Happy now BLM?

[LittleFuzzy]

Apologies I copied and pasted the wrong link. The WaPo link was meant to be on the next paragraph, the link for that paragraph was here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...d-2016-average

You mean the one that has almost 1/3 of those deaths coming from "ambush-style" attacks like the Dallas sniper that don't bear the slightest resemblance to the situations we're talking about? And let's note that you're also including friendly fire incidents in that total too. The total death rate from police shootings is close to 1 in 1000 US citizens. That's significantly higher than your claimed statistic. You want to compare the black men to the total population of the US for some reason. That says more about how many African-Americans there are in the US population than what you're trying to claim.

[Loki]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...al-arrest-aclu

More great policing for Lewk and Rand. Though they'd be disappointed to know this guy wasn't killed.

[RandBlade]

You mean the one that has almost 1/3 of those deaths coming from "ambush-style" attacks like the Dallas sniper that don't bear the slightest resemblance to the situations we're talking about? And let's note that you're also including friendly fire incidents in that total too. The total death rate from police shootings is close to 1 in 1000 US citizens. That's significantly higher than your claimed statistic. You want to compare the black men to the total population of the US for some reason. That says more about how many African-Americans there are in the US population than what you're trying to claim.

One third are ambush style but two thirds are not. And 2016s figures despite the inclusion of so many ambush styles are below the long term average.

I'm not including friendly fire. Total deaths were 64, 2 were friendly fire so I used the number 62. I took the friendly fire out of the total already.

Let's see a source for your 1 in 1000 US citizens please.

No I didn't compare black men to the total US population. The black death rate is per million blacks not per million Americans.

[Ominous Gamer]

So... which statistic does this fall under?


But seriously everyone, try to imagine how many industries would be utterly and completely destroyed if employees were justified to go all Judge Dread because they may heard a story about some other guy getting hurt or (gasp) killed while on the job.

[RandBlade]

Friendly Fire.

How many other industries have employees legally allowed to kill? Only alternative I can think of is the military and they have even worse levels of friendly fire and collateral damage.

[Ominous Gamer]

Zoos, park rangers, pretty much anything that works around firearms, wildlife, or explores. Self defense goes a long way in the US. We've had people attacked and hospitalized in our libraries, should I start mowing people down?

Rand's current argument:

[RandBlade]

Zoo Rangers will generally kill an animal before letting themselves die. As much as it is a last resort.

Anywhere I've worked the advice was always not to tackle an offender, that's the Police's job not yours. The counter to that is that it IS their job. If you were to take down someone in self defence you would be able to use that defence though.

[Steely Glint]

American police:

http://imgur.com/a/gqv0j

[Aimless]

When life gives you bad apples...

[Steely Glint]

L.A. sheriff's deputies shoot at dog, firing bullets that bounce and kill teen, officials say

[Ominous Gamer]

Zoo Rangers will generally kill an animal before letting themselves die. As much as it is a last resort.

Which is what we would hope a police officer would do, but you've spent several pages so far defending them not doing. Congrats on missing the point. caged animals > black legally armed men, gotcha. Same point was missed concerning self defense when the bar to meet is what has been set with Castile.

[Aimless]

L.A. sheriff's deputies shoot at dog, firing bullets that bounce and kill teen, officials say

Very skilful, impressive to be able to pull off a shot like that while fearing death.

[Steely Glint]

Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed

[Aimless]

Incidentally you're wrong on the flaw. We're counting all people shot by all police (regardless of race) then that is getting broken down into by race do differentiate between how that affects blacks and whites shot. But the Police aren't shooting at only blacks, they're shooting at suspects. Some of those suspects are white, some are black. Most are white, a disproportionate amount are black. So the corollary of suspects shot by cops is cops shot by suspects. The fact that only some of those suspects are black is neither here nor there since the cops aren't shooting only at black suspects.

The appropriate statistic to look at is the risk for any given person in any given encounter. Cops have many encounters per day and yet only 45 cops per million were shot to death by the public, in 2016.

