Would be good if more could happen as in Wichita Kansas where the police and the community got together
Racial Insensitivity
by Coded Logic 127 Replies latest social current
-
-
LoveUniHateExams
The title of this thread is called 'Racial Insensitivity' and features a sheriff called David Clarke (who's black, BTW).
I don't know much about him but from what I've seen he strikes me as a no-nonsense cop who challenges or disagrees with liberal opinions. He doesn't seem preoccupied with skin colour, and no doubt wants to catch the bad guys - black and white - in order to protect the law-abiding (black and white).
In this thread alone he's been called a disgrace to his race and to humanity (unbelievably stupid comment). I can hazard a guess that people within the BLM movement call him all sorts of names - traitor, Uncle Tom, 'white man in a black man's skin' - all sorts of nonsense.
And all this because he's no doubt a straight arrow, a down-to-earth person who won't take any BS. I assume he became a cop to uphold the law, protect the innocent and catch the bad guys.
The title of this OP and thread doesn't sit quite right - accusing a black cop of racial insensitivity in the year 2016.
May I suggest an alternative title - 'Racial Hypersensitivity' (of people within BLM and of others who should know better, including some posters on this forum).
PS - it's noteworthy that Coded Logic and other posters who agree with him have consistently refused to answer Simon's question.
-
silentbuddha
What exactl where Simon's questions? A lot of the information has disappeared the abundance of answers. And can you also if you don't mind just because I think I've missed it list the examples of racial hypersensitivity that you're speaking about
-
LoveUniHateExams
What exactl where Simon's questions? - just the one, actually: "If 100 white men and 100 black men resist arrest and 50 white men and 50 black men are shot as a result, do you believe that is unfair and shows any bias? Please explain why."
So far, I'm the only one who's answered it.
can you also if you don't mind just because I think I've missed it list the examples of racial hypersensitivity that you're speaking about - no, I won't be listing any examples of racial hypersensitivity by people within the Black Lives Matter movement.
-
Simon
How do we tell the difference between shootings that were "the right thing to do" from shootings that were "the wrong thing to do"?
Well, we investigate the circumstances and what happened using forensics, interviewing witnesses etc...
I think we can all agree a justified shooting is when the person represents a clear and present danger to the public or to the officer.
Correct. I think you might be getting it !
Generally speaking, unarmed persons do not fit into this category.
Oh, so close. I thought you had it, I really did.
You can't generalize and you're making an assumption. If someone is fighting with the police then they are by definition struggling with someone who has a gun and could easily become armed. The police should not have to take that risk both for their own safety and for the general law-abiding public (the ones who chose not to fight with the police.
Plus, the police don't know that someone is unarmed until after the fact - they might only know that they cannot clearly see a gun but may know that the person has previously been involved with gun crime or had previous encounters with them where they were armed.
This problem is exasperated further because, when video emerges, almost all unarmed persons shot by police are unjustified. And we also have many videos of cops who claim an individual was going for the officers gun - when the individual clearly wasn't.
No, what happens is that the videos to be promoted are self-selected and the ones showing obvious guilt are not so it gives a rather biased view of things - you don't see the hundreds of other incidents, just the ones certain groups want you to see and they are played endlessly by the media. But more cameras are going to help the situation because they should limit the Ferguson type incidents where claims contradict reality (with evidence usually ignored after people have already made up their mind based on false reports) as well as the risk of rogue officers doing bad things.
No the data clearly shows more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white persons (38 black vs 32 white).
Ah, back to your "unarmed" therefore "must be totally innocent" false reasoning ...
News reports, although interesting, are not the same as the result of an investigation. "This database is based on news reports, public records, Internet databases and original reporting".
There are lots of ways to slice and dice the data and most show more whites shot by police. How many white men need to be shot to make the death of a black man acceptable? Tell us the ratio that you'd be happy with.
You should also read through the cases because many of the "unarmed" people were less unarmed that the word indicates. If you are in a car with a homicide suspect who is shooting at police for instance, you might technically be 'unarmed' but it's hardly a lack-of-threat that you try to imply by the label.
Does the research I cited in my previous comment show that police are more likely to stop black people over white people for identical behavior?
