Happy now BLM?

[Flixy]

And let's not forget, police are (supposedly) trained and should know better what to do in such situations.

[RandBlade]

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.

No that is a completely inappropriate statistic to use, there is no reason to use that at all. Besides the cops are supposed to survive their encounters while again given so many fatal encounters are due to murderers going on a rampage until they're taken out by the Police those people effectively are not supposed to survive.

In an ideal world the survival rate should be basically 100% with virtually all encounters and then falling where a shoot is justified.

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 don't ignore it. I've said that those using inappropriate force should be dealt with.

But here is where your logic conflicts with ... your logic.

How much more likely is a random black person to be targeted by a random white person? Both you and wiggin and others have said that black people are more likely to be targeted, to have more encounters. Just before wiggin spoke of someone who was pulled over on a monthly basis. All evidence points to blacks being stopped more than whites. So shall we conservatively estimate that a black person is four times more likely to have an encounter with the Police than a white person?

Yet a black person is "only" twice as likely to be killed than a white person is. Meaning on your preferred metric if my assumption and your claims on encounters is right, then a black person is less likely to be killed on that a white person is per encounter. Which is why per encounter is a meaningless metric.

[wiggin]

How much more likely is a random black person to be targeted by a random white person? Both you and wiggin and others have said that black people are more likely to be targeted, to have more encounters. Just before wiggin spoke of someone who was pulled over on a monthly basis. All evidence points to blacks being stopped more than whites. So shall we conservatively estimate that a black person is four times more likely to have an encounter with the Police than a white person?

Yet a black person is "only" twice as likely to be killed than a white person is. Meaning on your preferred metric if my assumption and your claims on encounters is right, then a black person is less likely to be killed on that a white person is per encounter. Which is why per encounter is a meaningless metric.

I think that's misleading, RB. Most of the encounters black people have with cops are frivolous, but are still charged with potential violence, while most white people never have frivolous encounters with cops, and if they do the risk of violence is quite low. Essentially my argument is that most law-abiding white people don't have anything to fear from cops at a routine traffic stop (and they're far less likely to be stopped in the first place), while a law-abiding black man is going to be stopped all the time and is aware that every action of his may be seen as a threat deserving lethal force as a response. Even if the per encounter probability is lower (which may entirely be, given the frivolous nature of most stops), the overall combined risk is still quite high for your average blameless black man. And the aggregate chance of an unjustified shooting goes up when you have this much friction spread over this many encounters.

[RandBlade]

It's not misleading it's simple maths. I completely 100% agree with you that it is aggregate figures that matter rather than the per frivolous encounter statistic that matters. But that was my point, I was rebutting the claim that it is per encounter that matters. One of the biggest and well-known problem that blacks face is not an individual encounter going wrong (though that happens and is the worst thing that can happen) but the sheer quantity of frivolous encounters. Which is why looking at per encounter is meaningless.

If you're having 12 encounters a year then the fact 11 of them went as they should is not good enough. If you're having

[wiggin]

Total number of encounters matters as well as aggregate risk. There's probably a way to also figure out 'risk per frivolous encounter' or, perhaps, 'risk per low risk encounter' which would be a much better metric: sure, the denominator for your typical white is quite low, but the numerator is probably much closer to zero. And then there's the broader issue that we're not just interested in fatalities but a whole range of inappropriate behavior ranging from harassment to beatings to (non-lethal) use of lethal force to actual fatalities.

[Flixy]

And even if the cop is innocent and was working according to his training that doesn't mean the training is right.

[Aimless]

No that is a completely inappropriate statistic to use, there is no reason to use that at all.

This tangent was specifically about the question of who should shoot whom in any given encounter based on an assessment of the risks to each participant. You divided the total number of black people shot to death in police encounters by the total number of black people in the US, and divided the total number of cops shot to death by the total number of cops. However, that's only interesting if we're looking at a scenario where cops and black people are randomly going around shooting people wherever they go (which, granted, is not an entirely inaccurate characterization of American police work), which, in this situation, is not interesting at all, because cops and black people aren't identical particles floating around in a solution and randomly encountering each other. You have to adjust for the exposure itself. Any given black person is less likely to be in a police encounter than any given cop, but in any given encounter a black person has with a cop, he has an unacceptably high risk of being harmed--financially, psychologically, physically even to the point of death--by that cop.

