Police are NOT hunting down black people

[rjs330]

What you seem to think are facts aren't so self evident and you can't just claim that they're objective when this is a social issue, it's not independent from perception

I see so, blacks do not commit about 50% of the violent crime? Is that fact inaccurate?

 

[rjs330]

That you misrepresent statistics to fit your preconceptions instead of having any intellectual humility to admit when you're wrong

What statistics did I misrepresent? And what preconceptions do I have from this statistics? And what was I wrong about? Details man details.

 

[rjs330]

Because apparently you can't countenance that you could ever be wrong when the statistics show a disproportionate level of encounters with police for black people relative to their population demographic. Trying to say, "well, more white people are involved with police," ignores that white people are still a demographic majority so that's logically going to follow without addressing the groups marginalized

What proof do you want? Seems like you'd just dismiss any statistics that don't fit your preconception with a pretense that you understand better

Yet you fail to answer the question as to why this is the case. And you say I have preconceived notions.

You have stats that say so, but you give no reasons why that is so. At least not any reasons that are backed up by any facts.

When you have stats that show blacks commit about 50% of the violent crime you white wash that away. Can we ask ourselves why that is the case?

Can you answer why police are more involved in black stops? I mean actual evidence as to why.

 

[rjs330]

I used to have a gif of a computer warrior pounding the keyboard until his arms fell off and then smashed his head into it after that.

Good times!

I loved that gif!

 

[KCfromNC]

They have been previously provided over and over and over and over, how did you miss them?

My first guess would be because your assertion here is false and they in fact have not actually been provided as claimed. It's a common tactic - post an outrageous claim, then when unable to back it up, pretend it already was in some unmentioned previous post. And then pretend it is everyone else's fault for not remembering something which never happened.

Kinda sounds a bit like gaslighting, now that I write it out like that.

 

[disciple Clint]

My first guess would be because your assertion here is false and they in fact have not actually been provided as claimed. It's a common tactic - post an outrageous claim, then when unable to back it up, pretend it already was in some unmentioned previous post. And then pretend it is everyone else's fault for not remembering something which never happened.

Kinda sounds a bit like gaslighting, now that I write it out like that.

sounds like you might have personal experience in what you are describing.

 

[KCfromNC]

sounds like you might have personal experience in what you are describing.

Of course, I even quoted the post where I experienced it in this very thread.

Oh, wait, was this an attempt at some sort of personal insult? I'm pretty sure those are against the rules here, might want to be careful with that. Even if you don't get in trouble for it, people reading it might start to realize the post as a retreat from backing up one's claims with actual evidence.

 

[disciple Clint]

Of course, I even quoted the post where I experienced it in this very thread.

Oh, wait, was this an attempt at some sort of personal insult? I'm pretty sure those are against the rules here, might want to be careful with that. Even if you don't get in trouble for it, people reading it might start to realize the post as a retreat from backing up one's claims with actual evidence.

Why do you think it is an insult? I do not see anything insulting in it. and people will not think that I fail to back up my posts or is that your attempt at an insult?

 

[KCfromNC]

Why do you think it is an insult?

What did you mean by the comment? Please be specific.

This vague accusation then deny and distract approach isn't convincing in the least.

 

[disciple Clint]

What did you mean by the comment? Please be specific.

This vague accusation then deny and distract approach isn't convincing in the least.

Just a thought to share with you, I am not posting for your exclusive benefit. I frankly do not care what you think of my posts but if you want to continue being annoying that is your option dont expect me to participate.

 

[rjs330]

Are we moving away from the OP? Now we are starting to get into personal challenges. The OP is that police are NOT hunting down black people. How can .006% of black contacts result in the death of black people be construed as some deep seeded problem within policing that must be stopped at all cost? Including riots, death and destruction?

 

[Brigid48]

If you do a little math your statistical source also notes the following:

Police initiate contact with blacks at about 6 times thee rate as they initiate contact with whites.

In a given year police initiate contact with about 11% of all black people
In a given year police initiate contact with about 2% of all white people

of the above contacts 30% of police initiate contact with blacks results in the use of force or the threat of the use of force while only 2% of police initiate contact with whites results in the use of force or the threat of the use of force

In police initiate contact 4% of all blacks who are not attested are handcuffed while only 0.2% of whites are handcuffed

Likely has to do with the fact that crime is high in African-American communities, thus more contacts and more justified reason for cops to be concerned enough to handcuff. And the fact that African-American men extremely disproportionately commit a very large amount of the violent crimes in the US (over 50 percent of murders, despite only being 13% of the population - actually even less as that 13% includes women and kids so probably closer to 6 percent of the population or less being responsible for that proportion of the murders - for example).

Indeed, IIRC when things like number of police encounters, percentage of population, and demographic crime makeup are taken into account, whites are more likely to be shot by police while unarmed during a police stop, and African-Americans are less likely than would be expected. In addition, white officers are much less likely to shoot a African-American perp, while black officers are more likely to.....

 

[Brigid48]

Approving of the police does not mean approving of the way the police are behaving in regards to non white people

Very few approve of the way a very small minority of police behave toward non-white people. But the majority of police do not behave in such a manner. And yes, approving of the police means you at the very least approve of the majority of them.

 

[Brigid48]

And one could also point out that blacks kill far more blacks than police do so one could say that blacks are hunting blacks more than any other group in America.

Not to mention an officer is far more likely to be killed by an African American than an unarmed African American is to be killed by any police officer.

