Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

I haven't posted in this thread in a long while, but after reading the last several pages, I have to ask, don't you guys get tired of regurgitating the same old stale arguments over and over?

Almost none of the liberals in this thread ever want to blame blacks for anything bad that happens to them- it is always the fault of police, of racism, of the establishment keeping the black man down.

Almost none of the conservatives in this thread are ever willing to acknowledge that racism plays a significant role in how blacks are treated. The police never do anything wrong; they treat everyone equally, and economic opportunity is the exact same for all colors.

And even those few of you on both sides who are willing to acknowledge exceptions are quick to dismiss them as exceptions and go back to focusing on your preachy arguments.

It's bull####. All of it. We live in a complicated, nuanced world. Blacks struggle in America because of a combination of factors: personal responsibility, racism, past racism, lack of quality education. Blacks are harshly treated by police in this country partly due to racism and partly because blacks commit more crimes by comparison. None of this is either-or.

I respond to the people I like and respect because I like exchanging ideas with them. I know I learn something from it, and I hope they do too. I'm not sure why that's a problem for you.

i have no problem with you Tobias or anyone here. Just expressing some frustration with the same old arguments repeated endlessly.

See, I don't think that's the case. For example, what I've been talking about with matttyl this morning: I think he really believes that the black community doesn't care that much about "black on black violence" and that these misplaced priorities are a problem and discredit their protests of police behavior. I strongly disagree with both the conclusion and the premise, and I've read some stuff on the subject, so I share that with him because he seems open-minded enough to consider it. Maybe he realizes he was wrong after our back-and-forth, maybe not, but it's worth a try. Maybe I'm the one who is wrong, and he does know more about the attitudes of the black community than people who've made documenting the history and attitudes of the black community their literal life's work, and he wins me over. I sincerely doubt it, but I'll listen. If not, hopefully he calls me out about something I'm wrong about on a different subject where he's read or seen more about it than I have, and I learn something as a result.

Some of this is bull####, but a lot of it isn't.

Also it's a good way to kill a slow Friday.

 

[TobiasFunke]

HAHA, white on white crime is never talked about, Tobias? Yeah, no one knows who Chris Kyle is. I mean, they didn't make a movie out of it or anything.

No one knows who James Eagan Holmes is either (Aurora movie theater shooter), and news of the Boston Marathon bombing never got out. No one knows Jarad and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas couple shooters), or Ronald Lee Haskell, Jr (the guy who killed 6 members of his ex-wife's family), Joel Smith (murder-suicide father who in all killed 5), Bradley William Stone (again, killer of 6 of his ex- wife's family).....

Fact is that there are just as many black on black murders as there are white on white murders. Ok, but there are 5.7x more whites than blacks. Is saying a black is nearly 6x as likely to kill a member of their own race as a white racist to say? Is it racist to say that over twice as many blacks kill whites as the other way around racist? Putting all that together, is it racist to say that an average black person is 12 times more likely to kill a white than the other way around - is that racist to say?

Your takeaway of American Sniper was the fade to black screen about how he was killed by a suicidal fellow vet? That's your paragon of "white on white" crime?

Haven't seen the movie - don't spoil the ending for me! Just saying that white on white crime is of course talked about, which Tobias said it wasn't. It's just not categorized as "white on white" when discussed.

Why not?

It's just called crime I guess. When you see the victim and the shooter you can see for yourself. When you see this situation in Ferguson you can see it to, and people are quick to put it into that race situation box to drum up reactions.

I'm asking you personally. Why did you feel the need to refer to black on black crime in this thread (and I assume elsewhere) instead of just calling it crime? Do you talk about white on white crime as if it is something distinct from other types of crime? If not, why not? What's the difference?

 

[Sweet J]

Stop breaking the law. If you have broken the law and are caught do not flee, resist, or argue. Comply and Keep your mouth shut, as is you Constitutional right. If you are wrongfully accused have the brains to not argue that fact with the wrongful accuser/cop. Arguing is not going to get that person to change their mind and it conflates the situation. Wait to make your arguments with a cool head and cooled passions in court, perhaps with the aid and assistance of a criminal defense attorney who also has a civil rights specialist in their firm. Taking matters into your own hands, against an armed officer, on the volatile and unpredictable streets is never the answer, and yet far too many try just that.

I know this is really easy to say. And right in concept.

But.

I'm a white guy in my forties who works for the federal government, and the thought of being physically restrained and helpless while (potentially) currupt and dangerous and (potentially) life-threatening people with the state-backed power to end my life do with me as they will makes my skin crawl. I can't imagine what it feels like for a black person who KNOWS that police have gotten away with shooting/killing innocent black folks feels.

