by Coded Logic 127 Replies latest social current
Black people are more likely to be stopped by police in many places. There are easily reasons for this that are not racist - responding to reports of crime, types of vehicle violations etc... and the simple fact that crime tends to attract police (you'd hope) so they should spend more time in higher-crime communities than lower-crime ones.
This is demonstrably false. You're just making things up Simon. The real reason black people attract more police attention is implicit bias.
I don't blame coded logic for refusing to answer this because it would mean he either demonstrates incredible bias or contradicts his previous claims.
Instead of addressing the very real facts we have you are instead attempting to side track the issue with an unrelated hypothetical. You're not fooling anyone.
It should be easy for you to dismantle then if that's the case. It's a straightforward question that I believe cuts to the heart of your argument and basically just re-frames the claims you have made to demonstrate the error of your reasoning:
Is calculation of any bias based on the color of the people in front of a police officer or is it based on the total number of people who share that skin color?
You've already said that you think it's the latter - which means that your answer to my previous question is that you believe the police treating everyone exactly equally (50% in each scenario) is somehow evidence that the police are biased against black people.
Care to try to attempt to defend your position? Or can we expect more hand-waving, grandstanding and insults.
Is calculation of any bias based on the color of the people in front of a police officer or is it based on the total number of people who share that skin color?
Perhaps addressing both sides of this issue simultaneously will afford us some clarity.
First, we know black people are far more likely to attract police attention than white people are for identical behavior:
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/bernd.wittenbrink/research/pdf/cpjw07.pdf
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-07-police-people-legal-interventions.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2561263/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00398.x/abstract
Second, we know police are more likely to shoot if the person is black than if they're white. This has been found both in the research of actual shootings:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854
And in the research of simulated confrontations:
http://psych.colorado.edu/~jclab/FPST.html (http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/bernd.wittenbrink/research/pdf/cpjw07.pdf)
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/16/3/180.abstract
So, from both increased interactions with the police AND a higher error rate to shoot at unarmed black persons, I don't think we should be surprised when we discover that more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white people. And I don't think we should disparage an entire social movement when they're outraged by this disproportionate use of force.
So still not wanting to address those questions then - I take it you are backing away from your previous claims then?
I don't think we should be surprised when we discover that more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white people.
And you're back to your obsession with people being unarmed instead of whether shootings are unjustified or not which is actually what counts. If someone is shot and it was the right thing to do - what is the problem?
Also, you haven't proven that more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white people. Links you've posted previously show more white people shot.
I don't think we should disparage an entire social movement when they're outraged by this disproportionate use of force.
Well first you have to prove that it is disproportionate and we're still waiting on that.
There are lots of people outraged and angry by all sorts of things. We don't and can't just accept every demand and claim from every group. There were many protests for incidents that were shown to be completely justified once they had been investigated which is why it's important to look at the evidence and the details of each case.
I think the blm movement is arguing the wrong case and losing credibility as a result. They do have legitimate things to complain about but undermine their arguments by making over-reaching claims and refusing to take park in constructive dialog.
The reason it matters is because doing things wrong can easily make things worse.
If someone is shot and it was the right thing to do - what is the problem?
How do we tell the difference between shootings that were "the right thing to do" from shootings that were "the wrong thing to do"? I think we can all agree a justified shooting is when the person represents a clear and present danger to the public or to the officer. Generally speaking, unarmed persons do not fit into this category.
This problem is exasperated further because, when video emerges, almost all unarmed persons shot by police are unjustified. And we also have many videos of cops who claim an individual was going for the officers gun - when the individual clearly wasn't.
Also, you haven't proven that more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white people. Links you've posted previously show more white people shot.
No the data clearly shows more unarmed black people are shot than unarmed white persons (38 black vs 32 white).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
Well first you have to prove that it is disproportionate and we're still waiting on that.
@Coded Logic
Please answer this: If 100 white men and 100 black men resist arrest and 50 white men and 50 black men are shot as a result, do you believe that is unfair and shows any bias? Please explain why.
It's a sound question that cuts right to the heart of this debate.
Here's my answer to that question: no, I believe that '100 white men and 100 black men resisting arrest, leading to 50 white men and 50 black men being shot' would be fair.
Et tu ...
It is not about race, but about power. Cops just want the power over people.
What other occupation can one shoot or kill an unarmed person and then get paid administrative leave, have a grand jury determine whether there will be charges. A normal person would be arrested and charged right away.
What we see are cops acting in fear. They need to take a step back and reassess the situation. It is not necessary to cuff and bring the person in. They need to learn to let it go. But it is the mentality that their job performance is being judged so they need to ticket, cite, or arrest someone.
Who exactly gets to decide who is and isn't "a disgrace to the black race"? Is there a secret governing body for black people that decides how everyone must think? Come to think of it, is there some authoritative body for white people ... because I think I might have been dropped off the mailing list - I've been thinking my own thoughts for years now and just generally deciding things for myself.
Seriously, the idea that someone is "a disgrace to their kind" is rarely the sign of a well thought out and reasonable stance.
That's not an argument, it is my opinion/observation.
Lot's of white people in the South have been thinking for themselves for a couple of centuries. And they will continue to do so. My uncle, the KKK member, thinks his own thoughts, I'm sure. Or at least he thinks so.
My uncle is a disgrace to the white race as well. But more importantly, just like the sheriff, he's a disgrace to humanity.
Would it be easier or accomplish anything if we all admitted that black people in the United States just make all of this stuff up. That they are not faced with bias any more than white Americans are. Would it make more sense if we all just accepted the fact that black people are not as a group treated any differently than anyone else in America and that since the Civil Rights era everything has been on an even playing field