Ah, flip flop time again! let's switch to talking about people being stopped. This is what I mean when I think extending claims doesn't help the cause. If the problem is about how many times people are stopped, then argue about that, but don't try to suggest that evidence people are pulled over more (which we could debate separately) is then proof that they are shot more. The previous study showed there wasn't a correlation but suggested this 'beef' might be the cause of underlying resentment.
Does the research I cited in my previous comment show that unarmed black persons are more likely to be shot by police compared to unarmed white persons both statistically and in simulations?
The simulations showed slight differences but also the fact that people are responding to learnt threat situations. If you are a cop and you deal with people day in day out I think you are going to respond based on your previous experiences of people and situations.
But again, the simulations in a lab don't prove if someone has been shot unfairly. "Well your honour, I think my client must be innocent because we gave some totally unconnected people a video game to play and they shot some black people in it". It doesn't work like that.
-
Coded Logic
The more cameras that capture the police in action the more police misconduct we're seeing. The more videos we see of unarmed people being shot the more we're realizing the accounts of the police officers are being fabricated. We now understand that when a police officer shoots an unarmed person that officer - and their fellow officers - will do nearly anything to cover their tracks - including saying the suspect went for their gun when the suspect didn't and officers will sometimes move objects closer to the deceased's body so they can say they thought the suspect had a gun.
But more to the point, if you are more likely to be stopped by the police for identical behavior and you're more likely to be wrongly shot by the police because of your race - this is clear indication of racial bias. Considering these two factors it's not surprising the figures show that more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white people.
Simon keeps trying to insinuate that "unarmed" isn't a clear enough distinction. He isn't wrong because all unarmed persons shot by the police are perfectly innocent. Rather, he's wrong because their's a disparity in the ratio of unarmed white persons shot compared to unarmed black persons (6 to 1).
If we assume for a moment that 50% of all unarmed shootings are justified - we would still have a disproportionate ratio of 6 to 1. The only way we can balance out the numbers in terms of race is if 0% of unarmed white people being shot by the police are justifiable - but a full 83% of unarmed black people being shot by the police are justifiable.
-
Simon
But more to the point, if you are more likely to be stopped by the police for identical behavior and you're more likely to be wrongly shot by the police because of your race - this is clear indication of racial bias. Considering these two factors it's not surprising the figures show that more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white people.
Well, the study found that the disparity that exists for the more minor interactions diminished when it came to shootings and I don't think there is a clear difference when it comes to unarmed suspects or whether it matters - again, unjustified shooting is the only thing that matters. Why don't blm ever want to take that into account?
You seem to be want to believe that I am saying there is no bias at all. I have not said that and don't believe it. I'm just refuting the logical leap you make without evidence to support it.
Simon keeps trying to insinuate that "unarmed" isn't a clear enough distinction. He isn't wrong because all unarmed persons shot by the police are perfectly innocent. Rather, he's wrong because their's a disparity in the ratio of unarmed white persons shot compared to unarmed black persons (6 to 1).
Where do you get that 6 to 1 number? If 32 white people were unarmed then that would need 192 black people shot but the number from your stats was 38 wasn't it? You seem to be bad at math or have become confused over what stats you are using in your equation. Are you now back to how many black people there are in total as the basis for whether a shooting is fair or not? So births elsewhere will affect whether some cop is racist (going off your logic).
If we assume for a moment that 50% of all unarmed shootings are justified - we would still have a disproportionate ratio of 6 to 1. The only way we can balance out the numbers in terms of race is if 0% of unarmed white people being shot by the police are justifiable - but a full 83% of unarmed black people being shot by the police are justifiable.
50% of unarmed shootings being unjustified going off the numbers you previously posted would be 16 and 19 ... is that it? Is that what your argument is about? You think 19 is 6x more than 16?
-
SonoftheTrinity
I chalk it up to a generation raised on violent video games that are now cops but now have to be downright diplomatic after Boston vs. Glik allows everyone to record police interactions. Maybe ride-alongs in lieu of Jury Duty is the Answer, so everybody is a cop and everybody is watching the cops and appreciating the work they do without giving them cart blanche with peoples' lives which is a lot of white peoples' attitudes. You can't very well practice racial profiling with a citizen of color as your ride-along.