Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2018 11:10 PM
285 online now:
DrJones*, Meddle (2 members, 283 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 835,106 Year: 9,929/29,783 Month: 593/1,583 Week: 62/291 Day: 62/17 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 31 of 108 (832209)
04-30-2018 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
04-28-2018 1:38 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Modulous responds to me:

quote:
quote:
How many times do you need to be burned for not reading the thread before posting before you learn the lesson?

I'm not aware of any cases where that's happened.

(*chuckle*)

You really want to go down that road?

How about the time you banned me for a post I hadn't made. You remember...the time when the entire board blew up because you (and Percy, for that matter) couldn't bother to read the threads they were moderating. And then punished the people who brought it to your attention.

And then there's this one. The Toronto police are currently under investigation for their treatment of black people. You know...like I originally said...which you would have been aware of if you had read the post before responding rather than acting like Canada doesn't have a problem with race and the police.

This idea you have that Canada "doesn't seem to (have) as big of a 'shooting black people problem'" is trivially shown to be false.

If you had only read the post before responding.

If you had only done any homework regarding this issue before opening your yap.

For example, you write:

quote:
Which is something I learned during my homework before posting.

But then you follow up with:

quote:
In the US, officers are rarely prosecuted on the grounds they are behaving as they are trained.

Showing you didn't actually do your homework. They *were* acting as they were trained. The policy for the Toronto police was to end the situation as quickly as possible...which tended to lead to violence at the hands of the police. That's part of the reason they are being investigated and sued.

quote:
So the question is - how many white people approach police with a hand to hand weapon primed for attack get shot vs how many black people

More black people than white people.

You would have known that if you had done your homework. But you didn't. You had me do it for you and even now, you still can't bother yourself to pay attention.

And then there's this boneheaded response of yours:

quote:
So about 3 people a year.

As if the raw numbers have anything to do with it. Yeah, fewer people are shot by the police in Canada than in the US. What does that have to do with racial bias? Are you seriously saying that if all the people shot by the police in Canada were black, it wouldn't be a problem if they only shot 3 a year?

quote:
"Some guy says so" is not convincing

And did you do your homework about the author? Clearly not since you're reduced to "some guy."

Robyn Maynard is her name.

And you clearly didn't read the article if you are going to say, "at article doesn't give any data to work with," because it does. You did read it, didn't you? Or did you forget about the reports from Toronto (there's that city again), Halifax, and Edmonton.

And did you look up that information? Did you do your homework? Or did you just knee-jerk your response because it's me who has the temerity to contradict you?

quote:
The court that examined the evidence said that he was shot because he recovered his weapon.

Except that wasn't the reason the cop who shot him gave and it isn't what happened in the video.

quote:
Either way, we certainly can't draw the conclusion of a systemic racially motivated police shooting problem based on a single case.

Which is why I didn't base it upon a single case. Surely you aren't suggesting that the Toronto police department is being investigated because of a single case?

Wait...you're about to say that because the number of shootings is small, that means we can't make any determination, right?

quote:
Which is why I pointed out that the number of cases to examine is probably too small to draw the conclusion that the reason any given individual doesn't get shot is primarily due to race and that the low number of shootings generally suggests that the reason a person didn't get shot is more likely due to a training/protocol issue than race.

Bingo.

You are the problem, Modulous. No wonder you never learn your lesson.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2018 1:38 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2018 2:47 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 05-10-2018 10:52 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 32 of 108 (832210)
04-30-2018 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ProtoTypical
04-28-2018 7:13 AM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
ProtoTypical responds to me:

quote:
Apparently you think that every black man who gets shot by the police is an example of racism and every white person who doesn't is an example of privilege.

Insert cliche about what happens when you "assume."

Hint: I haven't said anything about gender and police.

Hint: Privilege is not a magic wand.

Hint: One can be privileged in one context and disadvantaged in another.

quote:
Excessive use of force by the police is a problem regardless of who the force is directed at.

And if you don't understand why the force is being used and the motivations behind its abuse, you will never be able to solve the problem.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-28-2018 7:13 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-01-2018 6:31 AM Rrhain has responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1767
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 33 of 108 (832228)
05-01-2018 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rrhain
04-30-2018 11:05 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Insert cliche about what happens when you "assume."

I was responding to your assumption that Alek Minassian wasn't shot because he wasn't black. I don't see how you could know that. It looked to me that he wasn't shot because he did not represent an imminent threat to the officer.

I haven't said anything about gender and police.

No that was me pointing out that the police shoot many more men than women. By your logic this would indicate that police shootings are influenced by sexism because the number of male victims is disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

Privilege is not a magic wand.

Right.

And if you don't understand why the force is being used and the motivations behind its abuse, you will never be able to solve the problem.

Of course we want to understand why the abuse of authority might be happening but we don't need to in order to prevent it. You solve the problem by restricting the use of force in general and by training your police to deescalate and by holding your police accountable for their actions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2018 11:05 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Rrhain, posted 05-01-2018 9:48 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3185
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 34 of 108 (832241)
05-01-2018 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rrhain
04-27-2018 6:58 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Except it isn't. In the US, 31% of people killed by the police are black. Of those killed by police who were not attacking, 39% were.

It's the same in Canada. Of the 52 people killed by the Toronto cops between 2000 and 2017, 19 were black. That's 36.5% despite Toronto's black population being only 8.3%.

You're right. Maybe I was wrong in claiming that the trend is lesser in Canada then in the US.
I don't have a problem with being wrong. It happens a lot. I learn things.

Or maybe you're wrong.
Why compare "the US" to "Toronto?" Why not compare country-to-country or city-to-city (Chicago and Detroit and NY are large US cities close to Toronto?)
Where did you get this information from?
This wiki site lists police killings across Canada.
It only shows 20-ish killed in Toronto by cops between 2000 and 2017.
It doesn't say race for every individual.
The Toronto Star claims that "No race-based statistics on fatal police encounters are kept by province’s police watchdog — or Statistics Canada, Toronto police or the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services."
And that only makes me more interested in where you collected your information...

But, really, it doesn't matter.

Maybe I'm wrong - if so, I apologize.
Or maybe you're wrong.

Either way, that's not my point.
My point was about identifying that a policeman in Canada showed amazing restraint in not shooting a man who seemingly wanted "death by police."

I still agree with you that racism exists in police forces and that it's a problem that should continue to be addressed.

Rrhain writes:

OK...so you agree. Then are you going to respond to this?

Yes.

And I still think your nitpicking on points that are only tangentially connected to the reason I made my post only go to show that you are pushing your own agenda.

You still haven't said anything that would contradict this policeman doing a great job. You only seem able to insinuate contradictions by claiming that, in a very general sense, racist police do in fact exist.

I still agree with you that racism exists in police forces and that it's a problem that should continue to be addressed.

Again, do you have any reason to reply to my point or are you going to provide more general statistics showing that racism exists in police forces and it should be monitored and controlled?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 04-27-2018 6:58 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 05-01-2018 9:13 PM Stile has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 35 of 108 (832247)
05-01-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Rrhain
04-30-2018 11:01 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
(*chuckle*)

You really want to go down that road?

How about the time you banned me for a post I hadn't made. You remember...the time when the entire board blew up because you (and Percy, for that matter) couldn't bother to read the threads they were moderating.

a) I didn't ban you, Percy did. My moderator actions were limited to explaining why I personally didn't suspend one person, and suspending another person for a measly 72 hours for calling me a retarded monkey while I was in Admin mode in an Admin thread after a warning it would lead to his suspension.
b) It was 11 years ago. Why are you still holding on to it? Let it go.
c) Eight years ago I made a whole thread to discuss this issue: Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?. I analysed the mistakes I made and apologized for them. You made a single post there and stopped responding.
d) It was 11 years ago, hardly something that merits a 'how many times...' comment.
e) Are you going to ever apologize for your periodically dredging this old thing up and stoking disharmony on this board?

