Police Shootings

...was mainly directed against the protestors, and property damage occurred in only a small proportion of the protests.

That is not really a surprise to me...

If I run in a 5k supporting breast cancer research, does this mean I don't care about prostate cancer research? There is an implied ",too" at the end of "black lives matter".

No, there isn't.... as evidenced by the vitriol poised against All Lives Matter... That doesn't only imply that black lives matter, it actually says it flat out. Literal equality is now racist. This is the retarded world we now live in. If you can explain how only Black Lives Matters is inclusive to everyone I would love to hear it. Keep chugging that Kool-Aid...

You can be against both violence against cops and misuse of force by cops. Right now, there appears to be much less accountability for cops who misuse force which is what the unrest is about.

But IS there? No, obviously not. This black man could have been shot in the face and nobody would have given a fuck because he loses his right to be a human the second he wears the uniform. You wouldn't have ever even known about it had I not posted it. Because it doesn't neatly fit inside the narrative, the media could care less.

Can you at least, just a little, not see how the media is manipulative? At some point you are going to have to do some critical thinking on your own and stop taking cues from a dishonest media that is dying and who can only justify their own existence by keeping you enraged as a means of keeping you engaged.

quote:

---

No, there isn't.... as evidenced by the vitriol poised against All Lives Matter..

---

How naive can you get? The whole point of “All Lives Matter” is to drown the message of “Black Lives Matter”. That is the reason for the reaction.

quote:

---

Literal equality is now racist.

---

No, opposing attempts to deal with racism is racist. If you can’t understand that then it’s not the world that is at fault.

quote:

---

Can you at least, just a little, not see how the media is manipulative?

---

Maybe you should realise that your preferred media is even more manipulative than the mainstream.

Hyroglyphx writes: No, there isn't.... as evidenced by the vitriol poised against All Lives Matter...

Someone with a big "All cancers matter" sign at a 5k breast cancer awareness run would be a troll, especially if there is a well known and vocal movement to downplay the extent of breast cancer.

Literal equality is now racist.

That is true, but probably not in the way you think. Black America being treated as equal feels like racism to the previously privileged classes.

Can you at least, just a little, not see how the media is manipulative? At some point you are going to have to do some critical thinking on your own and stop taking cues from a dishonest media that is dying and who can only justify their own existence by keeping you enraged as a means of keeping you engaged.

At some point, you are going to need to think on your own instead of just parroting "media bias" all of the time.

Can you at least, just a little, not see how the media is manipulative? At some point you are going to have to ... yada yada yada

We're aware of this. And account for it. Multiple disparate sources and all that.

You can science the hell out of your political information just like "they" science the hell out of trying to manipulate you with theirs.

You can usually tell by the syntax. Rioters vs protesters. That kind of thing.

And always, always, always consider the source!

If the story seems fishy and you have the wish to travel the rabbit hole you should look at the sources and "their" sources in turn. You'd be shocked ...

Shocked, I tell ya!

... shocked by the bullshit misrepresentations behind a whole lot of stories that a whole lot of people want to believe.

Regardless, the cries of "political bias" and "fake news" and all the rest of the media's woes are no reason to stop highlighting the racism that exists, here right now, taking place as we watch.

Texas member of Boogaloo Bois charged with opening fire on Minneapolis police precinct during protests over George Floyd

In the wake of protests following the May 25 killing of George Floyd, a member of the Boogaloo Bois opened fire on the Minneapolis Police Third Precinct with an AK-47-style gun and screamed “Justice for Floyd” as he ran away, according to a federal complaint made public Friday.

Maybe the police shouldn’t be so chummy with the far right. Even if too many have a shared interest in violent suppression of BLM.

Bellingcat

The map includes police indulging the far right and covering up their identities, neither of which I would class as violence, although both are related to it.

While the vast majority of protesters have shown up to speak their minds peacefully and engage in nonviolent resistance, the state has responded with disproportionate acts of aggression. As Bellingcat has previously reported, police have also used violence against journalists covering the protests.

The map isn’t available on mobile devices.

Kentucky State Police PowerPoint presentation

If the most-quoted person in your presentation is Adolf Hitler, maybe you should ask yourself why.

One slide, titled “Violence of Action,” in addition to imploring officers to be “ruthless killer[s],” instructs troopers to have “a mindset void of emotion” and to “meet violence with greater violence.” A line from Adolf Hitler’s fascist and anti-Semitic manifesto, Mein Kampf, is featured in the slide: “the very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.”

