Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2018 3:48 PM
198 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 192 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,916 Year: 13,739/29,783 Month: 1,185/1,576 Week: 126/271 Day: 67/59 Hour: 22/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Stile
Member
Posts: 3234
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 46 of 155 (832742)
05-09-2018 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rrhain
05-04-2018 5:09 PM


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

Stile writes:

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.

I still can't find it.

You provided a bunch of links here... but they only support what I've been saying:
That Toronto (or even Canada) police has an issue with racial profiling and that specific data is unavailable.

Here's your claim:

Rrhain writes:

Of the 52 people killed by the Toronto cops between 2000 and 2017, 19 were black.

None of the links you provided contain this claim, and most of them agree that such data is currently unavailable.
I searched them for the number "52" and it only shows up in unrelated numbers... like indexes and such.

So, again, do you have a link to your data?

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.

But I agree with you that Toronto has a problem.

My claim was that Canada has a lesser problem than the US.

You cannot show that this claim is false by saying Toronto is comparable to the US.
Toronto is a very large city within Canada. To use Toronto as an average for "Canada" for pretty much anything is going to be wrong. It will likely be high.

Therefore, if Toronto is comparable to the US, and Toronto is likely high for Canada...
This leads to it being likely that my claim of the problem being "lesser" in Canada than the US is correct.

You seem to be implying that my claim is wrong, while providing evidence for it's support.

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?

I've already answered this.
You don't seem to have any relevant reply.

My answer was:

quote:
Enough to know it could be a significant factor, and also that it might not.

Which leaves us, again, with the correct assessment that this was policeman displayed some very impressive restraint and control!

Unless you can provide us with more than just generalized statistics that I already agree with?
Can you provide something specifically related to this officer that would indicate that he is part of the problem and not part of the solution?

If you do produce something, please also provide your source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2018 5:09 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 8:51 PM Stile has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17664
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 47 of 155 (832788)
05-10-2018 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Rrhain
04-30-2018 11:01 PM


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

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.

Just for the record, Mod wasn't involved. Whatever the specific events, whatever other moderator actions may have occurred around the same time, the board dustup was all me. All I recall now is that the trigger was when someone laid into AdminPD (PurpleDawn) for patiently explaining for the nth time what she saw as the thread's problems and what direction she'd prefer the thread to take. There had been increasing abuse of moderators, and I had become increasingly concerned that we had too many moderators, so I suspended (permanently, I think) some people and reduced the moderator roles. Many people were so upset that they requested they also be suspended (I honored their requests) and many just left. The upset was so great that most everyone still remembers it.

Your specific involvement, if any, I don't recall.

--Percy


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 49 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 9:50 PM Percy has responded

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


Message 48 of 155 (832797)
05-10-2018 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Stile
05-09-2018 10:37 AM


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

quote:
I still can't find it.

Then you are deliberately not looking. Third post of mine in this thread (the very first one with links), second link. Take a look at the very title of the article. Then look at the very first sentence of that article.

You know...like I told you before. "In the post which you seem to not have read. Go back, do your homework, and then try again."

quote:
None of the links you provided contain this claim, and most of them agree that such data is currently unavailable.

Except that isn't true and shows merely that you aren't actually interested in trying to learn about this.

quote:
My claim was that Canada has a lesser problem than the US.

As if that means it is of little to no concern. That not as many get shot doesn't mean there isn't a problem as is evidenced by the fact that black people in Canada are stopped, questioned, arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted, and receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts. As is evidenced by the fact that the rate at which black people are shot by the cops is on par with the rate in the US. As is evidenced by the fact that the very police force in question is under investigation for racial bias.

Just because people don't bleed doesn't mean the problem is less.

quote:
Which leaves us, again, with the correct assessment that this was policeman displayed some very impressive restraint and control!

And which leaves us, again, with my response to you:

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

From your protestations, it would appear the answer is: None at all.


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 46 by Stile, posted 05-09-2018 10:37 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 05-11-2018 9:18 AM Rrhain has responded

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


Message 49 of 155 (832799)
05-10-2018 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
05-10-2018 10:52 AM


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

quote:
Just for the record, Mod wasn't involved.

Incorrect. While my specific contention that Modulous suspended me is incorrect (that was Minnemooseus), Modulous was the one who suspended Dan Carroll.