And then there's this one. The Toronto police are currently under investigation for their treatment of black people. You know...like I originally said...which you would have been aware of if you had read the post before responding rather than acting like Canada doesn't have a problem with race and the police.

And as I said I had read that very thing, and had taken it into account with what I was saying. Apparently you aren't reading what I'm saying, which is hardly surprising.

This idea you have that Canada "doesn't seem to (have) as big of a 'shooting black people problem {as the US}'" is trivially shown to be false.

Except I showed that this was the case, using the data you brought to the thread. Perhaps you should take a look at that part of what I said? As you yourself say in the post I am replying to:

quote:
Yeah, fewer people are shot by the police in Canada than in the US.

That's a major part of my point.

In the US, officers are rarely prosecuted on the grounds they are behaving as they are trained.

Showing you didn't actually do your homework. They *were* acting as they were trained.

Hey it was your 'witness' who said they weren't doing as they were trained - don't blame me!

quote:
Officers shot at Andrew Loku in 'fear of black man with a hammer,' family's lawyer says

That was evidence you brought into the discussion. That source can be seen here. Here is what your source says:

quote:
"If only they had let compassion guide them instead of fear, if only they had let good sense and training guide them instead of panic, if only they had followed a multitude of recommendations made by previous inquests, then Andrew would be alive today." - Jonathan Shime, referred to in the headline

Other lawyers are paraphrased in the article as saying

quote:
Some lawyers suggested officers may simply not be retaining the training they currently receive.

So the question is - how many white people approach police with a hand to hand weapon primed for attack get shot vs how many black people

More black people than white people.

You would have known that if you had done your homework. But you didn't. You had me do it for you and even now, you still can't bother yourself to pay attention.

Unfortunately even the unofficial data you brought forward as evidence doesn't support your contention. I can believe it to be true, but without numbers there's not much we can say is there?

So about 3 people a year. According to the article 2/3 where shot. So about 2 people per year are shot. Less than 1 per million people. If Toronto where in the US it would have the lowest police death by shooting rates in the country....by far.

As if the raw numbers have anything to do with it.

I actually, as you can see - calculated a rate, not just the raw number. The raw number was to support my position that the number is very low. The rate was to show how it is significantly lower than the US.

Yeah, fewer people are shot by the police in Canada than in the US. What does that have to do with racial bias? Are you seriously saying that if all the people shot by the police in Canada were black, it wouldn't be a problem if they only shot 3 a year?

Well here's my point again, since you didn't read it the first two times.

It seems to me that there is more a culture of 'shoot only when it is needed' rather than 'shoot just in case' in Canada compared with the US. Thus, even if officers are equally racist, less shootings of black people occur. That is to say - even if Canadian police officers think, subconsicously or otherwise, that black people are more dangerous - their threshold to shoot is considerably higher.

In the US it seems the journey from non-lethal to lethal force is much shorter, and thus the racial prejudice variables has a bigger impact.

My point being that it isn't so much about the amount of racism, but the culture, protocols and training which result in lower deaths of black people.

You ask 'Are you seriously saying that if all the people shot by the police in Canada were black, it wouldn't be a problem if they only shot 3 a year?' but that was answered just a few sentences later, I'm not sure how you failed to read it:

quote:
Although the proportions are a problem and we should try to fix them - I'm not sure 0.6 black people being shot per year in Toronto constitute the level of problem that should cause us to speculate that when a white person doesn't get shot that race was the principle factor rather than protocols and training.

And did you do your homework about the author? Clearly not since you're reduced to "some guy."

Robyn Maynard is her name.

And you clearly didn't read the article if you are going to say, "at article doesn't give any data to work with," because it does. You did read it, didn't you? Or did you forget about the reports from Toronto (there's that city again), Halifax, and Edmonton.

Yes I read the article, several times. I still don't see the data you allude to. The article breaks down thusly:


  • Author says issue exists in Canada too
  • A singular example is given: Pierre Coriolan
  • Author says racism exists, and black people are more likely to be stopped than white people
  • President of the Canadian Police Association says there is a large culture difference between US and Canadian policing - notably the gun culture
  • Author responds improvements have happened, but there is still plenty more to go.

So where's the data? I notice you didn't tell me what the data in the article you posted is.

And did you look up that information? Did you do your homework? Or did you just knee-jerk your response because it's me who has the temerity to contradict you?

You were the one that brought up an eleven year old incident and generally acting hostile towards me. Perhaps you might consider that you are the one who cares about the 'who' behind the argument rather than myself.

The court that examined the evidence said that he was shot because he recovered his weapon.

Except that wasn't the reason the cop who shot him gave and it isn't what happened in the video.

I'm not sure what your point is in raising the reason the cop gave. That doesn't make the point that he did it for racial reasons.

quote:
Forcillo did not mistakenly believe that Yatim was getting up after being struck with a first volley of bullets, as the officer testified in court, Then found. Instead, he based his decision to fire again entirely on the fact that Yatim had managed to recover his knife, he said.

Under police training, that alone would not justify shooting a suspect, the judge said. The second volley of shots was "not only contrary to (Forcillo's) training, but unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive."


So two points: The court found his decision was entirely based on the recovery of the weapon. You can argue with them if you like, but you need to present evidence that his reasoning was racially motivated if you want to persuade me that was the case.

I should point out that once again, as I mentioned "In the US, officers are rarely prosecuted on the grounds they are behaving as they are trained." - whereas in this case it was the very fact that his actions betrayed his training that got him into trouble.

Either way, we certainly can't draw the conclusion of a systemic racially motivated police shooting problem based on a single case.

Which is why I didn't base it upon a single case.

Indeed - but Sammy Yatim is a single case. You can't draw the conclusion of racial prejudice from it. You need to look at the overall numbers to highlight that. That is all I was saying with this comment.

Wait...you're about to say that because the number of shootings is small, that means we can't make any determination, right?

The smaller the sample size, the harder it is to determine the truth. But the way it seems to me - my conclusion - there are likely many interactions between black people and the police every year in Toronto. One is shot to death every 2 years or so. Thus if a white person does not get shot in a police interaction, it doesn't quite make sense to argue that race was a significant factor in this outcome. It might have played some role, but clearly the lower rate of lethal shootings across the board suggest something else is a bigger player in this equation. Thus when asking why didn't this man get shot? The answer 'better training/culture/etc' is more reasonable than 'suspect is white'.

Bingo.

So after all that you agree with my thesis? Erm. OK then. So why on earth did you argue with me and say I hadn't done my homework?

You are the problem, Modulous. No wonder you never learn your lesson.

Try not to make it personal. It can cause problems when you do that. If you can't get over that a member from a decade ago was suspended by me for 3 days, and want to curse my name for the actions somebody else took - you might want to just cease interacting with me. A wise man, eleven years ago said this to me:

"You need to STOP."

And I pass this pearl of wisdom on to you now. I hope it serves you well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2018 11:01 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 05-01-2018 8:42 PM Modulous has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 36 of 108 (832277)
05-01-2018 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
05-01-2018 2:47 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Modulous responds to me:

Note: I am going to reverse the order of my response. Those who wish to consult the specifics of pervasive, systemic racism in the Toronto police department in specific and Canada in general can get that part first. I'll then respond to Modulous' fantasy version of history second.

===============

quote:
And as I said I had read that very thing, and had taken it into account with what I was saying.

If that were true, why the incredulousness that Canada in general and Toronto in particular has a problem with police treatment of black people? The stats for Toronto are on par for the US.

Your response seems to be that because it doesn't happen numerically as often, that somehow means it doesn't have an effect. That if Canada only shot black suspects, that if white suspects were never shot, it wouldn't show an issue of systemic racism if only a handful of people are shot.

As if getting shot were the only way people interact with the cops. Instead, Canada has the same racial bias as the US: Blacks are stopped more often, questioned more often, arrested more often, prosecuted more often, sentenced more often, and receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts.

