the robber. But the police did not know this at the time and shot him because he fit the description of the robber.

Which of these two options are you suggesting? And if you are suggesting neither, how is your post relevant to this discussion?

 

[Christian Klippel]

It's what you said, twice.




You made a similar point before about more white arrests ending in use of force - your narrative is that more crime should be reflected in more arrests, that more force means more aggressive criminals. And yet, for BLM folks, more crime or more violence would instead mean racist cops.

If your position is unfalsifiable using data, it's also unsupportable using data. If any possible statistic supports your position, then none of them do.

Letr me try it one last time, hopefully in words simple enough for you to understand:

The report states that police in general uses force against black people 2.5 times as often than against non-black people. If only black and white people are consindered, it is even 3.6 times as often.

When it comes to arrests, force against black people is used 1.3 times as often (the 30% figure "when controlled for arrests").

Some people like to claim that black people are more criminal, more aggressive, etc. in general, and thus those numbers.

If that 2.5 resp. 3.6 number would not be due to racism and such, the only explanation would be that it is because black people are indeed more agressive, criminal, etc.

However, if that were the case, one would also expect a similar number when it comes to use of force in arrests. That is, one would expect the number of police force used during arrests of black people track the number of police force against blacks in general more closely. But that number is much smaller.

Furthermore, it stands to reason that, given that black people face police using force against them 2.5 (3.6) times as often compared to non blacks (white people), that some arrests out of the pool where 30% more force is used against black people is due to the encounter starting with unnecessary force against them in the first place.

After all, it really isn't news anymore that black people get arrested at a higher rate for the same crimes/behaviour than white people, are sentenced more often than white people for the same stuff, often get longer sentences than white people (again, for the same stuff). This means that white people are beeing let off the hook by police/justice system more often than black people, for the same incidents.

But my main point is that the 2.5 (3.6) number of force by police against black people in general vs. the 1.3 number of force against black people at arrests are a discrepancy that can only be explained by racism/racist biases by the police. Or do you really want to make us belileve that black people, if one would grant the claim that they are more agressive/criminal/etc. instead of racist causes being at play, suddenly become much more tame when they are arrested? That would be really silly.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[BrooklynBaby]

So now we have two scenarios -

1. Mr. Castile actually was the robber. But the police did not know this at the time and shot him because he fit the description of the robber.

2. Mr. Castile actually wasn't the robber. But the police did not know this at the time and shot him because he fit the description of the robber.

Which of these two options are you suggesting? And if you are suggesting neither, how is your post relevant to this discussion?

I didn't say anything about him being shot in my post.

 

[Reactor drone]

The Treehouse has some stuff showing the eyeglasses Mr. Castile was known to wear and the shoes sitting on the ground in the crime scene photos appear to be a match to the glasses and shoes worn by the perp captured on CCTV in an armed robbery. The perp also stole Newport cigarettes and the woman doing the narration from the crime scene was clearly smoking Newports.

Nothing definitive here, but the evidence is mounting, and so far a lot of stuff matches, like facial hair, dreads in a bun, shoes, glasses, and cigarettes, and I'm unaware of anything that hasn't matched. I'm sure the cops up there already know whether or not he's the guy in the robbery.

He seems to have grown a huge amount of facial hair in that four days. You wouldn't think it medically possible would you?

 

[BrooklynBaby]

He seems to have grown a huge amount of facial hair in that four days. You wouldn't think it medically possible would you?

That's not a very good quality capture from the CCTV video of the armed robbery. I can't clearly see any facial hair, although it looks like there may be some on the perp's chin. It also looks like there is a stick stuck in his gun barrel, which is unlikely to be the case. They probably got a description from the person he robbed, and maybe had a better idea of what he really looked like from watching the whole video.

BTW, I'm just filling in the info the "mainstream" media routinely lies about or omits. Right now, I have no idea if this was self-defense or not. We haven't heard from the cop and don't really know anything about the gun or if Castile indeed had a valid permit. I know where I live one can't use illegal drugs and have a permit, and he did have a couple of drug violations in his rather long record. In fact, it looks like this guy broke the traffic laws routinely and depended on the cops not showing up in court to keep him on the road.

 

[Matthew Best]

don't really know anything about the gun or if Castile indeed had a valid permit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castiles-family-reveals-his-gun-permit/

 

[BrooklynBaby]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castiles-family-reveals-his-gun-permit/

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure about the exact carry laws in Minnesota, but around here if he had the gun on his lap it would be legal, even without a permit. (Castle doctrine extends to your vehicle.)

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure about the exact carry laws in Minnesota, but around here if he had the gun on his lap it would be legal, even without a permit. (Castle doctrine extends to your vehicle.)

eta - Oh, I checked and his drug cases were dismissed.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I'm falling back on cullennz's idea + a bit .. it's AMERICA it's the USA .. its not Canada, its not the UK, it's not Japan, it's not New Zealand, ....