After directly stating that Dan hadn't broken any of the rules.

You, on the other hand, suspended berberry for posts he hadn't made, saying that you were doing it because he was an hysterical woman (both foolish and sexist, I might add, on multiple levels).

Berberry's in protective suspension to prevent her from further saying things she may later come to regret during a period where being upset has affected her judgment.

quote:
All I recall now is that the trigger was when someone laid into AdminPD (PurpleDawn) for patiently explaining for the nth time what she saw as the thread's problems and what direction she'd prefer the thread to take.

Then boy is your memory faulty. That wasn't the problem at all.

Instead, the problem was that Hyroglyphx, under a previous account as nemesis_juggernaut, was spewing homophobic bullshit all over the board.

And all the admins, when it was pointed out, sided with the bigot. When berberry made it very clear just how despicable this was, you chalked it up to "political correctness," that he had a "thin skin," and suspended him not for anything he had done but because you were certain he would "regret" posts he hadn't made...oh, and calling him a woman in the process.

When Dan Carroll protested at the treatment of berberry, he was suspended by Modulous under a trumped up charge of insulting him.

When I protested at the treatment of Dan, I was suspended by Minnemooseus under a trumped up charge that I had violated a moderator's directive...even though he hadn't made it yet.

The only person who managed to survive was crashfrog.

This battle is still going on as the old thread between me and Modulous shows and the fact that I brought this up with *you* not too long ago...

...and you immediately stopped responding.

But, that isn't the point of this thread. If you want to continue this elsewhere, just tell me where.


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 47 by Percy, posted 05-10-2018 10:52 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 05-11-2018 11:51 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 05-12-2018 7:59 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2018 3:26 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

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


Message 50 of 155 (832803)
05-10-2018 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Modulous
05-07-2018 3:22 PM


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

quote:
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.

Hmmm...someone said something appropriate here...lemme see if I can recall...oh, yeah:

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

This is a recurrent problem with you, Modulous.

Let me say it again, Modulous: You are racist for trying to find any possible justification for the racial disparity between the way whites and blacks are treated other than race. What racial bias you are willing to admit are secondary effects: Racism leads blacks to poverty, which is racist, but the actions are carried out because of the poverty of the victims. Racism leads blacks to poor education, which is racist, but the actions are carried out because of the education of the victims.

Because when we do the very thing you say, account for the income/education/etc., blacks are still treated worse than whites.

That hardly means that there are no other factors than race. It's that to deny race, to ignore race, to focus on everything except race is to be disingenuous at best.

quote:
This is not a thread about racism, its about police shootings.

And that's why you are failing, Modulous.

You cannot separate the racism out of the police shootings. Once again, you are trying to deny race, to ignore race, to focus on everything except race. See, you say things like this:

quote:
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.

All the while ignoring that most interactions with the police don't wind up with someone getting shot. For the past three years, only about 950 - 1000 people have been killed by the cops per year in the US.

Out of how many millions of interactions with the cops? We're talking a truly tiny fraction of the total.

And yet we all understand the pervasive, systemic racism in the justice system that results in more than a quarter of all black men being sent to jail at some point in their lives while less than 5% of white men will. We understand that despite the fact that more white people are shot by the cops in raw numbers, being black means you are more likely to get shot.

So if you think it is amazing that a cop in the US didn't shoot the victim while , it's because you don't actually understand the issue. Yeah, US cops kill more people in days than many other countries do in years, but the total number of people killed by the cops in the US is tiny compared to the number of police interactions.

That doesn't mean we don't have a problem with cops being a bit too willing to use force.

And it certainly doesn't mitigate any racism involved in the process.

Thus, we're back to my original question:

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

Given your protestations, it would seem the answer is: None.

Is it really so hard to just respond, "It certainly didn't hurt"?


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 45 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2018 3:22 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 05-10-2018 10:59 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 2 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 155 (832804)
05-10-2018 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Rrhain
05-10-2018 10:16 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
You are racist for trying to find any possible justification for the racial disparity between the way whites and blacks are treated other than race.

But I'm not doing that. The reason for the racial disparity in police shootings is due to race.

What racial bias you are willing to admit are secondary effects: Racism leads blacks to poverty, which is racist, but the actions are carried out because of the poverty of the victims.