So the idea that the fact that this suspect was white might have something to do with why he wasn't shot is hardly far-fetched. If you had done your homework, you would have known this. Instead, upon being introduced to this idea, you decided to be incredulous.

In fact, you even discount the actual evidence. More than one-third of all people shot by the cops in Toronto since 2000 have been black despite the black population of Toronto being less than 10%. And you claim that this somehow "doesn't support the contention" that black people are more likely to be shot.

quote:
The rate was to show how it is significantly lower than the US.

Incorrect. In fact, the rate in Toronto is *higher* than the US (as a whole).

You do understand that 36.5% (the rate for Toronto) is *larger* than 31% (the rate for the US), yes?

But since you seem to be stuck on this idea of raw numbers:

quote:
I'm not sure 0.6 black people being shot per year in Toronto constitute the level of problem that should cause us to speculate that when a white person doesn't get shot that race was the principle factor rather than protocols and training.

Let me just come right out and say it:

What a racist thing to say. See, just because black people are being killed at a rate more than three times their representation in the population, that doesn't mean that there might be some bias on the part of the people doing the killing. I mean, it's barely one person per year! Surely the black population of Toronto doesn't mind having somebody killed every year or two, right? Everybody's gotta die sometime, right? Maybe the black people deserve it.

Yeah, I know...I'm putting words in your mouth. But that's what you're saying when you deny a clear pattern of racial bias against black people as evidence of bias. If it isn't bias, if they're being treated fairly, then what on earth would be the reason that black people are being killed at rates that rival the US where we know this is an example of pervasive, systemic racism?

Well, the police could be incompetent...or the black population is somehow more likely to provoke such a response in the police. Are you saying this is because the cops are fools? Then how to explain that this foolishness only happens around black people? And Latinos? And First Nations? And Muslims? Why is the trend so strongly in favor of white people (and Asians)? Isn't it amazing how a random process so strongly models a racist one?

quote:
Yes I read the article, several times. I still don't see the data you allude to.

(*sigh*)

Did you look into the book that was mentioned in the article? Do you truly not understand what "doing your homework" means? For example, in the 1980s, the Montreal police department used pictures of black men for target practice.

quote:
You were the one that brought up an eleven year old incident and generally acting hostile towards me.

As I say below, as soon as you show contrition, Modulous: Acknowledge your error, apologize for it, and show actions that indicate you are working to solve the problem. Do that and then let's see how often I bring it up. Heck, you don't even have to do the first two...just the last part. You will note that despite the fact that Phat is one of the players in this, I never bring it up with him despite the fact that he hasn't apologized, either (it was his non-admin post that was used as justification to ban me and he has never come forward to acknowledge that.) Mostly that's because he doesn't fall into the same bad habits as you do.

Do your homework.

And stop being racist.

quote:
quote:
quote:
The court that examined the evidence said that he was shot because he recovered his weapon.

Except that wasn't the reason the cop who shot him gave and it isn't what happened in the video.

I'm not sure what your point is in raising the reason the cop gave.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? A cop who shoots someone who isn't a threat gives one reason, the courts say it's something else, and the video shows that neither of those reasons are valid and you "aren't sure what my point is"?

What part of "pervasive, systemic racism" are you having trouble with? The cop flinched, the courts gave him cover, and another non-white person is dead. But no...no racism here, folks!

You need to STOP.

The more you try to deny any possibility that racism might be involved, the more racist you come off.

You need to STOP.

===============

And now for the rest of the story.....

quote:
I didn't ban you, Percy did.

Actually, it was Minnemooseus, so we're both wrong on that. The point is, you were part of that lovely brigade of clueless admins dropping the ban hammer (*cough*Dan Carroll*cough*).

Something for which none of you have ever acknowledged let alone apologized for.

quote:
I personally didn't suspend one person, and suspending another person for a measly 72 hours for calling me a retarded monkey while I was in Admin mode in an Admin thread after a warning it would lead to his suspension.

As if that's all you did. Shall we quote crashfrog on the matter?

But Mod's centrality in the crisis that led to the Great Purge can't be denied; it's a matter of record in the General Discussion of Moderators thread.

Seems you were right in the thick of things. That you didn't pull the ban hammer on me, specifically, doesn't let you off the hook for what happened. It never occurred to you to turn to Percy, Minnemooseus, or Phat and say, "No, this is wrong." And I am not the only one who noticed.

quote:
It was 11 years ago. Why are you still holding on to it? Let it go.

What part of "never acknowledged let alone apologized for" are you having trouble with? If you don't recognize the problems you had, you will have an exceedingly difficult time correcting them. This board still has the same problem: Clueless admins who don't pay attention to the threads and then get upset when people point out their failures.

quote:
Eight years ago I made a whole thread to discuss this issue: Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?.

And thus, you prove my point: You didn't actually consider the problems before and it happened again. How very interesting that you bring this up because let's look at what I said in full context:

I'm the one pointing out that once again, you have decided to circle the wagons when faced with criticism of your abilities as a moderator rather than engage and explain yourself. You still haven't learned your lesson. The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically. And now you're throwing another hissy fit.

Three wrongs don't make a right, Modulous. When are you going to learn that lesson?

It would seem that it's the exact same problem: The moderators don't pay attention to the thread and when things get out of hand, they punish the people who brought it to their attention rather than the ones that caused the problem in the first place.

You are specifically the problem, Modulous. You literally had someone sock puppeting on your board, spewing homophobia with aplomb, and your response was that "it didn't merit suspension." And you wonder why I'm not letting it go?

You, specifically you, Modulous, said that Dan hadn't done anything wrong.

And you, specifically you, Modulous, banned him anyway.

And you have never acknowledged this error nor apologized for it.

quote:
I analysed the mistakes I made and apologized for them.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Not in the slightest. In fact, in your supposed "apology" tour, you specifically disrespected me. I'm a big boy. I don't actually care about your opinion of me. But considering that you were trying to point out that people were being banned because of disrespect, because you, specifically you, Modulous, banned Dan Carroll for supposedly disrespecting you, it is the height of irony for you to then claim that you "analyzed the mistakes you made and apologized for them."

What you "analyzed" and "apologized" for was "unnecessary posting."

Not for any actions you took against the members of the board. Not for the consequences of those actions. Not for any ethical lapses or fundamental errors in judgement regarding the actual issue at hand (n_j's attack on berberry, Percy's insane banning of berberry rather than n_j, your banning of Dan Carroll for coming to berberry's defense, Minnemooseus' banning of me for coming to Dan Carroll's defense, the attacks on crashfrog for coming to my defense).

No, just "unnecessary posting."

You aren't sorry for what you did. Just that you got caught doing it a lot.

In fact, you dismissed the entire concept as unimportant:

Modulous writes:

crashfrog writes:

Modulous writes:

That basically sums up the 'laities' position.


...and? Were they right, or not?

I don't see the importance of that, now. More to the point, the question is too broad to answer straightforwardly.

That was your entire response to that question.

In fact, he asked you directly about acknowledgement of error and you blew it off:

Modulous writes:

crashfrog writes:

as there a single instance in that thread where any moderator admitted than their actions were inciting the very crisis they claimed justified those actions?


Does it matter?

Again, that was your entire response to that question.

But, back to that "unnecessary posts" point: crashfrog again asks you to be specific about what you did wrong, and you point out that the problem wasn't that your moderator actions were wrong but rather that you gave any comment about why you did them in the first place:

Modulous writes:

crashfrog writes:

Or, again, is that just all the "laity position", and it was the role of the moderators to convince us poor, benighted laity to accept the judgement of our betters by suspending people until they shut up about it?


You used the word laity, Crash. No - the role of the moderators should have been to state their position - explain it and then terminate further discussion. Much like everyone else.

You expressed incredulity that anybody would think that what you did was, as you put it, "capricious, cruel or unfair." And when crashfrog specifically called you out on it:

It's the kind of thing that erodes confidence in your ability to be objective. It certainly eroded mine, which is why at the time I described you as being one of the worst moderators I had ever seen at the forum. Taking moderator action because someone "disrespected you", but not against someone else who had disrespected Berberry, made it pretty clear that you weren't using your moderator power to enforce respect among debators, you were using it to enforce respect for yourself.