I guess this explains a lot.

A whistleblower from the DHS

Reuters

A former acting chief of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence office has told Congress that DHS leaders pressed him to overstate illegal border crossings from Mexico and overplay the role of far left groups in violence during anti-government protests last summer, his lawyer said.

As well as playing down the risk of Russian interference in last month’s election and the dangers of White Supremacists.

And there’s lying to Congress, too.

Republicans. No surprise.

Hyroglyphx writes: You're close. All that's needed is for a law enforcement officer to *claim* you committed an arrestable offense. A probable cause affidavit has to be presented to a magistrate and (s)he either finds probable cause or does not. That statement is given under oath and if found to be perjuring oneself results in a Brady Letter which is pretty much is a death sentence for a law enforcement officer. With all interactions being recorded on body cam and an in-car camera system means that lying about something is that much more harder to do.

There's no magistrate around when a cop makes an arrest. You're referring to what happens later after the arrest. Cops lie all the time about what why they made an arrest. We always knew this, but just as you say, increasingly there is video evidence proving they lied.

Give them whatever name you like. As far as moving violations, all a law enforcement officer has to do is get behind a driver and wait for them to fail to stay precisely within their lane or change lanes without signaling or follow the car in front too closely or fail to signal a turn or fail to yield properly or have a partially obscured plate or any number of other things. Why do law enforcement officers carry out pretextual traffic stops disproportionally more often with black drivers than white? Probably because crime rates statistically tend to be higher in black neighborhoods which results in a higher amount of police saturation. The higher the police presence in a specific area results in more interaction with the community being policed.

You're just making excuses for police preying on the communities they're pledged to protect.

Defining systemic racism as the arrest of blacks for crimes committed by whites is as entirely inaccurate as it ever was. Why are you arguing a lost cause? Statistics unambiguously show that blacks and latinos are pulled over disproportionally. That's not necessarily indicative of racism.

You've become an apologist for racism.

One of the issues with some of the arguments posed by BLM is that most often fails to address is that black perpetrators disproportionately effect black victims. Statistically that is absolutely corroborated from city to city. So for however much you may think police are hurting black people they assist black communities three times as much. Why isn't that discussed? Ah, because it doesn't neatly fit into the narrative.

It certainly doesn't fit *your* narrative. If black communities are so well protected and made so much safer by the police, why are they fearful of them? Why do police arrest blacks and murder blacks at a far higher rate than whites? No need to reply, we already know you believe its their own fault for getting arrested and murdered so much.

Poverty and crime have a strong correlation. We could argue on if its a chicken and egg problem, but that much should be agreed upon given the stats that overwhelmingly support the conclusion.

You finally got something right, but you left out that poverty and crime go together regardless of race. Probably the best way to reduce crime is to address poverty, but conservatives tend to see it all as more of a law enforcement issue.

The head of the Minneapolis police union is not an extreme outlier. Yes, he is!

You're paralleling Christian arguments about true Christians. You'd consider the head of the Minneapolis police union to be a true representative of a fine police force except he's expressed support for the wrong person, so you instead claim he's not truly representative.

Your judgment is based not upon any objective criteria but upon falsely claiming that anyone who's done bad or supports anyone who's done bad are themselves bad. The truth is that these are all just human beings behaving like human beings always behave. The fault lies not with themselves but with the system that they're forced to exist within. Giving fallible human beings a license to assault with impunity (which Chauvin apparently did and got away with for years) and even worse guns is a prescription for disaster that we see playing out every day.

All social media platforms are de-platforming users that expressly convey violence as it is a direct violation of their terms and conditions.

If you're talking Facebook and Twitter then you're probably right about their terms and conditions, but enforcement is extremely lax, though it improved after the January 6th insurrection.

You know as well as I do that ALL social media platforms are run by and operated by left-leaning people.

Like comment threads at Fox News? Like Parler? Gab? Rumble? Probably not a good idea to use the word "all" in reference to most things.

Oh, of course, you said there were no Chauvin *supporters*, because they're actually *apologists*, which is completely different. Completely different?!?! a•pol•o•gist ə-pŏl′ə-jĭst► n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. n. One who speaks or writes in defense of anything; one who champions a person or a cause, whether in public address or by literary means; one who makes an apology or defense. sup•port•er sə-pôr′tər► n. One that supports, as a structural member of a building. n. One who promotes or advocates; an adherent. You're arguing semantics here...