I am explicitly telling you that the police are racist and that other institutional racism serves as confounding factors in our estimating the degree of the problem with the police. I'm saying there's more racism afoot than even you brought to the discussion. Hardly a racist position of someone trying to say race is irrelevant to the racial disparity.

Because when we do the very thing you say, account for the income/education/etc., blacks are still treated worse than whites.

Yes, that's so blindingly obvious I didn't think it needed spelling out. The question is, in Canada - in Toronto - how much of a factor is it in police shootings? I expect it's still there, but what are the numbers? Do we have enough to make the determination with reasonable error margins?

All the while ignoring that most interactions with the police don't wind up with someone getting shot. For the past three years, only about 950 - 1000 people have been killed by the cops per year in the US.

Out of how many millions of interactions with the cops? We're talking a truly tiny fraction of the total.

Yep. So why didn't those millions of interactions result in people getting shot? Is it more because they were white? Or more because cops are trained not to shoot people as standard? I'm merely saying that less people get shot in Canada because of the police training and that this training means that the racial prejudice that exists results in less deaths by shooting.

That doesn't mean we don't have a problem with cops being a bit too willing to use force.

And it certainly doesn't mitigate any racism involved in the process.

Correct. Exactly. These aren't arguments against anything I've said - I agree with it.

Thus, we're back to my original question:

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

Given your protestations, it would seem the answer is: None.

It wasn't my analysis so the answer is n/a.

My point was that its not so amazing that he didn't get shot. Regardless of his race, he was less likely to get shot than people who live in the US may be used to - since the Toronto police are less inclined to shoot people. And this isn't because they aren't racist, its that their training results in them shooting less people. All of which has been confirmed by the data that we subsequently discussed.

So despite the high tension of this particular situation, which in the US may lead to the expectation of a police shooting by any given US observer, it was actually not that amazing the Canadian police officer didn't shoot. The cop wasn't exceptional for not shooting, he was acting as trained as many other Canadian cops do in their many interactions.

His being white may have improved his chances, but the training improved it more.

Is any of this sinking in or am I being ignored in favour of your narrative?



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.


Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 10:16 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2018 12:40 AM Modulous has responded

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


Message 52 of 155 (832807)
05-11-2018 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Modulous
05-10-2018 10:59 PM


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

quote:
The reason for the racial disparity in police shootings is due to race.

Then why did you ask about income/education/etc.? If it is "so blindingly obvious you didn't think it needed spelling out," why did you ask about it as if you needed it spelled out? You do recall that we can see your past posts, yes?

quote:
So why didn't those millions of interactions result in people getting shot? Is it more because they were white?

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

Privilege is not a magic wand. We've been through this before. Privilege doesn't stop you from getting shot. It's the recognition that when things go bad, they're likely not to go as bad when you have privilege than when you don't.

quote:
Regardless of his race, he was less likely to get shot than people who live in the US may be used to

Really? Half a minuscule number is still a miniscule number. In the US, about 22% of the population has a face-to-face encounter with the police. So of those interactions, just over one-thousandth of one percent of them result in getting killed by the cops:

1000 deaths / (325 million people * 22%) = 0.000013

From what I can tell, about 5 million Canadians have an interaction with the cops. At least 65 ended in death in 2017:

65 deaths / 5 million interactions = 0.000013

Wow! That's the same rate! So no, there is no great shock in the Canadian guy not getting shot compared to the US guy.

So we're back to my question: What part of "the guy was white" played into your analysis.

As you say: None.

Is it really so hard to just say, "It surely didn't hurt"? Instead of trying to find any other reason except race why this might have happened, can we just recognize that the guy's race didn't hurt?


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 51 by Modulous, posted 05-10-2018 10:59 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2018 11:59 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3234
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 53 of 155 (832811)
05-11-2018 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rrhain
05-10-2018 8:51 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Ah, thank-you for finally providing your source.

Rrhain writes:

You know...like I told you before. "In the post which you seem to not have read. Go back, do your homework, and then try again."

It's not my homework to read your posts to other people for a source to a claim you made to me.
That's your homework to provide your sources when asked. As you finally did, thank-you.

Rrhain writes:

Stile writes:

My claim was that Canada has a lesser problem than the US.

As if that means it is of little to no concern.

"Lesser" does not mean, or imply "little" or "none."

For example: Let's say we have 2 women. Heather is 6'1" tall. Jude is 6'2" tall.
Heather's height is lesser than that of Jude.
However, both women would still be considered "very tall" in comparison to the general population of women.