You completely ignored it.

And then there's this doozy:

Modulous writes:

crashfrog writes:

So then why are you saying anything besides "Rrhain and Crash and Dan were ultimately proved right, and I'm sorry for my actions"?


I have conceded the points where I think Rrhain was right. I have conceded the points where I think you were right. I have expressed sorrow - but please also accept my apologies.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Where in that entire thread did you "concede points where you thought I was right"?

Name one.

And where did you express any sorrow of any kind? Wait, you're probably thinking of that part above where you claim you have "expressed sorrow" (*snort!*) and ask crashfrog to "accept your apologies."

Except that crashfrog apologizes to you in kind and your response to him is to call it "self-serving." So while you may have decided to accept it from him, it isn't going to fly with me.

So for you to claim that you acknowledged any errors in judgement let alone apologized for them is...well..."disingenuous" would be a polite term.

quote:
It was 11 years ago, hardly something that merits a 'how many times...' comment.

On the contrary. It shows just how deep your fault lies:

It's been going on for more than a decade. How many times do you need to be burned by it before you learn your lesson?

quote:
Are you going to ever apologize for your periodically dredging this old thing up and stoking disharmony on this board

As soon as you, Percy, Minnemooseus, and Phat acknowledge what you did, apologize for what you did, and show actual effort at correcting the problem, I'll stop bringing it up. Percy has decided to stick his fingers in his ears and shout "LALALALALA," so this may take a while.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2018 2:47 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2018 9:44 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 37 of 108 (832278)
05-01-2018 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Stile
05-01-2018 11:44 AM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Stile responds to me:

quote:
Or maybe you're wrong.

Right, the Quebec Human Rights Commission isn't investigating the Toronto police regarding racial bias. Or if they are, it's on the flimsiest of evidence.

quote:
Why compare "the US" to "Toronto?" Why not compare country-to-country or city-to-city (Chicago and Detroit and NY are large US cities close to Toronto?)

(*blink*) You did not just say that, did you? Blacks are being killed in Toronto at a rate more than three times their population and you're complaining that I'm comparing the city to the average of the US?

Does the phrase "cherry picking" mean anything to you? Why do I get the feeling that no matter what city I chose, it wouldn't be acceptable to you and you'd accuse me of cherry picking? No, averaging across the US where we know there is pervasive, systemic racism is sufficient.

And surely you aren't suggesting that racial problems, if they exist in Canada, are only in Toronto, are you?

quote:
Where did you get this information from?

I provided sources.

quote:
This wiki site lists police killings across Canada.
It only shows 20-ish killed in Toronto by cops between 2000 and 2017.
It doesn't say race for every individual.

The second sentence from that article:

This list is incomplete.

But I guess the CBC is incompetent, right? Only Wikipedia is allowed to have a say?

quote:
The Toronto Star claims that "No race-based statistics on fatal police encounters are kept by province’s police watchdog — or Statistics Canada, Toronto police or the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services."
And that only makes me more interested in where you collected your information...

If you had read my posts, you would have known.

quote:
But, really, it doesn't matter.

And that's why you keep failing. It does matter.

quote:
My point was about identifying that a policeman in Canada showed amazing restraint in not shooting a man who seemingly wanted "death by police."

And my point is that said restraint seems to be oh, so much easier to find when the guy's white. Yeah, good on the cop for not shooting the guy. What's that have to do with pervasive, systemic racism?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Stile, posted 05-01-2018 11:44 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 05-02-2018 9:59 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 38 of 108 (832280)
05-01-2018 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Rrhain
05-01-2018 8:42 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Your response seems to be that because it doesn't happen numerically as often, that somehow means it doesn't have an effect.

Nope. Want to try again?

That if Canada only shot black suspects, that if white suspects were never shot, it wouldn't show an issue of systemic racism if only a handful of people are shot.

Nope. I explicitly said the opposite. Give it another go.

As if getting shot were the only way people interact with the cops. Instead, Canada has the same racial bias as the US

But they shoot less people. Hrm, I think I've gone over this ground before. Let me think...what was it? Ah yes:

quote:
Thus, even if officers are equally racist, less shootings of black people occur. That is to say - even if Canadian police officers think, subconsicously or otherwise, that black people are more dangerous - their threshold to shoot is considerably higher.

In the US it seems the journey from non-lethal to lethal force is much shorter, and thus the racial prejudice variables has a bigger impact.


So the idea that the fact that this suspect was white might have something to do with why he wasn't shot is hardly far-fetched. If you had done your homework, you would have known this. Instead, upon being introduced to this idea, you decided to be incredulous.

Something to do with it? Sure, that may be true. If the incident happened in the US I would expect the person to be shot (regardless of race, given the degree of provocation...I expect on average a black person would have been shot sooner). In Canada I expect they won't be shot. Not that they won't be shot, its just much less likely. And not because Canada has solved racism. But because their training etc etc results in making the prejudices that are undoubtedly out there less likely to become lethal.

In fact, you even discount the actual evidence. More than one-third of all people shot by the cops in Toronto since 2000 have been black despite the black population of Toronto being less than 10%. And you claim that this somehow "doesn't support the contention" that black people are more likely to be shot.

Well no - it obviously supports that contention. The contention I was talking about however was regarding the racial split in the shootings in the scenario where the suspect was 'approaching police with a hand to hand weapon primed for attack'

I'm not saying there won't be prejudice here, just that the numbers discussed in this thread so far don't allow us to be sure on that.

Incorrect. In fact, the rate in Toronto is *higher* than the US (as a whole).

You do understand that 36.5% (the rate for Toronto) is *larger* than 31% (the rate for the US), yes?

The proportions are worse, sure.

But the rate is lower. 1 per million people vs somewhere closer to 3-4 per million people in the US, according to one dataset I looked in any case.

I'd say shooting four times fewer people adjusting for population is significantly lower.

Incidentally - it is silly to give percentages to 1 decimal place when we are talking about a data set with only 50 or so people in it spread out over 10 years...

Although the proportions are a problem and we should try to fix them - I'm not sure 0.6 black people being shot per year in Toronto constitute the level of problem that should cause us to speculate that when a white person doesn't get shot that race was the principle factor rather than protocols and training.

What a racist thing to say. See, just because black people are being killed at a rate more than three times their representation in the population, that doesn't mean that there might be some bias on the part of the people doing the killing.

Of course there is a bias. I even said it. Twice. I included the part where I said it, in the very sentence before the part where your quote of me began. Race may well be a factor. But the principal factor in someone not getting shot seems to be training rather than race.

Yeah, I know...I'm putting words in your mouth. But that's what you're saying when you deny a clear pattern of racial bias against black people as evidence of bias.

But I am not denying that. It is bias. I was saying how police training is probably the reason that that those biases result in less deaths by shooting.

Did you look into the book that was mentioned in the article? Do you truly not understand what "doing your homework" means?

If you want to present data from a book, please be my guest. My contention was that the article you linked to didn't have any data in it to discuss. It seems you agree with this.

You did not just say that, did you? A cop who shoots someone who isn't a threat gives one reason, the courts say it's something else, and the video shows that neither of those reasons are valid and you "aren't sure what my point is"?

I didn't see anything in the video which contradicts the courts claim. Maybe I'm looking at a different video than you?

As I say below, as soon as you show contrition, Modulous: Acknowledge your error, apologize for it, and show actions that indicate you are working to solve the problem

Go back to Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?. You made one post there, that included this request. I replied with a link and a quote of me doing this. You can read my other posts, particularly with crashfrog. If you really want to dredge this crap up, take it to that thread.