No, arguing semantics is what *you're* doing. You're arguing that Chauvin doesn't have supporters but apologists, as if they're completely different things when they're not. You're arguing labels when the true point is that there are obviously those sympathetic to Chauvin out there, and calling them apologists instead of sympathizers doesn't change that.

The Chauvin example is an illustration of the fact that a good percentage of the police are supporters of violence and harsh methods. You're a good example. You defend police violence and harsh methods all the time, right up until something is indefensible in your view, and then to you they're just bad apples and not examples of a systemic problem.

In light of some recent revelations I think the numbers are starting to get higher in terms of exonerating him... which would be catastrophic. So while I would agree that they are marginally higher than before that the overwhelming consensus is that what Chauvin did to that man was absolutely disgusting.

What Chauvin did is merely a more extreme expression of standard police culture. How many times in this thread have you defended harsh police responses because of the danger and unknowns that they face? Chauvin is one of the few times, and only time I can think of right now, that you haven't defended some terrible police action. Only when some police malfeasance is too horrible to defend do you deny them and say they're just one of the few bad apples and the rest of the police are fine.

Trump likes conspiracy theories, too. Don't be naive, there is open monetary support from very large corporations. Think of the logistics necessary for Antifa and BLM to night after night after night attack cities like Portland and Seattle for months and months and months.... You really think that can be sustainable and hold down a job? Not on your life. This is being funded surreptitiously by deep pockets. When your strategy demands paid protest, we organize and bring it to life. Hire Demonstrators for PR Events and More

Marjorie Taylor Greene likes conspiracy theories, too.

--Percy

"This" is denying that you hold views you obviously hold. By virtue of contrast and comparison, if the only way one can prove their non-racism is only through extreme patronage and self-effacement as their only hope for salvation, then of course I am going to look like David Duke. The bar for what constitutes racism in today's cancel culture is so low that everything qualifies as such. That's your failing, not mine.

If you truly don't want to be labeled a racist (and only the most extreme racists accept the label) then I suggest you stop displaying racist attitudes.

You're ignorance of statistics remains appalling. Guess how many people you have to randomly poll in a population of a million to have 95% confidence in the result? The answer is around 2000 (I forget the exact number). Now guess how many people you have to randomly poll in a population of a 325 million to have 95% confidence in the result? The answer, unintuitively to you, no doubt, is again around 2000. Haha, then I guess that 5% non-confidence for Trump beating Hilary Clinton was quite the anomaly.

You still misunderstand. Let me explain it another way. The confidence level of a poll is a function of sample size and not population size. If you want a confidence level of 95% then your sample size should be around 2000. It doesn't matter if the population size is a million or a billion, you still only need a sample size of roughly 2000 to have 95% confidence in the result. The sample must be truly random, though.

Polls in the US cannot be trusted because the results themselves have a tendency to manufacture desired results.

You're making this up. This is not a cause of poll inaccuracy. Most inaccuracy is due to the difficulty of attaining a truly random sample. Another source of inaccuracy is people's response not matching their eventual vote.

Sample size.

You're just making it more clear that you don't understand statistics. See above.

Sample population.

You're thinking in the right direction. What you're trying to say is that poll accuracy depends upon how truly random the sample is, which I mentioned above.

How the poll questions are phrased.

How the question of how one might is phrased wouldn't normally be a factor because it's a very straightforward question, for example: "If the election were held today, how would you vote ?"

But prior questions can influence answers to later questions. For example, if there had been an earlier question something like, "Do you approve of Hilary Clinton eating babies?" then that could influence respondents' answer to the subsequent voting question.

All of that factors in. And what difference does it make or should it make to YOU what someone else thinks?

You're responding to something never said or implied, reflecting confusion on your part. My message explained how you were misunderstanding statistics, and all you've done is make even more clear how poor your understanding is.

You never say why you included a YouTube video so I didn't watch it, but I did notice that you used raw HTML code. Did you know EvC Forum has a YouTube code? Just take the URL and plug it in to the code like this:

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/embed/If9EWDB_zK4]

Chicago's homicide problems are unrelated to law enforcement's victimization of the black community on a nationwide scale. Yeah, exactly! And guess who kills far and away more black people... white police officers or other black people? If BLM was an honest organization then black lives would matter 100% of the time. Obfuscate all you'd like... the facts speak for themselves.