Heather's height is lesser than Jude's. Both Heather and Jude are very tall.
Canada's racial problem is lesser than the US's. Both Canada and the US have serious racial issues they should continue to monitor and control.

Rrhain writes:

Just because people don't bleed doesn't mean the problem is less.

You're absolutely right.

And just because Toronto's problem is on par with the US doesn't mean Canada's problem isn't lesser than the US's. In fact, it indicates that Canada does have a lesser problem than the US.

So, again, thanks for proving my claim.

Rrhain writes:

And which leaves us, again, with my response to you:

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

From your protestations, it would appear the answer is: None at all.

But... I've answered this twice now.
The second time was in the post you just replied to.

You really don't have anything more than attempts at confusion, do you?
No relevant facts, no pertinent details.

Nothing more than general statistics that I already agree with.

For the third time, here's my answer to your question:

quote:
Enough to know it could be a significant factor, and also that it might not.

Since you seem incapable of providing any information that would indicate this policeman is part of the problem and not part of the solution:

This, again, leaves us with the correct assessment that this policeman displayed some very impressive restraint and control!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 8:51 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2018 3:18 PM Stile has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17664
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 54 of 155 (832813)
05-11-2018 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rrhain
05-10-2018 9:50 PM


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

But, that isn't the point of this thread. If you want to continue this elsewhere, just tell me where.

Right, this isn't the topic of this thread. I was just trying to briefly provide a little information, not divert this thread off-topic.

I did notice later that you're already discussing this in another thread. I'm always in favor of resolving differences, but judging from your post here that I'm responding to and your posts to Mod in the other thread, you seem to carry grudges for a long time, have a big emotional stake in your own narrative, and exhibit hostility toward anyone who disagrees with you, so no thanks, I don't want to continue this.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 9:50 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 2 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 155 (832814)
05-11-2018 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Rrhain
05-11-2018 12:40 AM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Then why did you ask about income/education/etc.? If it is "so blindingly obvious you didn't think it needed spelling out," why did you ask about it as if you needed it spelled out?

Well, if the data exists, it would be useful to determine to what extent are the cops being racist when the lethally shoot someone. The cops shooting someone to death is the end of a chain of events. If all black people are forced into criminality by unjust laws, devastating social conditions etc then even the least racist police force it is possible to have would still be disproportionally shooting black people.

I figure, if we're going to analyse the situation, there's no use being simple-minded about it - we may as well see how much detail there is, or discover that there is a lack of available data whichever is true.

So why didn't those millions of interactions result in people getting shot? Is it more because they were white?

Privilege is not a magic wand. We've been through this before. Privilege doesn't stop you from getting shot. It's the recognition that when things go bad, they're likely not to go as bad when you have privilege than when you don't.

Naturally, I agree.

But by cutting my question in twain you managed to make it sound absurd. So I'll rephrase the question in a manner less conducive to you mining it for objectionable content.

So why didn't those millions of interactions result in people getting shot? Is it more because they were white or because police are trained not to shoot everyone they come into contact with?

It's a rhetorical question, I hope. I think we both agree that police are trained to not shoot people as a first response.

Turning back to the point at hand - do we have numbers for incidents that have some reasonable comparison to to the incident in question? A suspect engaged in lethal activities who is unarmed but issuing verbal threats to the police? That's why I said 'If {The Toronto Van Rampage} happened in the US I would expect the person to be shot'. I may be wrong in my expectations, but I think it's not unreasonable and retorting that police interactions generally, including routine traffic stops etc don't tend to result in shooting is kind of missing the point I was making by a country mile.

1000 deaths / (325 million people * 22%) = 0.000013

From what I can tell, about 5 million Canadians have an interaction with the cops. At least 65 ended in death in 2017:

65 deaths / 5 million interactions = 0.000013

I think your maths is faulty. As a quick sanity check, look at the orders of magnitude.

1000 / 10 million
vs
10 / 1 million

There are two orders of magnitude more police shootings in the numerator in the US but only 1 order of magnitude more in the denominator.

Another significant problem seems to be that the number of deaths by shooting in the US is 1,000 but you seem to use all police deaths for Canada, not just shooting. There were only 29 deaths by police shooting in Canada.