Looking only at absolute risk, neither cops nor black people should be shooting anyone.

But here is where your logic conflicts with ... your logic.

How much more likely is a random black person to be targeted by a random white person? Both you and wiggin and others have said that black people are more likely to be targeted, to have more encounters. Just before wiggin spoke of someone who was pulled over on a monthly basis. All evidence points to blacks being stopped more than whites. So shall we conservatively estimate that a black person is four times more likely to have an encounter with the Police than a white person?

Yet a black person is "only" twice as likely to be killed than a white person is. Meaning on your preferred metric if my assumption and your claims on encounters is right, then a black person is less likely to be killed on that a white person is per encounter. Which is why per encounter is a meaningless metric.

You draw this conclusion because you do not realize that lethal force exists on a spectrum of violence and black people are more likely than white people to be subjected to all forms of violence from police, meaning the risk of harm in any given encounter is higher. Of course, this may also partly reflect the greater inclination for American cops to stop, search, harm or otherwise hassle black people for spurious reasons. The risk is nevertheless higher for black people in such cases compared to what it is for white people in similar circumstances (which occur far less frequently). Again, you have to take the exposure into account. For frivolous encounters, the risk is higher for black people than it is for both cops and for white people, and black people are also more likely to have such encounters compared to white people. I suspect the risk is higher for black people even in less frivolous encounters, but I only have anecdata on that atm because I can't find the few articles I've seen discussing that topic.

I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to argue at this point. There's a large body of more or less scientific evidence documenting the racial biases--implicit as well as explicit--that exist among cops in the US wrt unjustifiable targeting, perception of threat, inappropriate use of force etc. There are also several recent court cases, lawsuits and DoJ investigations that bear out the findings of such studies and paint truly stomach-turning pictures of the consequences of that bias--coupled with various aggravating factors--on communities of predominantly black Americans. We have seen once case after another of cops essentially getting away with murder, because the American justice system has a hard time convicting cops, leaving their employers on the hook for millions of dollars in civil liabilities paid out to victims' families.

[Loki]

Stanford psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt led a team of linguists and computer scientists who examined police body camera footage from one month — April 2014 — of routine traffic stops in the racially diverse city of Oakland, California.

They examined 981 stops, involving 682 black and 299 white drivers. These numbers mirror that national trend. Of the 26 million traffic stops recorded each year, a higher percentage are black drivers.

The computer analysis could also quantify the scale of a problem. White community members were 57 percent more likely to have an exchange filled with a highest degree of respectful language, whereas black drivers were 61 percent more likely to experience an exchange that fell into the category of least respectful.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...nalysis-finds/

African Americans are significantly more likely to be stopped. The ones stopped are significantly more likely to be treated rudely relative to white motorists. Think about that for a moment. For a white motorist to be stopped, they have to, on average, be doing something worse than a black motorist. Yet, they're still treated more respectfully (on average).

[RandBlade]

What is chicken and what is egg?

[Lewkowski]

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?

Their poor decisions are made with positive intent. As opposed to criminal behavior where it is negative intent is what the poor decision is.

Here we have cops panicking and shooting because of adrenaline and possibly poor training and threat assessment management. The type of people I routinely call for harsh penalties are those who acted with malicious intent to steal, rape or murder.

[Enoch the Red]

Their poor decisions are made with positive intent. As opposed to criminal behavior where it is negative intent is what the poor decision is.

Here we have cops panicking and shooting because of adrenaline and possibly poor training and threat assessment management. The type of people I routinely call for harsh penalties are those who acted with malicious intent to steal, rape or murder.

I recently read a story about a young girl who was caught shoplifting a pair of shoes at a store. The police officer in question took her home and saw that she was stealing the shoes to provide for her family. No charges we pressed and he was able to raise a considerable amount of support from his department and the local community for her family.

Now, under the framework I understand you to operate under, the second she made the poor decision to steal her life is essentially forfeit. Had the police officer rolled up and shot her for running then it would have been just another piece of criminal scum off the streets. But was this girl's intent positive? Providing for her family seems like good intent to me, even if the decisions she made were poor.