What part of "never acknowledged let alone apologized for" are you having trouble with? If you don't recognize the problems you had, you will have an exceedingly difficult time correcting them.

quote:
{My actions resulted in } A decline {in the general quality of debate and participants}

But even-keeled or not I was not without fault during the Reichstag fire thread...Crashfrog did raise some valid points about my incessant unnecessary posting...My particular favourite "Fuck Mod, why did you do that?" was Message 125. Confrontational, snarky, passive aggressive - it has basically no redeeming features.

{my actions contributed to} a complete failure of confidence in the moderation of the board

I concede I played a role in it.

I agree the perception of {Admins closing ranks} occurring was detrimental to the community.

I spent too much time needlessly repeating my explanation

I learned my lessons and moved on.

I was a contributing factor.

We might not completely agree on everything - but I think we can be adults shake hands (or curtly nod) and move on.

I have conceded the points where I think Rrhain was right. I have conceded the points where I think you were right. I have expressed sorrow - but please also accept my apologies.


Those were the relevant highlights to this point that I had in my discussion with crashfrog. Although we could not get agreement on a number of issues, we did have a frank and interesting exchange of ideas as adults. If you want to do likewise please do it in that thread.

(For the record I didn't read the rest of your comments, I assume from a quick scan they are all related to this issue and are wildly off topic here. Copy them to that thread if you want a response.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 05-01-2018 8:42 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2018 12:19 AM Modulous has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 39 of 108 (832281)
05-01-2018 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ProtoTypical
05-01-2018 6:31 AM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
ProtoTypical responds to me:

quote:
I was responding to your assumption that Alek Minassian wasn't shot because he wasn't black.

Yes, by making a comparison to gender.

Thus, my response: Don't assume you know what I feel regarding police interactions with regard to men/women and that intersection with such interactions with regard to race.

quote:
It looked to me that he wasn't shot because he did not represent an imminent threat to the officer.

And isn't it amazing how whites seem to "not represent an imminent threat to the officer" so much more often than blacks?

quote:
No that was me pointing out that the police shoot many more men than women. By your logic this would indicate that police shootings are influenced by sexism because the number of male victims is disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

And thus, the cliche about what happens when you "assume."

What makes you think I don't think that? After all, if being stopped, detained, questioned, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and getting a harsher sentence is indicative of bias when it comes to race, how can it not also be indicative of bias when it comes to gender?

Now, there's a festive trap in there, so be careful.

quote:
Of course we want to understand why the abuse of authority might be happening but we don't need to in order to prevent it.

How can you prevent it if you don't know what's causing it? F'rinstance, in the 1980s, Montreal police would use images of black men for target practice. Would that not be indicative of systemic bias? If you aren't going to pay attention to the specific reasons, how are you going to notice that this is part of it?

"Treat everyone respectfully" doesn't handle the systemic issues that cause people to ignore that dictum. After all, if someone is threatening you, it isn't a violation of the idea to "treat everyone respectfully" to defend yourself, possibly with lethal force.

A person who has a bias against black people and thus sees weapons that aren't there, jumps to a conclusion that they're up to no good, intending violence, and thus find themselves "afraid for their life" isn't going to think they went against the idea of "treat everyone respectfully." They're going to think they were justified in their response. They might admit they made a mistake regarding the weapon, misinterpreted the actions, etc., but they aren't going to attribute it to racism but rather to bad luck and simple error. That's why you have to talk about race and all the ways both large and small that result in us treating black people more harshly than white people.

quote:
You solve the problem by restricting the use of force in general and by training your police to deescalate and by holding your police accountable for their actions.

But how do you hold someone accountable if you aren't willing to specify what it is that caused the problem? If you aren't going to specifically call out racism in an officer-involved shooting, you're just telling police that they aren't allowed to shoot people if it's required. Now, I'm all for police having to think carefully before drawing their weapon and then thinking again before firing. But, it should be about specific things, not some general concept. Because people don't treat black people the same as white people, ignoring that means you never address the problem.

It's "All Lives Matter" dressed up.

Clearly, not all lives matter or there wouldn't be a discrepancy in the way certain lives are treated.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-01-2018 6:31 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 40 of 108 (832288)
05-02-2018 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Modulous
05-01-2018 9:44 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Modulous respond to me:

Again, I'll be taking this a bit out of order. First, just one comment from the end:

quote:
For the record I didn't read the rest of your comments

Of course you didn't. That's the entire problem. You don't read the comments before you respond. How many times do you need to be burned for not reading the thread before posting before you learn the lesson?

Back to the topic:

quote:
quote:
Your response seems to be that because it doesn't happen numerically as often, that somehow means it doesn't have an effect.

Nope. Want to try again?

Nope.

Did you or did you not say:

I'm not sure 0.6 black people being shot per year in Toronto constitute the level of problem that should cause us to speculate that when a white person doesn't get shot that race was the principle factor rather than protocols and training.

And notice, I didn't even point out your other racist comment:

how much of this is a reflection of the social conditions black people are in that is not caused by police? That is - what happens if we correct for income/education etc?

Somehow, it is anything else but race.

And just in case you weren't clear enough, you said it again:

My point being that it isn't so much about the amount of racism, but the culture, protocols and training which result in lower deaths of black people.

But let's keep going. Did you or did you not say the following:

The smaller the sample size, the harder it is to determine the truth. But the way it seems to me - my conclusion - there are likely many interactions between black people and the police every year in Toronto. One is shot to death every 2 years or so. Thus if a white person does not get shot in a police interaction, it doesn't quite make sense to argue that race was a significant factor in this outcome.

So when you claim, "Nope. I explicitly said the opposite," it comes off as...well...there's that "disingenuous" word.

Or are you saying you didn't say what you said?

You're looking for any othe reason than race, complaining about a sample size, ignoring that the very police department we're looking at is under investigation specifically for racial bias, and then trying to say that because you didn't say the specific words I said, that isn't your argument.

It all hooks together, Modulous. It's akin to the creationists saying that "information can never be increased" by claiming that duplication isn't "increase in information" and that mutation isn't "increase in information," all the while ignoring that duplication combined with mutation is precisely the thing they claim can't happen.

See, right after you deny it, you affirm it:

quote:
quote:
As if getting shot were the only way people interact with the cops. Instead, Canada has the same racial bias as the US

But they shoot less people.

What does that have to do with anything except to say that because there aren't as many shooting deaths, that discounts pervasive, systemic racism?

You even try to justify that with the same racist argument:

Thus, even if officers are equally racist, less shootings of black people occur. That is to say - even if Canadian police officers think, subconsicously or otherwise, that black people are more dangerous - their threshold to shoot is considerably higher.

And what does that have to do with anything? Blacks are still killed more often than whites.

I'm sure the dead black person is glad knowing that the racist police force that shot them didn't also shoot a bunch of others.

As if being shot by the police is the only interaction. It's just the most extreme example. It isn't racism if you don't die? It only counts when blood is shed?

quote:
If the incident happened in the US I would expect the person to be shot (regardless of race, given the degree of provocation...I expect on average a black person would have been shot sooner).

And thus, you show your racism. In the US, if the suspect were white, the odds of them getting shot are quite small in comparison. As we can see in example after example, white people can actually *shoot*at*the*cops* and they won't be shot in return.

So no, you shouldn't expect the white person to get shot. That the US cops are more trigger-happy doesn't mean we should expect white people to get shot.

Because they aren't.

Because they're white.

quote:
The contention I was talking about however was regarding the racial split in the shootings in the scenario where the suspect was 'approaching police with a hand to hand weapon primed for attack'

You mean you don't know? The source I provided mentioned just that:

Most of the victims killed in encounters with Toronto police had some sort of a weapon. The most common, in 17 cases, was a blade of some kind.

Seven of the victims possessed a firearm and six had a replica gun or air pistol.

Reports show 14 of the victims were unarmed.

And in the case of Yatim, the cop said he was "lunging," but the video clearly shows he wasn't. That's why the cop was sentenced to 6 years.

quote:
Of course there is a bias. I even said it. Twice.