Incidentally, it is distasteful to see you continually ignore the fact that innocent black people are more likely than white people to be targeted by cops, and that cops are more likely to use inappropriate--and especially lethal--force on black people than on white people.

[Lewkowski]

The appropriate statistic to look at is the risk for any given person in any given encounter. Cops have many encounters per day and yet only 45 cops per million were shot to death by the public, in 2016.

Incidentally, it is distasteful to see you continually ignore the fact that innocent black people are more likely than white people to be targeted by cops, and that cops are more likely to use inappropriate--and especially lethal--force on black people than on white people.

I'm just going to be an ass and say it - most people killed in police shootings have criminal records. Hardly the definition of 'innocent' even if the act in question shouldn't have resulted in death.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm just going to be an ass and say it - most people killed in police shootings have criminal records. Hardly the definition of 'innocent' even if the act in question shouldn't have resulted in death.

Pretty sure it often IS the definition of "innocent" Lewk. Having a criminal record means you've been found guilty of a crime in the past, it has absolutely no bearing on whether you're guilty of something when you get shot. Someone who committed a robbery 20 years ago is just a innocent as you are. Probably more so, considering your blackened soul.

[Loki]

I'm just going to be an ass and say it - most people killed in police shootings have criminal records. Hardly the definition of 'innocent' even if the act in question shouldn't have resulted in death.

You're not a fan of the Bill of Rights, are you? Hint: it doesn't make a distinction between people with and without a criminal record.

[Aimless]

I'm just going to be an ass and say it - most people killed in police shootings have criminal records. Hardly the definition of 'innocent' even if the act in question shouldn't have resulted in death.

I suspect you don't realize precisely why that makes you sound like an ass in this particular case.

[Steely Glint]

Even if that weren't bullshit in its own right, it's still bullshit because it's excusing trigger happy cops on the basis of information they couldn't possibly have when they pulled the trigger.

[Aimless]

The cop should have allowed himself to be crushed to death by a moving vehicle instead.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news...rial/93199114/

[Lewkowski]

Pretty sure it often IS the definition of "innocent" Lewk. Having a criminal record means you've been found guilty of a crime in the past, it has absolutely no bearing on whether you're guilty of something when you get shot. Someone who committed a robbery 20 years ago is just a innocent as you are. Probably more so, considering your blackened soul.

Clearly the term is not a legal term as the state cannot declare you innocent. Therefore its obvious when the statement 'innocent' is being used here is the general level of guilt/innocence of that person. Person with a rap sheet ain't some 'innocent.'

[Lewkowski]

You're not a fan of the Bill of Rights, are you? Hint: it doesn't make a distinction between people with and without a criminal record.

We are talking about (in that discussion chain) about who cops target. And guess what - targeting people with criminal histories isn't against the bill of rights or the law. Its called good police work.

[Loki]

We are talking about (in that discussion chain) about who cops target. And guess what - targeting people with criminal histories isn't against the bill of rights or the law. Its called good police work.

This might surprise you, but having the government kill people who don't pose an immediate threat without a trial violates multiple parts of the Constitution.

[Aimless]

We are talking about (in that discussion chain) about who cops target. And guess what - targeting people with criminal histories isn't against the bill of rights or the law. Its called good police work.

If you don't know who they are and don't have a good reason--legally speaking--I think you'll find that it may very well be illegal to "target" them. In theory anyway, in practice people like you will be unwilling to punish cops for illegal searches.

[LittleFuzzy]

Clearly the term is not a legal term as the state cannot declare you innocent. Therefore its obvious when the statement 'innocent' is being used here is the general level of guilt/innocence of that person. Person with a rap sheet ain't some 'innocent.'

Again, I'd consider many people with rap sheets innocent. And you definitely not innocent, seeing as you're evil.

[Lewkowski]

This might surprise you, but having the government kill people who don't pose an immediate threat without a trial violates multiple parts of the Constitution.