So using slightly more accurate numbers, and not making an error in the calculation it would look like this:

1000 deaths / 31 million = 1 in 31,000 or 0.00003

29 deaths / 5 million = 1 in 170,000 or 0.000006

So that does put about an order of magnitude difference into the equation. The rates do look quite significantly different. In fact, to have the same rates, Canadian police would need to shoot and kill 150 people a year - 5 times as many.

So we're back to my question: What part of "the guy was white" played into your analysis.

As you say: None.

Is it really so hard to just say, "It surely didn't hurt"? Instead of trying to find any other reason except race why this might have happened, can we just recognize that the guy's race didn't hurt?

Well naturally it didn't hurt.

But the evidence so far does seem to suggest that interacting with the Canadian police force rather than a US police force was a big advantage. Since we agree the racial prejudice numbers are about the same, but 5 times less likely to be shot because he was in Canada.

So to use crude numbers for a moment due to lack of accurate figures, if the chance of him getting shot was 50% in the US (given the reason for the stop, and his belligerent stance etc) it was only 10% in Canada. If being black means there was an 80% chance he'd be shot in the US, it would be only a 16% chance of being shot in Canada.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2018 12:40 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2018 4:08 PM Modulous has responded

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


Message 56 of 155 (832819)
05-11-2018 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
05-11-2018 9:18 AM


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

quote:
Ah, thank-you for finally providing your source.

You mean that I had already done more than two weeks ago and requested you look at but for which you refused to do so?

quote:
Canada's racial problem is lesser than the US's.

No, not really. After all, the very city in which this happened is under investigation for racial bias and the rate at which black people are shot by the cops is on par with the US.

So no.

And as we found out when looking at the numbers, Toronto's problem is actually a bit worse than Chicago when you start factoring in the black population. The reason why there aren't as many black people shot by the cops, while partially due to the fact that they don't shoot as many people in general, is because there aren't that many black people in Toronto.

But getting shot is not the end-all/be-all of police interactions. There's the rest of the justice system, too, with black people being poorly treated at every step of the way compared to their white counterparts.

You really don't have anything except some sort of defensiveness regarding someone thinking about how race was involved, do you?

Is it really so hard for this interaction to have occurred?

Me: "What part of 'the guy was white' played into your analysis?"

You: "None, but now that you mention it, it certainly didn't hurt."

And that would have been the end of it.

Instead, you got defensive as if I were somehow accusing you of something nefarious. Instead, you decided to bloviate and bluster as if you had something to prove.

So since you want to spin the merry-go-round, let's try it again:

You: "This policeman displayed some very impressive restraint and control!"

Me: "What part of 'the guy was white' played into your analysis?"

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 53 by Stile, posted 05-11-2018 9:18 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Stile, posted 06-04-2018 1:15 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

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


Message 57 of 155 (832820)
05-11-2018 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Modulous
05-11-2018 11:59 AM


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

quote:
If all black people are forced into criminality by unjust laws, devastating social conditions etc then even the least racist police force it is possible to have would still be disproportionally shooting black people.

Yep...just like I said. You only want to acknowledge the secondary racial aspect. Yeah, societal racism forcing black people into lives where criminal activity is more likely is racist...but the cop responding to it? Nah....

quote:
So why didn't those millions of interactions result in people getting shot?

Logical error: Reversal. This isn't about the people who don't get shot. This is about the people who do.

Why didn't they get shot? Because the gun wasn't pulled on them. But black people are more likely to have a gun pulled on them. And when a gun gets pulled on a suspect, black people are more likely to get shot.

quote:
I think your maths is faulty.

Nope. I gave the numbers. The math checks out.

1000 people were killed by the cops in the US (that's a bit of an over-estimate and makes things worse for the US, but let's go with it.)

About 22% of the population has a face-to-face encounter with the cops (that's a bit of an under-estimate and makes things worse for the US, but let's go with it.)

The population of the US is about 325 million (again, a bit of an under-estimate and makes things worse for the US, but let's go with it.)

Thus, 22% of 325M = 71.5M interactions with the cops.

Thus, 1000 / 71.5M = 1.4e-5

There are 65 confirmed deaths at the hands of the cops for 2017 (not merely shootings...deaths) in Canada (that's a guaranteed under-estimate and makes things better for Canada, but let's go with it.)

There were about 5 million face-to-face encounters with the cops.