Yeah, but you don't mean it. Why else are you trying to find any other reason?

Note, please let us not play dumb and pretend that I am discounting other factors. Instead, I am trying to get you to understand that even with all those other factors, race still plays a part.

The fact that this guy was white didn't hurt in his interaction with the police. Because that was my original point: Stile found the idea that the cop didn't shoot the guy "amazing." He chalked it up to the cop being of the opinion that the guy didn't actually have a gun.

OK...and what part of "the guy was white" played into that analysis? Because it goes to the heart of where the cop got the idea (assuming it's true) that the guy didn't have a gun. Blacks are more likely to be thought of as having a weapon than whites. So to jump to the conclusion that "the cop didn't think he had a gun and thus didn't feel threatened and thus didn't shoot the guy" without factoring in the race of the guy as part of the reason why the cop didn't think he had a gun is to be incomplete in the analysis.

We'll never know for sure. And I'm hardly arguing that the guy should have been shot.

I'm simply pointing out that we can't use this as a sign of "good things," precisely because we don't know. Precisely because the very police department in question is under investigation for racial bias. Good on the cop for not shooting the guy. Let's make sure that happens to all the other guys, too.

quote:
I was saying how police training is probably the reason that that those biases result in less deaths by shooting.

And how does that have any effect upon racial bias? As if being shot is the only sign. It only counts if you're dead? No blood, no big deal?

===============

And now to Mod's repeated...well, let's use his words...rewriting of history:

quote:
Go back to Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?.

I did. Read every single post you made in that thread.

No acknowledgement of your mistakes.
No apology for what you did.
No act of contrition.

In fact, you doubled down. The whole thread was nothing but a massive show of ego with you trying to claim you had the moral high ground. The only thing you apologized for is trying to explain why you and the other moderators did the wrong thing at every turn.

You never apologized for actually doing the wrong thing at every turn.

For crying out loud, you even quoted yourself:

Crashfrog did raise some valid points about my incessant unnecessary posting

Note, you're not apologizing for banning Dan Carroll. You're not confronting the banning of berberry. You're not confronting Minnemooseus for banning me. You're not confronting Phat for pointing out that he wasn't speaking as an admin.

You're apologizing for being "confrontational, snarky, passive agressive."

n_j (Hyroglyphx) was spewing homophobic bullshit all over the board and specifically targetting berberry and the response of the moderators of this board was to punish berberry and anybody who stood up for him. Hyroglyphx admitted to being n_j and he suffered no consequences while berberry is still banned indefinitely.

So when you say, "I was a contributing factor," exactly what was your contribution, Modulous?

Was it "unnecessary posting"? Or was it the banning of Dan Carroll?

Do you honestly think the problem is the number of posts you made? Or is it the policies you were trying to justify all those times?

You still can't bring yourself to the idea that n_j (Hyroglyphx) did something wrong, can you? You said, "The Admin team seemed to be in consensus that whatever N_J was doing - it didn't merit suspension."

Well, what do you think, Modulous? What was your opinion? I presume there's a bit of a majority vote going on in the halls of moderation so that if most of the admins don't think there's a problem, then their opinion rules, but what was your opinion? Was n_j's (Hyroglypx's) treatment of berberry worthy of suspension?

Note, I already know your response (because you directly stated what you thought), so if it is different now from what it was then, I'll expect you to explain what changed your mind.

You keep harping on the fact that I only made one post in that thread. Well, did you notice that my post was #264 in that thread despite it having only been a few days between your post and mine?

Did you see the very first response? It was cavediver:

cavediver writes:

Rrhain writes:

Not until you apologize for your behaviour and change your ways.


Sorry, you seem to have missed out on our conclusion: nothing to apologise for, nothing to change...

Moving on...

AZPaul3 even doubled down:

We have just been through the archives and all the messages courtesy of Crashfrog and the majority of us find that Mod, Purpledawn, Percy and any and all other members of the Moderation team did not err in this case.

But you did. You all did. berberry is still banned. Dan Carroll, too. And thus, my comment that triggered AZPaul3's response still stands:

You haven't learned your lesson and I will point it out every time you make the same mistake.

One wonders why I let it go. Of course, I can't seem to win with you. If I bring it up, you complain about me bringing it up. If I let it go, you complain that I didn't respond.

In your response to me where I asked you to apologize, you thumbed your nose at me, repeating your claim that "conceded the points where I think Rrhain was right." But what was it? The closest I can come is this:

Indeed - you have a valid point about your initial suspension for violating the guidelines. I agreed at the time that Moose was wrong to do it, but Phat had also called for a stop. But yes, he neglected to check a box to post as a Moderator. Phat did that fairly regularly (see Message 88 where he is speaking as a moderator using the Phat account) - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that suspension was unwarranted.

Notice the attempts at saving face. You aren't exactly on board. "Benefit of the doubt"? You're missing the crucial point that I called out repeatedly:

The timing was all wrong. Even if we assume that there was some admonition to me, I was banned for a post that was made *before* the admonition. This isn't a question of "benefit of the doubt."

And even more importantly, it assumes that Phat was correct...which is part of the problem: He wasn't. The base problem still remains unacknowledged:

n_j (Hyroglyphx) was spewing homophobic bullshit all over the board, particularly aimed at berberry.

When berberry fought back, he was punished, not n_j (Hyroglyphx). In fact, the moderators of the board felt that there wasn't anything to suspend n_j (Hyroglyphx) for.

When Dan Carroll came to berberry's defense, he was banned under some trumped up charge of "disrespect" (so why was n_j (Hyroglyphx) still around?)

When I came to Dan Carroll's defense, I was banned under some trumped up charge of "violating administrator directives" (so why was n_j (Hyroglyphx) still around?)

When crashfrog came to my defense, you avoided any attempt to deal with the heart of the problem.

So we're back to the original problem: You haven't acknowledged your wrongdoing, you haven't apologized, and nothing has changed. And to your comment to me in that thread, I will continue to question your intelligence and intellectual honesty until you do.

But as you said in your response to me: Feel free to rewrite history. Seems like we'll be here a while.

If you still wish to rewrite history, take it to where you wish to do it.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2018 9:44 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 05-02-2018 12:34 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3185
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 41 of 108 (832319)
05-02-2018 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rrhain
05-01-2018 9:13 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Rrhain writes:

Right, the Quebec Human Rights Commission isn't investigating the Toronto police regarding racial bias. Or if they are, it's on the flimsiest of evidence.

Do you have a link to your data?

(*blink*) You did not just say that, did you? Blacks are being killed in Toronto at a rate more than three times their population and you're complaining that I'm comparing the city to the average of the US?

Uh, yeah.
I like to understand things.

Do large cities generally have higher rates than entire-country-averages?
If so... then you are the one cherry picking.
If not... then it doesn't make a difference.

But simply expressing your anger that I'm attempting to learn something doesn't help move the discussion forward.

So, again:

Why compare "the US" to "Toronto?" Why not compare country-to-country or city-to-city (Chicago and Detroit and NY are large US cities close to Toronto?)

Why do I get the feeling that no matter what city I chose, it wouldn't be acceptable to you and you'd accuse me of cherry picking? No, averaging across the US where we know there is pervasive, systemic racism is sufficient.

I don't know why. I would guess that you're paranoid?
I offered two cities that are also large and close to Toronto (Chicago and Detroit). Pick either of those and I'll be fine in a comparison to Toronto.

But even that doesn't apply to a Canada-vs-US comparison as it would be a Toronto-vs-Chicago or Toronto-vs-Detroit comparison.

My claim was that the statistic was lesser in Canada than it was in the US.

Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe you're wrong.

But so far, you have not shown anything that shows that claim to be incorrect. You simply imply that it's incorrect. I like to learn things, and that means getting to the actual answer. Don't worry about upsetting me, if you have the information for a country-to-country comparison just let me know.
If you don't... then I suppose my claim goes uncontested. I also admit that it goes unsupported (as I have no statistics to provide either). But that doesn't mean you can simply imply something and think it's good enough.