They aren't going into the encounter with a 'I'm gonna shot this guy!' Come on. There are bad cops but they (like most people) are rational actors. The vast majority of shoots are good. The ones that are bad are typically bad because the cop made poor decisions not because they decided to wake up that day and kill someone. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

[Lewkowski]

If you don't know who they are and don't have a good reason--legally speaking--I think you'll find that it may very well be illegal to "target" them. In theory anyway, in practice people like you will be unwilling to punish cops for illegal searches.

Many cases exist because individuals have put themselves in the situation to be confronted by the police. It is rare for someone to be pulled over 'for nothing.' It is rare that the police approach random people for no reason. In many of the cases the left bring up about police brutality are cases where there was a criminal on the other end.

Eric Gardner who didn't deserve to die for selling tobacco had been arrested 30 times and was no choir boy.

Freddie Gray who didn't deserve to die for caring an illegal switchblade had more than 20 criminal court cases.

Were these people rightfully targeted? You know? Yeah. Career criminals. Did the police officers decide "yeah today we are going to kill these two" hell no. They targeted people like guilty of things appropriately - the actions afterward (especially the rough ride, if that is what happened) were not appropriate but they didn't come about because of illegal searches.

[Aimless]

It is in fact common for people to be stopped and pulled over and searched without good cause, especially when it comes to black people and to a lesser extent other minorities.

[wiggin]

Many cases exist because individuals have put themselves in the situation to be confronted by the police. It is rare for someone to be pulled over 'for nothing.' It is rare that the police approach random people for no reason. In many of the cases the left bring up about police brutality are cases where there was a criminal on the other end.

Eric Gardner who didn't deserve to die for selling tobacco had been arrested 30 times and was no choir boy.

Freddie Gray who didn't deserve to die for caring an illegal switchblade had more than 20 criminal court cases.

Were these people rightfully targeted? You know? Yeah. Career criminals. Did the police officers decide "yeah today we are going to kill these two" hell no. They targeted people like guilty of things appropriately - the actions afterward (especially the rough ride, if that is what happened) were not appropriate but they didn't come about because of illegal searches.

Lewk, you clearly don't have any inkling of what it is to be a young black man in America. Perhaps a story to illuminate things for you:

I have a friend and former colleague from Baltimore who was working on his PhD at Hopkins. As was fairly standard for PhD students, he would on occasion stay late at lab to get some experiments finished, so would drive home relatively late in the evening. He is a studious, clean cut, well spoken and brilliant individual who has no criminal record - and happens to be black. On a routine basis he would be pulled over by Baltimore cops on his way home at night with zero cause (no driving infractions, no suspicious behavior) and searched. He would explain, calmly, where he was coming from and the cops wouldn't even believe him until he showed his Hopkins ID. This happened on - at a minimum - a monthly basis.

When you have this level of suspicion based purely on gender and race, it's no surprise that trigger-happy cops occasionally shoot someone who they shouldn't. My friend was smart - far smarter (and better educated) than your typical black man in Baltimore - and so he was always at pains to appear professionally dressed, speak respectfully and carefully with law enforcement, and to be scrupulously careful in how he presented himself. But it's telling that he was still doubted from the very beginning and it's incredibly damning that he felt the need to behave in this manner for his safety. I don't want our society to be one in which black men must grovel and be held to a higher standard when interacting with law enforcement, and certainly not one where reaching for your ID can get you shot.

The fact of the matter is that your average black man interacts a lot with law enforcement, both with and without cause, and that this friction will lead to mistrust and mistakes.

[Enoch the Red]

They aren't going into the encounter with a 'I'm gonna shot this guy!' Come on. There are bad cops but they (like most people) are rational actors. The vast majority of shoots are good. The ones that are bad are typically bad because the cop made poor decisions not because they decided to wake up that day and kill someone. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

And yet when someone who isn't a police officer makes poor decisions you want to throw the book at them. Why not extend the same courtesy to police officers - people whose poor decisions can lead to the death of an innocent person?