Thus, 65 / 5M = 1.3e-5

So, despite the fact that we have over-estimated the rate for the US and under-estimated the rate for Canadaa, we get the same rate.

quote:
As a quick sanity check, look at the orders of magnitude.

Yes, and they check out: The cop-death rate and the interaction rate have the same order of magnitude difference: About 7%. Since Canada has only 10% of the population of the US, we shouldn't be surprised at the numbers.

California has about the same population as all of Canada and it averages around 100 people killed by police each year, the overwhelming number being in LA (though this last year, it was up to 157 with more than a third in LA). We're just under halfway through the year and California has 42 killings.

quote:
There are two orders of magnitude more police shootings in the numerator in the US but only 1 order of magnitude more in the denominator.

You need to check your math. When your sanity check doesn't match the actual calculation, reconsider what your sanity check is. Orders of magnitude are fine, but they don't do well for numbers near the magnitude, which is what we have here. That's why if you're only one order off, you need to pay attention to the actual numbers and see if you're dealing with border cases.

quote:
Another significant problem seems to be that the number of deaths by shooting in the US is 1,000 but you seem to use all police deaths for Canada, not just shooting. There were only 29 deaths by police shooting in Canada.

Nope. 65 confirmed deaths. You really need to do your homework.

Jeff Shantz: At least 65 people died through interactions with police in Canada in 2017

The provincial and territorial breakdown is as follows:
British Columbia: six deaths
Alberta: 10 deaths
Saskatchewan: four deaths
Manitoba: six deaths
Ontario: 22 deaths
Quebec: 15 deaths
Nunavut: two deaths
Three deaths occurred on First Nations.

As the article points out, it's very difficult to get good numbers regarding the number of deaths at the hands of the police in Canada because they simply don't track that information. The US isn't too much better. The Washington Post has a site for tracking them based off reports (Fatal Force), but even they are going off of publicized records. When they compared their numbers to the FBI, they had twice as many deaths compared to what was reported to the FBI. For my calculation, I was going off the WP's numbers.

But as the Canadian source says, they are in a worse position than the US because the media in the US is more likely to provide information:

The public is left with an inaccurate view of the issue and is given to be a bit complacent about the real toll of killings by police in Canada—unlike the situation in the U.S., for example, where police killings of civilians are reported in much greater detail (including names of officers responsible) and are documented by various sources.

There is more transparency in the U.S., and information is made available publicly with less delay. Even basic information, like the names of victims, is not released publicly in Canada. Victims’ names are typically only given where family members release them or in rare cases where there are charges against officers.

quote:
But the evidence so far does seem to suggest that interacting with the Canadian police force rather than a US police force was a big advantage.

Nope. The evidence so far does seem to suggest that interacting with the Canadian police force rather than the US police force means you're just as likely to be killed.

You want to avoid getting shot by the cops, you want to go to the UK or Australia. But then again, the gun laws are very different there, so it's not a very good comparison.


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 55 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2018 11:59 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2018 5:14 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 2 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 58 of 155 (832823)
05-11-2018 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rrhain
05-11-2018 4:08 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
Well, if the data exists, it would be useful to determine to what extent are the cops being racist when the lethally shoot someone. The cops shooting someone to death is the end of a chain of events. If all black people are forced into criminality by unjust laws, devastating social conditions etc then even the least racist police force it is possible to have would still be disproportionally shooting black people.

I figure, if we're going to analyse the situation, there's no use being simple-minded about it - we may as well see how much detail there is, or discover that there is a lack of available data whichever is true.

Yep...just like I said. You only want to acknowledge the secondary racial aspect. Yeah, societal racism forcing black people into lives where criminal activity is more likely is racist...but the cop responding to it? Nah....

Clearly you are wrong. Racist cops are part of the problem as I've explicitly acknowledged several times, including in the comment above.

So why didn't those millions of interactions result in people getting shot?

Logical error: Reversal. This isn't about the people who don't get shot. This is about the people who do.

We're discussing the fact that the Alek Minassian did not get shot.

Why didn't they get shot? Because the gun wasn't pulled on them. But black people are more likely to have a gun pulled on them. And when a gun gets pulled on a suspect, black people are more likely to get shot.

Good, we agree.

Nope. I gave the numbers. The math checks out.

1000 people were killed by the cops in the US (that's a bit of an over-estimate and makes things worse for the US, but let's go with it.)

