Political Correctness

[SimplyMe]

I'm an intelligence analyst...I don't leap to conclusions from one datum.

I'm going to wonder what is behind that statistic...what the real causes might be, and I'm always aware, as I frequently say: "There is always more than one thing happening."

The actual cause might not have anything even to do with the police.

But you're still deflecting from the point that people are no more upset over whites killed by police, even unjustly, than blacks unjustly killed by police.

And that is also something to wonder about. Why are Americans relatively unconcerned about anyone unjustly killed by police?

I suspect at least a couple of issues:

First, I find we, as Americans, are desensitized to violence. I think a lot has to do with how violence is "glorified" in the US -- we like seeing violent TV and movies, which desensitizes us to when violence occurs to people in real life.

On another forum I'm on, someone asked the question about how his wife was watching a show and a mounted police officer was shot in the head, falling off the horse. His wife didn't seem to care. But, a bit later, a horse was shot and his wife was suddenly very concerned and wanted the person who had shot the horse to suffer. This led to a discussion where several admitted they had similar reactions with various media, where people being killed didn't really affect them but if a dog was shot, then they got emotional about it. I think there are a large number in the US who are this way -- unless there are some type of extenuating circumstance, we are so used to violence (both from media and from the news) that we quit caring about people dying.

The second thing is that I think many, if they are largely law abiding, don't care about people being shot (again, unless there are extenuating circumstances) by police because they feel the person like deserved it. Even if the person ends up being innocent of the crime they police accused him of, I think they often feel that, for the police to end up shooting him, he must be guilty of something and therefore "had it coming."

 

[SimplyMe]

Actually no, because i said nothing about J6. And the the information I provided is entirely accurate. Can you imagine if we had 100s of J6 protests around the US and 7% of them led to riots with the same results of BLM riots? You've seen how

But, as pointed out, even with that 7% of "BLM riots," much of it was caused by right wing groups, like the Proud Boys, or were a case of Proud Boys and Antifa fighting. As for any looting that occurred, from what I've seen, most of that was done by people not involved with BLM but "taking advantage" of the protest -- particularly with police stretched thin and the difficulty responding with the protest in the way of the looting.

And you may not have mentioned J6 in this post, but I seem to recall you have made other posts where you downplay what happened on J6.

 

[stevil]

I'm an intelligence analyst...I don't leap to conclusions from one datum.

I'm going to wonder what is behind that statistic...what the real causes might be, and I'm always aware, as I frequently say: "There is always more than one thing happening."

The actual cause might not have anything even to do with the police.

As you already know correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
But it should bring about suspicion and investigation, and efforts to address the correlation.

But you're still deflecting from the point that people are no more upset over whites killed by police, even unjustly, than blacks unjustly killed by police.

i wouldn't say that I'm deflecting. I've done some searches and it is hard to find the data for the specific question. Either supporting it or debunking it. There is little quality data, at least from the quick searches I have done. so I have resorted to a wider question.

And that is also something to wonder about. Why are Americans relatively unconcerned about anyone unjustly killed by police?

I'll see if I can find something on this. I am not sure if your statement above is true or not.

 

[Jo555]

Ok, so I don't know much about the statistics, but I would be curious on how many of these shootings consisted of disruptive, resisting arrests individuals, whether black or white, or orange, or green, etc.

Maybe we need to bring in another angle.

I worked with cops for many years, as an investigator, and I made arrests, as an investigator in my field.

Many times people don't notice what is going on until officers have to use force. They are threatened, assaulted, spit on, kicked, you name it. And a good deal of career criminals scream, "I'm pregnant," or some other health issue, but you cannot assume it isn't true. Just makes it more of a challenge when trying to restrain a suspect.

And I believe most, if not all officers deal with fear. You just grow accustomed to it and accept it as part of the job.

Now anyone that gets into law enforcement should realize it is part of the job and not take it personally. If they do, they don't need to be doing the job.

You really have to have a level head, but the worse the circumstance, the more that level-headedness is tested.

So yes, abuses happen and terribly so. It's horrific at times, but other times I can see how poor judgements can be made.

They have a very difficult job. It doesn't excuse abuses, and some are quite blatant imo, just saying, it ain't easy.

Yes, it also isn't easy being a minority in the USA too, and I would know.

So, just saying, maybe we need to bring in another statistic into the equation. How many of those killed by the police, of all colors, resisted arrest?

 

[RDKirk]

As you already know correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
But it should bring about suspicion and investigation, and efforts to address the correlation.

Yes. Correlating police with blacks shot by police doesn't mean that racism is the cause.

i wouldn't say that I'm deflecting. I've done some searches and it is hard to find the data for the specific question. Either supporting it or debunking it. There is little quality data, at least from the quick searches I have done. so I have resorted to a wider question.

But, wait. You were the one who started this tangent by saying:

Hmm, it looks like there are several instances where police are able to kill unarmed black people and not face any severe repercussions.
And yet if a similar situation happens where a white person is killed by police, the police do face severe repercussions.

You asserted that police face severe repercussions from killing white people that they do not face killing black people.

I asserted otherwise. If you don't have evidence to prove me wrong, then you didn't have evidence for your initial assertion.