And frankly Lewk, and this is something I thought you of all people would appreciate, sometimes the intent just doesn't matter, or it is outweighed by the sheer magnitude of the error. I can have perfectly good intentions and still make horrific decisions, and if those decisions cost someone their life then I can, and should, still be held responsible.

[Lewkowski]

I recently read a story about a young girl who was caught shoplifting a pair of shoes at a store. The police officer in question took her home and saw that she was stealing the shoes to provide for her family. No charges we pressed and he was able to raise a considerable amount of support from his department and the local community for her family.

Now, under the framework I understand you to operate under, the second she made the poor decision to steal her life is essentially forfeit. Had the police officer rolled up and shot her for running then it would have been just another piece of criminal scum off the streets. But was this girl's intent positive? Providing for her family seems like good intent to me, even if the decisions she made were poor.

And frankly Lewk, and this is something I thought you of all people would appreciate, sometimes the intent just doesn't matter, or it is outweighed by the sheer magnitude of the error. I can have perfectly good intentions and still make horrific decisions, and if those decisions cost someone their life then I can, and should, still be held responsible.

The framework that death for shoplifting works is if the punishment actually occurs with some certainty. Which leads to less shoplifting and less death overall. The idea being that rational actors won't do things that get them killed. Irrational actors will quickly be identified and locked away/shot. You cannot simply apply the punishment to a single instance where that framework doesn't exist.

That said - I hear what you are saying regarding the level of error however I still insist there is a difference. Deterring bad behavior and getting rid of people who do bad behavior is what stops it. Bad judgments while attempting to do positive can be fixed with training.

[LittleFuzzy]

Bad judgments while attempting to do positive can be fixed with training.

You blame poor people for being poor, for making bad decisions even with positive intent, even if they've never had the training to know better. So your statement here is just more bullshit from you, you still blame them for it. Unless they're cops. Because the cops are on your side while poor people are the enemy.

[Aimless]

What is chicken and what is egg?

I don't know about the egg but in this case I'd say you're the chicken

[Lewkowski]

You blame poor people for being poor, for making bad decisions even with positive intent, even if they've never had the training to know better. So your statement here is just more bullshit from you, you still blame them for it. Unless they're cops. Because the cops are on your side while poor people are the enemy.

Nah plenty of poor people make bad decisions with selfish intent or at best neutral intent. Deciding to smoke isn't positive intent. Deciding to drink beers instead of paying the water bill isn't positive intent. Deciding to spend upwards of 9% of your money on lotto tickets while on the government dole isn't positive intent. The inability to delay gratification is NOT positive intent, it may not be deliberately malicious but don't sugar coat that crap.

[LittleFuzzy]

Nah plenty of poor people make bad decisions with selfish intent or at best neutral intent. Deciding to smoke isn't positive intent. Deciding to drink beers instead of paying the water bill isn't positive intent. Deciding to spend upwards of 9% of your money on lotto tickets while on the government dole isn't positive intent.

See, now that last is absolutely positive intent. It's uneducated, but it is very clearly an attempt to improve their economic condition in a socially acceptable manner. But you don't think that needs education or training, you think it is exactly the kind of moral failing which you think the police are unable of committing every time they pull someone over for driving while black or shooting them for being responsible and telling the officer that they do possess and are legally carrying a firearm.

[Aimless]

Interesting that he'd choose to focus on a minority of poor people but refuse to acknowledge a far more destructive minority of cops.

[Timbuk2]

Those cops aren't really destructive though. They're removing from society those who probably have a criminal record, or buy beer or smoke cigarettes, or play the lottery, or are a darkie, or are poor, or don't dress properly or don't show just the right amount of respect. You should be thanking these cops dammit.

Hell, I have a criminal record, I drink beer and used to smoke cigarettes, I've been poor, I play the lottery from time to time, I am slightly darkie in the summer months, I occasionally don't dress properly. I think I'll just hand myself in to the nearest copshop to save the cops the bother of shooting me. Society deserves better than I and my type.

[Flixy]

I'm afraid your cops generally don't carry guns, maybe save it for a vacation abroad.

[Aimless]

Those cops aren't really destructive though. They're removing from society those who probably have a criminal record, or buy beer or smoke cigarettes, or play the lottery, or are a darkie, or are poor, or don't dress properly or don't show just the right amount of respect. You should be thanking these cops dammit.

