Triumph of Trump: NFL kneeling

[Mountain Man]

What your source actually says:

Source: http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler

According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. ... Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 13 percent of the population.

© Copyright Original Source

So whites are disproportionately less likely to be shot by police, 50% vs 62%.

Translation: "What [my cherry-picking of] your source actually says [when I ignore everything else it actually says]."



Let's look at a few more pull-quotes:

Source: The Daily Wire

According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. ... Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 13 percent of the population. But as Mac Donald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties. [...] "The black violent crime rate would actually predict that more than 26 percent of police victims would be black," MacDonald said. [Emphasis mine. -Mountain Man]

[...]

According to Mac Donald, 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police officers, while only four percent of black homicide deaths were the result of police officers.

[...]

The Post's data does show that unarmed black men are more likely to die by the gun of a cop than an unarmed white man...but this does not tell the whole story. In August 2015, the ratio was seven-to-one of unarmed black men dying from police gunshots compared to unarmed white men; the ratio was six-to-one by the end of 2015. But Mac Donald points out in The Marshall Project that looking at the details of the actual incidents that occurred paints a different picture:

'The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.'

[...]

Black and Hispanic police officers are more likely to fire a gun at blacks than white officers. This is according to a Department of Justice report in 2015 about the Philadelphia Police Department, and is further confirmed that by a study conducted University of Pennsylvania criminologist Greg Ridgeway in 2015 that determined black cops were 3.3 times more likely to fire a gun than other cops at a crime scene.

[...]

Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. This is according to FBI data, which also found that 40 percent of cop killers are black. According to Mac Donald, the police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an unarmed black person.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5...aaron-bandler#

© Copyright Original Source

Come on, Roy, you really should know better than to challenge me on stuff like this, because you just end up looking like an idiot. Just like a lot of people are probably looking at your signature quote trying to figure out how I destroyed my own argument with two non-contradictory statements.

[Mountain Man]

And here's my earlier post on the matter that none of the "usual suspects" even attempted to refute:

----------

It's a false narrative.

Source: Washington Post

...there has also been a contrary narrative, that officers are hesitant to fire at black suspects, starting with a 1977 analysis of reports from major metropolitan departments which found officers fired more shots at white suspects than at black suspects, possibly because of “public sentiment concerning treatment of blacks.” And in 2004, David Klinger at the University of Missouri-St. Louis interviewed more than 100 officers and found “evidence of increased wariness about using deadly force against black suspects for fear of how it would be perceived and the associated consequences.”

Into this conflict of views enters Lois James at Washington State, who has made studying the race factor in police shootings a specialty. For the most part, simply using data from police reports doesn’t include the episodes where an officer doesn’t shoot or doesn’t hit a target. So she has turned to the lab to try to simulate the circumstances officers face on the job, keeping all the factors identical within a scenario — type of weapon, body language and spoken threats, clothes, surroundings — except the race of the suspect.

In two previous tests using police simulators, James monitored the neurophysiological reactions, such as brain waves, of both police officers and civilians to deadly encounters. She said in an interview Tuesday that she found that “the participants were experiencing a greater threat response when faced with African Americans instead of white or Hispanic suspects.” But even with that response, in both studies the police and non-police participants were “significantly slower to shoot armed black suspects than armed white suspects, and significantly less likely to mistakenly shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-surprise-you/

© Copyright Original Source

Some other 'inconvenient truths":

A 2011 report by the New York City Police Department shows while [15% of armed suspects were white compared to 56% who were black], and that 67% of suspects who fired on police were black compared to 0% who were white, whites are disproportionately more likely to be shot at and/or killed by police.

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 9.04.02 AM.jpg
Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 9.04.18 AM.jpg
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...eport_2011.pdf

In other words, police are more likely to be shot at by a black suspect but are more likely to shoot at a white suspect.

[JimL]

Yup, they are.



He was successful. They're wrong. They are "all about me", pretending to be for a cause. It's not working. It's bringing attention to THEMSELVES, not any cause. You even have some of your less intelligent colleagues claiming they're "saving lives".

You guys are deranged.

No they're not wrong, it has, because of the autocrat, become a bigger issue now. The protests have become a matter of a President, a wannabee autocrat, like his idol Vladimer, trying through the powers of his office to shut down free speech, something idiots like you claim to support, but don't! And you wouldn't know whether it has saved any lives or not, because 1) you'd have no way of knowing, and 2) you're an idiot anyway.