And surely you aren't suggesting that racial problems, if they exist in Canada, are only in Toronto, are you?

No.
Again, Rrhain, I agree with you that police forces have issues with racism and killing black people. Such a problem should continue to be monitored and controlled.

Canada contains police forces.
Many parts of Canada contain many different police forces.
Each one, I would guess, would have it's issues with racism and killing black people. Some will be better than others.

Are you incapable of retaining information?
I suppose I can simply keep repeating myself, if you really prefer.

Rrhain writes:

Stile writes:

Where did you get this information from?

I provided sources.

Just right now when I asked for them?
You seem to claim that they come from the Quebec Human Rights Commission. Can you provide a link to something I can see?
I searched the thread for "Quebec" and this post right now from you is the first one it pops up in.
Maybe I missed it or maybe you presented a source in a reply to someone else? Could you link to it, please?

Stile's linked Wiki article writes:

This list is incomplete.

And maybe your numbers are an over-estimation.

Rrhain writes:

But I guess the CBC is incompetent, right? Only Wikipedia is allowed to have a say?

That's why I like to compare sources.
Can you provide a link to yours so I can take a look?

And that's why you keep failing. It does matter.

Failing at what?
Failing at agreeing with you? I think sometimes you're fighting just to fight.

Again, Rrhain, I agree with you that police forces have issues with racism and killing black people. Such a problem should continue to be monitored and controlled.

Rrhain writes:

Stile writes:

My point was about identifying that a policeman in Canada showed amazing restraint in not shooting a man who seemingly wanted "death by police."

And my point is that said restraint seems to be oh, so much easier to find when the guy's white.

And I agree with you.

Again, Rrhain, I agree with you that police forces have issues with racism and killing black people. Such a problem should continue to be monitored and controlled.

Rrhain writes:

Yeah, good on the cop for not shooting the guy.

Extremely good on him. It was a very impressive show of amazing restraint and control!

What's that have to do with pervasive, systemic racism?

I wasn't making a point about pervasive, systemic racism.
I was simply point out that a policeman in Canada showed amazing restraint in not shooting a man who seemingly wanted "death by police."

You seem to be jumping all over my point in order to push your agenda of fighting over pervasive, systemic racism.

But the problem is, I already agree with you.

Again, Rrhain, I agree with you that police forces have issues with racism and killing black people. Such a problem should continue to be monitored and controlled.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 05-01-2018 9:13 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2018 5:09 PM Stile has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 42 of 108 (832322)
05-02-2018 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rrhain
05-02-2018 12:19 AM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Did you or did you not say:

I'm not sure 0.6 black people being shot per year in Toronto constitute the level of problem that should cause us to speculate that when a white person doesn't get shot that race was the principle factor rather than protocols and training.

Yes, but apparently you interpreted in a grotesquely different way than I intended. In fact most of the time I was reading through your reply to me that was all I could think I was kind of astonished. It peaked at around this moment:

If the incident happened in the US I would expect the person to be shot (regardless of race, given the degree of provocation...I expect on average a black person would have been shot sooner).

And thus, you show your racism.

Your ability to take things and come to completely backwards conclusions would be a talent if it had a use. I hope you are trying for a job in the world of politics, polemics or guy on tv who talks about occult stuff because those seem like ideal places.

I made a comment that makes two points:

1) American police shoot people more readily than Canadian ones
2) Police shoot black people with less provocation than they shoot white people.

You have already agreed with point 1) and point 2) seems to be a significant portion of your entire point in this thread.

But somehow this shows that I am racist. At first I was speechless -- really, it deserves a Picard.

But then I realized the reason:

Of course there is a bias. I even said it. Twice.

Yeah, but you don't mean it.

You aren't actually arguing in good faith at all! Regardless of what I say you'll discount anything explicit and misinterpret whatever is left. Well, there's no point in actually debating someone who is doing that, so that draws us to a conclusion. So here is mine.

Conclusion

Canadian police shoot less people than American police. In any given encounter, your are many times less likely to be shot - regardless of race - in Canada than the US. NOT getting shot is the expected outcome of a police encounter with Canadian police - even in Toronto.

New York City is an interesting US case. In 2017 the number of fatal police shootings was somewhere around 9. The number has been dropping for about a decade. Their population is about 3 times that of Toronto so as of 2017 they've reached an annual fatal shooting rate that is comparable to Toronto's ten year average. Going back to 1996 we find that incidents where a gun was discharged by an officer was over sixfold what it was in 2017.

Those on the ground attribute this to improved training methods.

So if you were to find yourself in a confrontation with the police in a scenario where lethal force could be used, but you are not shot and killed - the principle reason in Toronto and New York City for example, can be attributed to improved training.

It is generally agreed upon by participants in this thread that if the person in this particular issue was black, the probability he would have been shot is markedly increased. But since the probability in general of getting shot in a police confrontation in Toronto is so low multiplying that out still results in a low probability. Thus, NOT getting shot remains the expected outcome. The training doesn't erase the racism, but it seems to help inhibit that racism from resulting in lethal consequences.

There are several confounding factors which I have previously alluded to. For instance, the number of comparable incidents to this particular case is very low - so detailed analysis of how race would play into it is bound to result in large error margins. It is believable that the magnitude of tension in this kind of case, magnifies the racial bias.



Go back to Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?.

I did. Read every single post you made in that thread.

Interesting, you somehow failed to post your comments in that thread, despite that being the thread where this nonsense is on topic and instead continued on your quest to derail this thread with the off topic stuff.

Fear not - I'll take go over there now and respond. I'll post a link here when I am done.

abe: Message 405 in Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2018 12:19 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2018 6:42 PM Modulous has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 43 of 108 (832500)
05-04-2018 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Stile
05-02-2018 9:59 AM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Stile responds to me:

quote:
Do you have a link to your data?

Yep. In the post which you seem to not have read. Go back, do your homework, and then try again.

Of course, your inability to type "Toronto investigation racial bias" into your favorite search engine is telling so let me do your homework for you:

Probe into racial profiling by Toronto police will only prove what black community knows, says activist

Human Rights Commission launching inquiry into racial profiling by Toronto police

Ontario Human Rights Commission probing Toronto Police 'racial profiling'

Inquiry into Toronto Police to examine racial profiling complaints

There's even been some studies prior to this one from the OHRC:

Racially biased policing and neighborhood characteristics: A Case Study in Toronto, Canada

This is especially revealing given Modulous' JAQ-off: "The question is - how much of this is a reflection of the social conditions black people are in that is not caused by police? That is - what happens if we correct for income/education etc?"

Well, they looked into that:

The findings of this study suggest that Blacks are subject to disproportionately more stops for drug-related reasons in neighborhoods where more Whites reside and are less socio-economically disadvantaged, therefore confirming race-and-place profiling of Blacks in Toronto. However, race concentration and socio-economic disadvantage arguments fail to explain the spatial variations in drug-related stops of Whites. This result could be caused by the diverse ethnic origins and socio-economic backgrounds of White Torontonians.

Is There Racial Discrimination in Police Stop-and-Searches of Black Youth? A Toronto Case Study

Our study investigated racial profiling of Black youth in Toronto and linked this racial profiling to urban disadvantage theory, which highlights neighbourhood-level processes. Our findings provide empirical evidence suggesting that because of racial profiling, Black youth are subject to disproportionately more stops for gun-, traffic-, drug-, and suspicious activity-related reasons. Moreover, they show that drug-related stop-and-searches of Black youth occur most excessively in neighbourhoods where more White people reside and are less disadvantaged, demonstrating that race-and-place profiling of Black youth exists in police stop-and-search practices.

There's that white fragility again. It isn't just the "social conditions of black people." It's the whites engaging in racist behaviour to target black people. Rich, educated, "good neihborhood" black people are still targeted more than their white counterparts. Yeah, there's the racism that keeps blacks underprivileged and thus subject to all the problems that come with being part of the socio-economic underclass, but getting out of that environment doesn't stop the racism.