Hell, I have a criminal record, I drink beer and used to smoke cigarettes, I've been poor, I play the lottery from time to time, I am slightly darkie in the summer months, I occasionally don't dress properly.

Not to mention exposing innocent and vulnerable people to pics of ur hairy derriere

I think I'll just hand myself in to the nearest copshop to save the cops the bother of shooting me. Society deserves better than I and my type.

protect our children

[Enoch the Red]

The framework that death for shoplifting works is if the punishment actually occurs with some certainty. Which leads to less shoplifting and less death overall. The idea being that rational actors won't do things that get them killed. Irrational actors will quickly be identified and locked away/shot. You cannot simply apply the punishment to a single instance where that framework doesn't exist.

That said - I hear what you are saying regarding the level of error however I still insist there is a difference. Deterring bad behavior and getting rid of people who do bad behavior is what stops it. Bad judgments while attempting to do positive can be fixed with training.

I think I'm somewhat confused here - what exactly is stopping the police officers who are behaving poorly and making bad decisions? It is almost impossible for a police officer to be convicted in this country, even with overwhelming video evidence. According to your own philosophy, there is literally no legal deterrence for police officers to not behave in this way, seemingly little in the way of institutional reform, and you seem completely opposed to supporting any punishment on the police officers who have. I can't say I comprehend the double standard here. If police officers are rational actors, why wouldn't they shoot first and ask questions later if there is no deterrent not to?

[Steely Glint]

I think you'll find Lewk supports punishing bad cops in the abstract, while opposing it in any given specific instance.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think you'll find Lewk supports punishing bad cops in the abstract, while opposing it in any given specific instance.

Well, not ANY given specific instance. I'm certain he'd condemn the robbery ring a few cops had here in California a while back. They were infringing on property, after all, not something piddling like black people's lives.

[Aimless]

Evil though Lewk may be, I think it's important to consider the possibility that his views on cops hassling, beating or outright killing black people are rooted in something other than malice. Given their similarities to RB's views in this thread, we may have to reconsider either the relevance of Lewk's black heart, or the color of RB's. It may be more accurate to blame ignorance, flawed reasoning, bias etc. Which, I guess, are all evil in their own way.

[Loki]

Ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence is malice.

[Lewkowski]

Interesting that he'd choose to focus on a minority of poor people but refuse to acknowledge a far more destructive minority of cops.

Nah poor decision making is the hallmark of the lifelong poor.

[Lewkowski]

I think I'm somewhat confused here - what exactly is stopping the police officers who are behaving poorly and making bad decisions? It is almost impossible for a police officer to be convicted in this country, even with overwhelming video evidence. According to your own philosophy, there is literally no legal deterrence for police officers to not behave in this way, seemingly little in the way of institutional reform, and you seem completely opposed to supporting any punishment on the police officers who have. I can't say I comprehend the double standard here. If police officers are rational actors, why wouldn't they shoot first and ask questions later if there is no deterrent not to?

Except there are deterrents. Cops lose their jobs. Get harassed. Have to go to court and play the jury lottery.

[Lewkowski]

Well, not ANY given specific instance. I'm certain he'd condemn the robbery ring a few cops had here in California a while back. They were infringing on property, after all, not something piddling like black people's lives.

I don't condone cops who steal. I don't condone cops bad behavior. I do support putting bad cops away in prison.

[Enoch the Red]

Except there are deterrents. Cops lose their jobs. Get harassed. Have to go to court and play the jury lottery.

Maybe I am missing something, but your moral calculus seems to goes something like this: steal a toothbrush, forfeit your life. Become a cop and murder someone in cold blood for doing something you ordered them to do and you get fired and have some mean articles written about you. Oh, and maybe if a big enough stink gets raised there might be a trial that you are almost guaranteed to walk away a free man from.

Death for petty theft, a slap on the wrist for murder.

You think that these are just punishments that fit these crimes? Which is more important to deter, and are you reflecting that value in your respective punishments?

[Loki]

I don't condone cops who steal. I don't condone cops bad behavior. I do support putting bad cops away in prison.

In theory, maybe. In practice, you do not. The Castile case was about as clear-cut as it could get. There's no amount of evidence you'd find acceptable.