[rogue06]

What your source actually says:

Source: http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler

According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. ... Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 13 percent of the population.

© Copyright Original Source

So whites are disproportionately less likely to be shot by police, 50% vs 62%.

Only one problem with that. Blacks who only constitute 13% of the population commit nearly 50% of the crime^[1]. So one can concluded that police confrontations are roughly equal. And yet, whites are more likely to be killed as a result of such a confrontation. This has been confirmed by research conducted at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, which shows that approximately 49% of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 were white, while 30% were black.

Likewise, a study by Washington State University-Spokane's Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology concluded that police "were less likely to erroneously shoot unarmed black suspects than they were unarmed whites — 25 times less likely" as well as "officers hesitated significantly longer before shooting armed suspects who were black, compared to armed subjects who were white or Hispanic."

ProPublica, which has won two Pulitzer Prizes (the first online news organization to win one) along with several other awards, conducted a similar study utilizing FBI data from 1980-2012 and came to similar conclusions.

PolitiFact looked into the claim and used statistics provided by the CDC and concluded that 2151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1130 blacks between 1999 and 2011.

Again, keep in mind, since blacks are essentially responsible for half of the violent crimes committed in the U.S. there is going to be roughly an equal number of confrontations. And if you believe the hype from black activists that blacks are far more likely (one claimed something like ten times more likely) to be stopped by the police, then blacks have more encounters with the police in total meaning that these statistics are even more startling.

I guess we should be expecting massive protests about how "White Lives Matter" any day now.

And the Washington Times recently ran this:

Source: Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage

Nobel Prize-winning novelist Toni Morrison says she wants to see an officer shoot an unarmed white teenager in the back before agreeing that the “conversation about race” is over, but she almost certainly already has received her wish.

An analysis released last week shows that more white people died at the hands of law enforcement than those of any other race in the last two years, even as the Justice Department, social-justice groups and media coverage focus on black victims of police force.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Wrt the last statistic, a recent study that a black person living in Chicago has an 1.13 in 1000 chance of being shot. Period. Funny how groups like Black Lives Matter and liberal politicians aren't up in arms (no pun intended) about this. But then they can't blame whites, or the police or give their typical knee jerk reaction of demanding stricter gun control since Chicago already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

One last thing to toss into the mix.

Data from the FBI reveals that a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black person than a police officer is to kill an unarmed black person. According to the New York Post:

Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly worsened in 2016, in light of the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers — committed vastly and disproportionately by black males.

1. 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks committed with 62% of robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.

Heather Mac Donald, the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute (a non-profit American think tank focused on domestic policy and urban affairs) and a Bradley Prize winner has pointed out that "The black violent crime rate would actually predict that more than 26% of police victims would be black. Officer use of force will occur where the police interact most often with violent criminals, armed suspects, and those resisting arrest, and that is in black neighborhoods."

[Sparko]

Agreed!



Certainly! Provided the public understands what the actions are about. But “the public” seems to be “disgusted” by something the players are not doing, namely insulting the flag. Their stated intention is to protest against racial injustice, not protest the flag.



MLK was accused of promoting communism, when what he was doing was protesting against racial injustice...just as the NFL players are doing. In both instances, the white majority denied the existence of racial injustice, preferring to attribute anti-American sentiments instead.

Tassman, even if the NFL players are not meaning to disrespect the flag and what it stands for, that is the way the fans are seeing it. As you admit above. So their protest is not working. If people can't understand your protest and your protest is having the opposite effect than you intend, then you are doing it wrong.

If they want to protest police brutality, then why aren't they out doing just that? There are dozens of police at every single game, providing protection and security at for the players and the crown. Why not just actively protest them? Why do it during the national anthem? Why not make public statements outside of the game. Instead they are doing the only thing that is pissing off their fans, sponsors and owners instead of getting them on their side.

Worst. Protest. Ever.

[Sparko]

Yes!

The "pampered millionaire football players" weren't born into millionaire families in most cases, nor are their extended families and peers pampered millionaires. All would have friends and family who have been subject to racial injustice,

So why aren't these players helping them with their millions instead of just making an ineffectual symbolic protest that is not helping in the least?