Now, I will admit to an error: I said the Quebec Human Rights Commission. I meant Ontario. My apologies for my geographical error.

quote:
Do large cities generally have higher rates than entire-country-averages?

Irrelevant. Are you suggesting that the US doesn't have a problem with race as an entire country? I'm sensing some white fragility here. If Toronto is on par with the US as a whole and the US as a whole has a problem with race, exactly what is the problem?

quote:
Why compare "the US" to "Toronto?"

Because to choose an individual city would be cherry-picking. Because the US as a whole has a problem. So if Toronto is comparable to the US and the US has a problem, then Toronto has a problem.

quote:
I offered two cities that are also large and close to Toronto (Chicago and Detroit).

What makes you think Chicago and Detroit are comparable to Toronto? Is the black population of Chicago the same as Toronto? After all, if the entire population of Chicago were black, would it be a fair comparison to say that 100% of the victims of police shootings were black and then crow that Toronto is only at 37%?

But here's Chicago:

According to the Chicago Tribune, between 2010 and 2015, 262 people were shot by the police (out of 528 shootings, meaning the other times they missed).

210 were black.
35 were Hispanic.
14 were white.
2 were Asian.

Of those, 92 were killed.

Now, what is the black population of Chicago? Hint: It's much larger than that of Toronto. Same for Detroit. What might that do to the number of blacks shot? Might you be trying to compare things that don't compare?

The racial breakdown of Toronto is 8.5% black. For the US, it's 13%. And we here in the US after Ferguson had some interesting whines from whites about how "more white people get shot by the cops than blacks," based off raw numbers. Since 2015, according to the Washington Post, 732 white people and 381 black people have been shot. But because of the demographics, that means a black person is 2.5 times more likely to be shot than a white person.

But, let's throw all that aside. Let's just do raw percentages. According to the IPRA, from 2010 to 2014, 70 people were killed by the Chicago police of which 46 were black. That's two-thirds or just under twice the percentage as Toronto.

But, the black population of Toronto is about one-fourth the black population of Chicago.

It would seem Toronto has a bigger problem.

quote:
My claim was that the statistic was lesser in Canada than it was in the US.

Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe you're wrong.


If you had done your homework, you would have known.

If you had read the sources I provided, you would have known. Hint: They were in a post you decided not to respond to.

If you aren't going to read the thread, do your homework, and pay attention, it's going to be very difficult for you to have anything of value to say.

quote:
quote:
This list is incomplete.

And maybe your numbers are an over-estimation.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? Do you not understand what "This list is incomplete" means? It isn't that there are more people on the list than actually were shot but rather there are people who were shot who aren't on the list. How does one "over-estimate" a direct body count? That is, the cops routinely don't track information regarding the people they shoot. So going to the cops for their records can be frustrating because the data isn't there. But, you can actually count bodies. The cops may not have the information you need, but that doesn't mean you can't look at dead bodies and make that determination directly.

However, that will necessarily be an *under*-estimation. If we can find the body, we can track down information about the victim, but there will be people we cannot track down. Thus, the problem is not over-estimating but rather under.

Or are you suggesting that people only notice the black victims?

quote:
You seem to be jumping all over my point in order to push your agenda of fighting over pervasive, systemic racism.

And you seem to be running away from it. All I did was point out that the guy being white certainly didn't hurt his chances of not being shot. You then tried to find any possible reason to discount race as playing a factor. "Yeah, racial bias is a problem, but let's not talk about that here! It's because the cop didn't think he had a gun!"

Remember how this started, Stile. You said:

My guess is the cop knew/highly-suspected that he didn't have a gun before any of the dude's threats began. And then the officer didn't fall for the bluff.

And I said:

And what part of "the guy was white" played into your analysis?

If you agree that "police forces have issues with racism and killing black people," then what part of "the guy was white" played into your analysis regarding your being impressed in this case?

When you say, "It was a very impressive show of amazing restraint and control," what part of "the guy was white" played into your analysis? Did it even occur to you?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 05-02-2018 9:59 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Stile, posted 05-09-2018 10:37 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 44 of 108 (832505)
05-04-2018 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
05-02-2018 12:34 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Modulous writes:

quote:
But somehow this shows that I am racist.

Yep. Did you or did you not JAQ-off with this:

So the question is - how many white people approach police with a hand to hand weapon primed for attack get shot vs how many black people.

And this:

The question is - how much of this is a reflection of the social conditions black people are in that is not caused by police? That is - what happens if we correct for income/education etc?

So yeah, when you say that somehow the number of black people being shot per year is low means we can't figure out if race is part of the problem, you come off as racist.

quote:
Canadian police shoot less people than American police. In any given encounter, your are many times less likely to be shot - regardless of race - in Canada than the US. NOT getting shot is the expected outcome of a police encounter with Canadian police - even in Toronto.

I'm sure the dead black people are happy to know that they were less likely to die in Canada than in the US. That certainly makes up for the fact that they are more likely to die than white Canadians.

quote:
New York City is an interesting US case. In 2017 the number of fatal police shootings was somewhere around 9. The number has been dropping for about a decade. Their population is about 3 times that of Toronto so as of 2017 they've reached an annual fatal shooting rate that is comparable to Toronto's ten year average. Going back to 1996 we find that incidents where a gun was discharged by an officer was over sixfold what it was in 2017.

And yet New York City is infamous for their "stop and frisk" policy whereby more young, black men were stopped in the city than there were young, black men in the city to be stopped and frisked.

The fact that they don't manage to shoot you doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Once again, we're at the question you didn't answer:

It isn't racism if you don't die? It only counts when blood is shed?

quote:
Interesting, you somehow failed to post your comments in that thread,

As you say...I only made the one post. I know what I said. It's your comments that are the problem, Modulous. Because here's the question you still have yet to answer:

Did n_j (Hyroglypx) do something wrong?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 05-02-2018 12:34 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2018 3:22 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 45 of 108 (832667)
05-07-2018 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Rrhain
05-04-2018 6:42 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Did you or did you not JAQ-off with this:

The question is - how much of this is a reflection of the social conditions black people are in that is not caused by police? That is - what happens if we correct for income/education etc?

So yeah, when you say that somehow the number of black people being shot per year is low means we can't figure out if race is part of the problem, you come off as racist.

Until you have shown me evidence you are reading what I am writing rather than presuming what I'm saying - that is until this discussion is in good faith - we can't go anywhere.

First I'm racist for pointing out police shoot black people more readily.
And now I'm racist for pointing that the police aren't the only ones who discriminate against black people.

Here, I'll give you a hand though:

And yet New York City is infamous for their "stop and frisk" policy whereby more young, black men were stopped in the city than there were young, black men in the city to be stopped and frisked.

The fact that they don't manage to shoot you doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Once again, we're at the question you didn't answer:

It isn't racism if you don't die? It only counts when blood is shed?

Clearly we agree that the reason less black people are being shot in New York is not because racism has been eradicated. This is not a thread about racism, its about police shootings. The number of shootings in New York has dropped over the last couple of decades. The people there say this can be attributed to improved training/protocols.

As training improves, as protocol improves and as accountability improves - we expect to see less people getting shot. To the point where we no longer comment how extraordinary it is that a suspect didn't get shot. Granted - black people may well be getting shot disproportionally more frequently - but with better training/etc the reason any given person didn't get shot increasingly can be attributed to said training/etc.

quote:
It seems to me that there is more a culture of 'shoot only when it is needed' rather than 'shoot just in case' in Canada compared with the US. Thus, even if officers are equally racist, less shootings of black people occur. That is to say - even if Canadian police officers think, subconsicously or otherwise, that black people are more dangerous - their threshold to shoot is considerably higher.

In the US it seems the journey from non-lethal to lethal force is much shorter, and thus the racial prejudice variables has a bigger impact.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2018 6:42 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 10:16 PM Modulous has responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018