About 22% of the population has a face-to-face encounter with the cops (that's a bit of an under-estimate and makes things worse for the US, but let's go with it.)

The population of the US is about 325 million (again, a bit of an under-estimate and makes things worse for the US, but let's go with it.)

Thus, 22% of 325M = 71.5M interactions with the cops.

Thus, 1000 / 71.5M = 1.4e-5

Yes, although 71.5 million is about twice the correct number as can be seen here. I'm pretty sure the 5,000,000 for Canada does not include interactions such as a reporting crimes or asking for other assistance, motor accidents and volunteer work but let me know if I'm wrong.

So the correct equation is more like

1000 / 36M = 2.8e-5

There are 65 confirmed deaths at the hands of the cops for 2017 (not merely shootings...deaths) in Canada (that's a guaranteed under-estimate and makes things better for Canada, but let's go with it.)

There were about 5 million face-to-face encounters with the cops.

Thus, 65 / 5M = 1.3e-5

Well we're focussed on shootings here, it is the topic title and we are talking about the fact that the Toronto Van Rampage suspect was not shot during his standoff. The 1,000 is approximately right for shootings in the US. It's 29 in Canada and that results in the 5.8e-6 I mentioned.

You need to check your math. When your sanity check doesn't match the actual calculation, reconsider what your sanity check is. Orders of magnitude are fine, but they don't do well for numbers near the magnitude, which is what we have here

Yep, it's a fair cop (pun intended). Still - I don't think the numbers you provided for Canada and the US were exactly comparable.

California has about the same population as all of Canada and it averages around 100 people killed by police each year

California has a rate of around 5 police killings per million, overwhelmingly shooting incidents. So let's be 'generous 'and say 4 deaths by shooting per million.

Canada is closer to 1 fatal police shooting per million population.

There were only 29 deaths by police shooting in Canada.
Nope. 65 confirmed deaths. You really need to do your homework.

Jeff Shantz: At least 65 people died through interactions with police in Canada in 2017

quote:
There were 29 people shot and killed by police in Canada. Next were in-custody deaths (for many of which specific causes were not given), a perhaps surprising number of 18. These only include police-custody deaths, not those under supervision of correctional officers. Five people died in police vehicle chases. Three were identified as “self-inflicted” (and some of these are, of course, contested by family and community members). One person died of a heart attack during a police encounter, and one was said by police to have died of “sudden death.” One young victim was killed in a hit-and-run by an officer suspected of DUI.

It says '29 people shot and killed by police in Canada', exactly as I said.

As the article points out, it's very difficult to get good numbers regarding the number of deaths at the hands of the police in Canada because they simply don't track that information.

Yep.

You want to avoid getting shot by the cops, you want to go to the UK or Australia. But then again, the gun laws are very different there, so it's not a very good comparison.

Indeed - although I believe New York achieved its reduction in fatal police shootings in part by partnering with UK police to develop de-escalation training techniques.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2018 4:08 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17664
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 59 of 155 (832835)
05-12-2018 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rrhain
05-10-2018 9:50 PM


Re: A Thought on the Toronto Van Rampage
I became curious and looked in on the Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum? thread. When you referred to "the time when the entire board blew up" I assumed you were talking about Jan/Feb 2008 (see Changes at EvC Forum). Apparently you were referring to something that happened around July 2007. I have no recollection.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 9:50 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17664
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 60 of 155 (833490)
05-21-2018 8:38 PM


Supreme Court Wrong on Second Amendment
In 2008 the Supreme Court disconnected the right to bear arms from service in a militia, ruling that there was a right to own guns for any lawful purpose. One of the arguments for the majority, written by Antonin Scalia, related to the phrase bear arms:

quote:
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

But Scalia was wrong, as explained in detail in Antonin Scalia was wrong about the meaning of ‘bear arms’. In new databases for the period, such uses of the term "are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent."

There were, of course, other arguments in the ruling, but the definition of bear arms seems fundamental. If Scalia were correct that it was used primarily outside a military context, then his reasoning to separate "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" from "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would make sense. But he had his facts backwards and so his argument does not hold water. The term bear arms was used in military contexts in the 18th century, and the right of the people described in the Second Amendment was specific to militias.

Since government militias are non-existent today, there can be no constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.

--Percy


    
Prev123
4
56
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018