 

[Brigid48]

Because apparently you can't countenance that you could ever be wrong when the statistics show a disproportionate level of encounters with police for black people relative to their population demographic.

There is a 'disproportionate' number of encounters because:
1. African-Americans statistically are disproportionately more likely to commit violent crimes that police reply to calls for, and,
2. Live in areas that tend to be high in crime (most of it African-American on African-American crime), thus naturally are areas that police pay more attention to and have more officers in, to deal with that crime.

Trying to say, "well, more white people are involved with police," ignores that white people are still a demographic majority so that's logically going to follow without addressing the groups marginalized

Whites are a demographic majority, yet do not commit proportionally as many crimes as the overrepresented African-American commnuity commits. That's the difference.

 

[muichimotsu]

Very few approve of the way a very small minority of police behave toward non-white people. But the majority of police do not behave in such a manner. And yes, approving of the police means you at the very least approve of the majority of them.

Approving of the good cops doesn't mean approving of the cops as they exist in the whole, because it would mean enabling the problem instead of addressing that even good cops can be complicit in a problem if they turn a blind eye to the "small minority" of bad cops.

 

[muichimotsu]

There is a 'disproportionate' number of encounters because:
1. African-Americans statistically are disproportionately more likely to commit violent crimes that police reply to calls for, and,
2. Live in areas that tend to be high in crime (most of it African-American on African-American crime), thus naturally are areas that police pay more attention to and have more officers in, to deal with that crime.
Whites are a demographic majority, yet do not commit proportionally as many crimes as the overrepresented African-American commnuity commits. That's the difference.

So the question is why are those communities committing more crime in the first place and why is it seemingly disproportionately black people? Assuming it must just be due to a factor of intentionality is ignoring other systemic aspects that affect black people in a similarly disproportionate factor.

People seem to keep going in the direction of, "Well, if black people just worked harder, they wouldn't be in such a bad situation," or the like, which is assuming all poverty and factors that can contribute to higher likelihood of committing crimes, is just a matter of work instead of a system that is stacked against their success in any meaningful way (redlining, Jim Crow, all manner of social stereotypes, the list goes on for how there isn't fair opportunity given, just the pretense of equality like in segregation)

 

[Brigid48]

So the question is why are those communities committing more crime in the first place and why is it seemingly disproportionately black people? Assuming it must just be due to a factor of intentionality is ignoring other systemic aspects that affect black people in a similarly disproportionate factor.

The largest factor is our culture. African American culture, as it has developed since the mid 80s especially, is our own worst enemy. We're barraged with messages that gangbanging, sleeping around, having countless baby-mommas, serial welfare living, using drugs, sagging pants, glorifying women who act like [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]s and ratchets, and normalizing committing crime as the way of life we should be aspiring to. African American men that take responsibility and get jobs and go to college are looked down on as trying to 'fit in' with the white man's world.

It's not some 'sustemic aspects that affect black people in a similarly disproportionate factor'. It's african american culture itself (note that's why I clearly stated African American numerous times above, instead of 'black'). People who are also black, coming over from Africa with not a cent to their name, from environments and poverty far worse than most of us here could even dream of, are one of the most successful migrant groups when they come to the US. Somehow they manage to do leaps and bounds better than African-Ameicans, despite being black, having that same skin color. That indicates that there isn't any such 'systemic aspects' or 'systemic racism' that we can blame. It's time for the community to grow the heck up, take responsibility for our own issues, and work to make positive change instead of adopting this liberal victim complex to pass blame off on the white man for all of our own ills caused by our own culture.

People seem to keep going in the direction of, "Well, if black people just worked harder, they wouldn't be in such a bad situation," or the like,

WOrking harder would certainly be a good start, but sure, changing the culture is very much needed.

which is assuming all poverty and factors that can contribute to higher likelihood of committing crimes, is just a matter of work instead of a system that is stacked against their success in any meaningful way (redlining, Jim Crow, all manner of social stereotypes, the list goes on for how there isn't fair opportunity given, just the pretense of equality like in segregation)

Poverty can certainly be a factor in likelihood of crime. But it's not the be-all end-all. Other similarly poverty stricken populations of other races/cultures don't have remotely close to the amount of crime that African-Americans have.

And there you go at the end trying to push it off on things that happened in the past. We did not have these problems after Jim Crow Ended, and we were MUCH closer to the effects of Jim Crow then, so if that was the issue, the problems would have been worse and clearer then. No, the issues have developed with the entrance of the welfare state to our communities, the destruction of the nuclear family as a result, and the development of the glorification of gangbanging/rap culture and lifestyle. That's been the worst poison to our community and culture. Not anything white people did decades ago. But what we have allowed to happen to our culture and community ourselves.

 

[disciple Clint]

Approving of the good cops doesn't mean approving of the cops as they exist in the whole, because it would mean enabling the problem instead of addressing that even good cops can be complicit in a problem if they turn a blind eye to the "small minority" of bad cops.

However if there truly was such a problem then 70% of Black people would not approve of the way the police are doing the job of enforcing the law. How do you explain the approval, obviously there is a false narrative being promoted by BLM and others.

 

[muichimotsu]

However if there truly was such a problem then 70% of Black people would not approve of the way the police are doing the job of enforcing the law. How do you explain the approval, obviously there is a false narrative being promoted by BLM and others.

You really think another group isn't promoting their own false narrative? It's only the group that's easy to demonize that's in the wrong, apparently.