But also, Roland G. Fryer Jr., a (black) professor of economics at Harvard University conducted a study on racial disparities in police use of force. His research found that while Black and Hispanic individuals were more likely to experience non-lethal use of force (such as being pushed or handcuffed), there was no significant racial difference in the likelihood of police using deadly force in officer-involved shootings. His findings challenged common assumptions and sparked considerable debate.

Fryer's study was based on police data from Houston, Los Angeles, and several other cities. He himself described the results as "the most surprising finding of my career." He also described the pushback against his reporting his finders as being extremely severe.

 

[RDKirk]

The second thing is that I think many, if they are largely law abiding, don't care about people being shot (again, unless there are extenuating circumstances) by police because they feel the person like deserved it. Even if the person ends up being innocent of the crime they police accused him of, I think they often feel that, for the police to end up shooting him, he must be guilty of something and therefore "had it coming."

I've heard that theory before, and there is probably something to it.

 

[stevil]

But, wait. You were the one who started this tangent by saying:



You asserted that police face severe repercussions from killing white people that they do not face killing black people.

To be clear, I'm not part of the BLM movement, I haven't been involved in any protests. I'm not an activist.
I am merely suggesting why the BLM movement exists and why protests were held and why the slogan "Black Lives Matter" came about.
I was responding to a poster who thinks it is all nefarious, thinks that the BLM people just want racial violence.

I am suggesting otherwise.
I agree that if the perception is that Blacks are disproportionately discriminated against and receiving violence against them by police disproportionately then this warrants further investigation, further focus as to whether this is happening and as to why it might be happening.

When an unarmed black man is murdered by some police officers, it is understandable that the Black community gets frustrated and wants to protest and some might get angry etc.

I asserted otherwise. If you don't have evidence to prove me wrong, then you didn't have evidence for your initial assertion.

Sure, I am saying that there is reason for the BLM folk to be concerned and I think all of society should be concerned and I think more effort should be put into investigating this topic. I myself don't have the information.

 

[rjs330]

But, as pointed out, even with that 7% of "BLM riots," much of it was caused by right wing groups, like the Proud Boys, or were a case of Proud Boys and Antifa fighting. As for any looting that occurred, from what I've seen, most of that was done by people not involved with BLM but "taking advantage" of the protest -- particularly with police stretched thin and the difficulty responding with the protest in the way of the looting.

And you may not have mentioned J6 in this post, but I seem to recall you have made other posts where you downplay what happened on J6.

No they were not "caused" by right wing groups. Thats a leftist lie. Yes there were some rightwingers around, but the majority of the riots occurred by people who were around participating with BLM. You have no idea if looters were BLM supporters or not. Neither do I since no one ever asked them or published their responses. The fact they were there adds more credence to idea they were than not. But its not absolutely definitive.

 

[RDKirk]

To be clear, I'm not part of the BLM movement, I haven't been involved in any protests. I'm not an activist.
I am merely suggesting why the BLM movement exists and why protests were held and why the slogan "Black Lives Matter" came about.
I was responding to a poster who thinks it is all nefarious, thinks that the BLM people just want racial violence.

I am suggesting otherwise.
I agree that if the perception is that Blacks are disproportionately discriminated against and receiving violence against them by police disproportionately then this warrants further investigation, further focus as to whether this is happening and as to why it might be happening.

When an unarmed black man is murdered by some police officers, it is understandable that the Black community gets frustrated and wants to protest and some might get angry etc.

Sure, I am saying that there is reason for the BLM folk to be concerned and I think all of society should be concerned and I think more effort should be put into investigating this topic. I myself don't have the information.

There are two things to consider here.

1. "Black lives matter" is a sentiment felt by many black people who believe black lives have always been considered unimportant in this country...and there is considerable historical evidence to that effect, not just treatment by police.

2. BLM is also an organization with a specific purpose going beyond the sentiment that "black lives matter." That organization has asserted an intention to, among other things, destroy the traditional concept of "family" and also self-acknowledged that they are Marxist.

There have been a good number of "black lives matter" sentiment demonstrations and protests by black people who are completely unconnected to the BLM organization. Many black people today recognize and understand that distinction.

 

[rjs330]

Many black people today recognize and understand that distinction.

I think a great deal of whites do as well. Since the actual organization didn't have specific membership roles i don't know that the distinction is critical. Maybe when it comes to the organization of the protests, but it would be quite ignorant to think every single person involved in the protests were actual organization members. And I'm not convinced that every protest was organized by the organization either.

 

[stevil]

There are two things to consider here.

1. "Black lives matter" is a sentiment felt by many black people who believe black lives have always been considered unimportant in this country...and there is considerable historical evidence to that effect, not just treatment by police.

2. BLM is also an organization with a specific purpose going beyond the sentiment that "black lives matter." That organization has asserted an intention to, among other things, destroy the traditional concept of "family" and also self-acknowledged that they are Marxist.

There have been a good number of "black lives matter" sentiment demonstrations and protests by black people who are completely unconnected to the BLM organization. Many black people today recognize and understand that distinction.

Yeah, OK. I'm certainly not defending the BLM organisation, more talking to the intent of the BLM sentiment. I think it is unfair if people are characterising that with Blacks wanting to be violent, it is actually against violence. And it isn't for preferential treatment, it is for fairness.