The same illogic that led you to say this will still be in operation when you attempt to understand my response, but anyway, first you're committing a simple number fallacy. There are only around a million full time law enforcement officers nationwide but over 40 million blacks. Given that there are at least 40 times more blacks than law enforcement officers, of course there are going to more black-on-black murders than cop-on-black murders.

Second, they're still two independent things. The number of murders of blacks committed by blacks is independent of murders committed by cops. You're implying a relationship or interdependence that doesn't exist.

Maybe you shouldn't be discussing issues that have a math or logic component.

Much of your writing related to race is racist, for instance, "The metric for what qualifies as racist has a hair-trigger these days," and further on in this post where you say, "Racism is alive because Democrats keep that shit on life support in exchange for votes." LOL, yeah, and??? How does that equal me thinking one race is inherently superior to another?

I never said anything like that. I think it's your dehumanization of blacks that makes you racist more than anything else.

Of course monetary payments won't end racism. You just quoted me saying exactly that, that ending racism "doesn't seem within the realm of possibility." You also said its a good start, so how will it be a good start?

Huh? I don't recall saying that, and doing a search on the thread I see that the only person who used the term "good start" in this thread is you. Quote me saying whatever it is you're thinking of and I'll try to respond.

Calling attention to and advocating compensation for racism is what keeps it alive? You're really claiming that? YES! For a group that talks so much about equality, the Democrat Party highlights racial division in order to keep people angry. They want to portray themselves as the savior of black people when in reality they have consistently failed the black man for 50 fucking years! Every single Democrat run shit hole has buried the black man even further when he cries out for true liberation.

This should be Exhibit A that you're a racist.

So it isn't racism that keeps the black man down but efforts to mitigate it? But you aren't helping it, you keep it alive by stoking flames.

That you believe racism would go away if we'd just stop talking about it is Exhibit B that you're a racist.

--Percy

"Defund the Police" is the wrong phrase. It does not mean what people claim they mean when they use it. The phrase is an effective attention getting device that should be abandoned.

I don't have a suggestion for a better phrase that is attention getting and means the same thing as what people think needs to be done.

What needs to be done is to reassign a number of police responsibilities to other city departments so that police can focus on their primary responsibility. The police are terrible at their secondary responsibilities, such as wellness checks and domestic disputes. These responsibilities would be better served as part of other city departments.

The $20 million suit the family filed against the city of Pasadena in the police killing of actress Vanessa Marquez was settled this week on February 2, 2021, for $450,000. This article does not say why the family settled for so little (ER Actress Vanessa Marquez Police Shooting | Settlement Reached | The South Pasadenan | South Pasadena News), but this killing is a prime example of why police should not be carrying out wellness checks.

A similar example, though not with a mortal outcome, occurred recently in Rochester NY, when a nine-year-old girl was pepper sprayed and handcuffed while her mother pleaded for the police to call mental health services and the police said no (Mother of 9-year-old Rochester, N.Y. girl said police rebuffed her pleas for mental health help for her daughter. The family plans to file a lawsuit.

--Percy

How about that as a phrase?

Combining brevity and clarity is not easy. I don't know how to say in three or four words that police shouldn't have guns, shouldn't be in school hallways, be on routine traffic control duty, patrol our roads, conduct wellness checks, be involved in mental health situations, investigate traffic accidents, etc. The best I can come up with might be something like, "Free the police to do law enforcement."

One can see all these responsibilities remaining under one roof. Naturally one of the groups under this roof would be law enforcement and a SWAT team, but other separate groups would be traffic control, accident investigations, school safety, medical emergencies, traffic accidents (EMT's, etc., who would have their own traffic control unit), mental health and domestic disputes (should be same department as social workers), disaster relief, drug control, cyber crimes, etc. There are so many ways so many units could be organized. But right now a policeman is responsible for all of it and might be called upon to do any one of these things, and that's absurd.

You can see this absurdity first hand in my own town. The person responsible for handling cyber crimes is a police officer who wears a uniform, carries a gun, sits in front of a computer all day, but might be called upon at any moment to deal with any of these other things I mentioned above.

We already recognize that policemen and firemen have completely different responsibilities and should be in different departments, that one's obvious, but we have yet to recognize that, for example, handling a domestic dispute or conducting a wellness check or handing out traffic tickets all have almost nothing to do with fighting crime, and that when you send armed officers, prepared when necessary to respond violently, to handle these other situations that there will be a constant supply of bad outcomes.

--Percy