[Sparko]

that

And in a case where the huge amounts of money are involved, it can hit them in the pocketbook. Again - they are free to protest - they are NOT free from suffering the consequences.

Tassman and JimL can't seem to separate the right of free speech with agreeing with that speech. Remember when they accused us of being Nazis when we supported the Nazi's right to free speech despite us not agreeing with the speech? Same thing here. They can't understand that we can support the NFL players right of free speech but be disgusted by it.

[Mountain Man]

Liberals have a really hard time distinguishing between tolerance and acceptance. They think they're synonyms.

[Cow Poke]

Tassman and JimL can't seem to separate the right of free speech with agreeing with that speech. Remember when they accused us of being Nazis when we supported the Nazi's right to free speech despite us not agreeing with the speech? Same thing here. They can't understand that we can support the NFL players right of free speech but be disgusted by it.

Yeah, way back in the day, I (as a police officer) had to defend the rights of GLBXTPKZRS to have a float in our Community Days Parade. I caught a lot of grief for that, but it was the right thing to do.

In an episode of Blue Bloods, Commissioner Reagan has to defend the rights of a (would be considered Alt-Right) talk show host having a rally in NYC. Several of the liberal activists demanded that they deny permits, etc.... Frank answered, "is that what we should have done when Malcolm X came to speak in the '60s?"

[Roy]

Yes, let's ignore the multiple studies showing that blacks are disproportionately more likely to engage in criminal activity, that blacks are more likely to be armed, and that blacks are more likely to take a shot at police, yet despite all this, it's WHITES who are disproportionately more likely to be shot by police.

What your source actually says:

Source: http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler

According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. ... Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 13 percent of the population.

© Copyright Original Source

So whites are disproportionately less likely to be shot by police, 50% vs 62%.

Translation: ...

You made a factual error. If whites are 62% of the population, but only 50% of police shootings, they are disproportionately less likely to be shot by police, not more. The rest of the article might explain why this happens, and further explain that this is more (or less) discrepancy than expected given other data, but none of those additional details affect the basic datum that you misrepresented.

50% is less than 62%. Not more.

Come on, Roy, you really should know better than to challenge me on stuff like this, because you just end up looking like an idiot. Just like a lot of people are probably looking at your signature quote trying to figure out how I destroyed my own argument with two non-contradictory statements.

It's obvious: something that "can't be tested" cannot also be "bang-on accurate". That you claim there are lurkers as incapable as you are is not a convincing argument.

[Roy]

Liberals have a really hard time distinguishing between tolerance and acceptance.

Ah, those mythical liberals that MM has to slight because he can't find any actual liberals that are dumber than he is.* MM has a hard time figuring whether 62 is more or less than 50.

*Tassman excepted.

[Cow Poke]

MM has a hard time figuring whether 62 is more or less than 50.

It is, right?

[Mountain Man]

You made a factual error. If whites are 62% of the population, but only 50% of police shootings, they are disproportionately less likely to be shot by police, not more. The rest of the article might explain why this happens, and further explain that this is more (or less) discrepancy than expected given other data, but none of those additional details affect the basic datum that you misrepresented.

50% is less than 62%. Not more. It's obvious: something that "can't be tested" cannot also be "bang-on accurate". That you claim there are lurkers as incapable as you are is not a convincing argument.

Isn't it amazing what conclusions you can reach when you ignore 99% of the post you're responding to, and 100% of the post that follows it? You're one of the more shameless posters at tWeb.

[Roy]

Isn't it amazing what conclusions you can reach when you ignore 99% of the post you're responding to, and 100% of the post that follows it?

It's very simple. If whites make up
- 62% of the population
- 50% of those people shot by police,
are they disproportionately more or disproportionately less likely to be shot by police?

While you're at it, you might want to explain how something that "can't be tested" is "bang-on accurate".

[rogue06]

It's very simple. If whites make up
- 62% of the population
- 50% of those people shot by police,
are they disproportionately more or disproportionately less likely to be shot by police?

While you're at it, you might want to explain how something that "can't be tested" is "bang-on accurate".

It's encounter with the police that matters here. If they're responsible for 50% of the crime they're going to have 50% of the encounters. In those encounters whites end up getting shot and killed more often.

And if you go with what BLM says, that blacks are far more likely to be stopped by the police, which means that blacks have far more encounters with the police in total, then these statistics are even more startling.