He had a hand gun? .. that perfectly legal like a Mars bar, or a pool cue ... the cop should be used to that.

 

[erlando]

That's not a very good quality capture from the CCTV video of the armed robbery. I can't clearly see any facial hair, although it looks like there may be some on the perp's chin. It also looks like there is a stick stuck in his gun barrel, which is unlikely to be the case. They probably got a description from the person he robbed, and maybe had a better idea of what he really looked like from watching the whole video.

Make up your mind. Can you or can't you?

Nothing definitive here, but the evidence is mounting, and so far a lot of stuff matches, like facial hair, dreads in a bun, shoes, glasses, and cigarettes, and I'm unaware of anything that hasn't matched. I'm sure the cops up there already know whether or not he's the guy in the robbery.

It seems odd to be able to distinguish shoes and glasses clearly enough but not the amount of facial hair.

(Highlights mine)

 

[AdamSK]

If your position is unfalsifiable using data, it's also unsupportable using data.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. If any value for x is consistent with your position, then no value for x makes your position any more likely. That means the probative value of x for your position is zero. Citing x doesn't support your position.

 

[Dipayan]

I didn't say anything about him being shot in my post.

What was the point of your post?

 

[Travis]

How did you act the first time you shot someone?

Since I totally believe the cop intended to shoot Castile before he ever approached the car I fail to understand your point. This was a cold blooded execution of person. It will take a mountain of contravening evidence to convince me otherwise.

 

[jimbob]

It's what you said, twice.




You made a similar point before about more white arrests ending in use of force - your narrative is that more crime should be reflected in more arrests, that more force means more aggressive criminals. And yet, for BLM folks, more crime or more violence would instead mean racist cops.

If your position is unfalsifiable using data, it's also unsupportable using data. If any possible statistic supports your position, then none of them do.

Nope, that's not what my narrative(s) means.

It's what you said, twice.

If the likelihood of use of force by police in general against blacks is 2.5 times as high than against non-blacks, one would expect that, if blacks were more criminal (as some allege), that the result of force during arrest against blacks would be higher than just those 30%, since more crimes should mean more arrests.

How comes a 2.5 times higher rate of encounters with the police involving force suddenly evaporates to only a 0.3 times higher rate of arrests? If blacks are more criminal, one would expect the arrest rate to track tghe 2.5 times figure more closely.

You made a similar point before about more white arrests ending in use of force - your narrative is that more crime should be reflected in more arrests, that more force means more aggressive criminals. And yet, for BLM folks, more crime or more violence would instead mean racist cops.

If your position is unfalsifiable using data, it's also unsupportable using data. If any possible statistic supports your position, then none of them do.

Yes, it is. If any value for x is consistent with your position, then no value for x makes your position any more likely. That means the probative value of x for your position is zero. Citing x doesn't support your position.

The "no it isn't" wasn't referring to your logical statement (which is true), but was an unclear (sorry) rebuttal of your implication that Christian's argument was of that kind.

The analysis that I was referring to is consistent with Christian's data but is from a different dataset.

Talking about the analysis that I linked to, there is a population of people who are shot by police. If you compare blacks and whites, then blacks are over-represented relative to their proportion in the general population. This over-representation is more severe for unarmed blacks who are shot by police and less so for armed blacks who are shot by police.

In general I'd say that there is likely to be more justification for shooting an armed criminal than an unarmed one.

To me, the data suggests that police are more likely to shoot when there is a stronger justification regardless of race. However it also suggests that the threshold for shooting a black person is generally lower.

There are alternative explanations, but they all seem to require some pretty implausible factors: for example dangerous unarmed black criminals might be relatively more common than dangerous unarmed white criminals, but dangerous armed black criminals are less common than dangerous armed white criminals.

The obvious explanation is that there is some (probably unconscious) prejudice in play that means that a small number of police officers are more likely to shoot black people and that is sufficient to skew the figures.

We know that institutional racism is a problem in many police forces, and we know that there are examples where individual officials (e.g. in Ferguson) have expressed racist views in their work emails. Given this, and the data bove, I'd say that it shifts the burden of proof to the claim that prejudice is not a factor in a proportion of police shootings of black people.

 

[Ron Swanson]

OK .. no body has mentioned it ... and I do NOT know if the data is available ...

... what needs to be done is do the "Shot by Police", "Convicted of Crime" by how much cash people have.

It might not be a black white thing .. it's probably a poor rich thing.

It may not be politically correct to say ... but more black people are poor (per capita) and they live in "poor areas"

I live in a crappy area ... we get 20 times (100 times?) the police interaction as compared to 10 blocks up the North side of town.

Up the north side there's much less police calls ... here there's lots! ..

.. we don't have a lot of money down here ... they have lots up there.

Oh and everyone is white