The only comparison I can think about is if I am travaling in another country where I know that the citizens distrust/fear my race/nationality at best (and fear/hate us at worst). Mexico? Liberia? Russia? Cambodia? Columbia? Whatever. Now imagine I've gotten stopped/detained by the police and fear that the police with hurt me very badly if they incapacitate me. Will I have an urge to resist or run, rather than trust that if I submit I won't be hurt? You bet your ###.

And I wonder if that is what it feels like to be a young black man dealing with police in the united states -- the same way I'd feel as a white american dealing with Columbian police, or Somali police, or Russian police.

It's easy to say: "just comply with the police." If you are a race and class that isn't scared shtless (with good reason) of the police.

Oh my God, you are really going to compare American police to Mexico, Liberia, Cambodia and Columbia? Is there a profiling issue in this country where black people get targeted for routine stops more than white people? Absolutely. Are the police indiscriminately killing black people in this country for no reason? No.

I don't think you have any concept of how black people in this country get treated by police. Or how they feel about it. None.

Oh please. Do you really think you are helping the black community by propagating this relentless sense of persecution? It's 2015. We have a black President. There is more equal opportunity in this country than at any time in its history. You could actually make a very good argument that there is BETTER opportunity for minorities at certain companies than similarly qualified white workers. The best way to keep someone down is to keep pounding into their heads that they are a victim.

You are an idiot of the highest order.

 

[matttyl]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, you didn't. You brought up a 7 month old article that you needed go find via google about "dozens" of people. That's not "the black community doing more" at all. I think you know that.

Where are the protests and marches of hundreds or thousands?

Huh? Did you not click on all the links I included?

Read this one again. It provides exactly what you are asking for. Lots of protests, with hundreds or more involved. It has video of them and everything.

And I have no idea what "needed to go find via google" has to do with anything. I knew they'd happened and been written up, I just googled it to find those reports. Do you have links committed to memory or something? Nor do I have any idea what the timing has to do with it, whether they're 7 months old or 5 years old or whatever. What exactly are you trying to say? That black people used to care about black on black crime but they abruptly stopped 7 months ago? That unless they're protesting it every day it doesn't count in your eyes?

Honestly you've lost me here. What point are you trying to make with this "black on black crime" argument?

So an article from "The Atlantic" that's 3 years old with a video of Chicago from 5 years ago and Newark from 6 years ago?

My point, rather than argument cause it's not really debatable, is when there is a white on black crime (Fergueson, Zimmerman, whatever) it makes national news - there are protests and marches. These are for individual situations with singular deaths. It makes nationals and international news and gets thousands of people gathered for a singular cause. You don't see that with black on black crimes, which are far more prevalent to the tune of hundreds (maybe a thousand) times more often to nearly the same degree - it at all on a national news scale. Why is that?

How come I can turn on my TV (and not just Fox News, which I don't watch by the way), or via a social media page and see nothing but these singular situations and their huge reactions - but never see anything of the other? Why do you have to go to google and pull up articles from years ago with videos of even further back to show it? Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all - what I'm saying is that when it does happen it's on a far smaller scale, and never receives any "real" attention (which I understand are two different issues, but both exist).

Because potentially racially charged crime makes for a better story? In all the stories that grab national news the black victim is also unarmed. Brown, Garner, Rice, Grant, Martin ... all of them. Once the victim is armed the notion that race played a role in the incident falls by the wayside, right or wrong. That's just what interests the public, and thus what the media reports. That's less than ideal I guess, but it's hardly surprising and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. It certainly has nothing to do with your clearly incorrect claim that the black community doesn't care very much about black on black violence. And as to your second claim that those attitudes and marches and sentiments doesn't receive any real attention ... I'm with you, obviously. You shouldn't have to read the Atlantic Monthly to know that black people care a lot about the violence in their communities.

 

[matttyl]

Again, that isn't my first claim. And I'm glad we can agree on the 2nd one, which yes, is my feeling.

 

[General Tso]

Stop breaking the law. If you have broken the law and are caught do not flee, resist, or argue. Comply and Keep your mouth shut, as is you Constitutional right. If you are wrongfully accused have the brains to not argue that fact with the wrongful accuser/cop. Arguing is not going to get that person to change their mind and it conflates the situation. Wait to make your arguments with a cool head and cooled passions in court, perhaps with the aid and assistance of a criminal defense attorney who also has a civil rights specialist in their firm. Taking matters into your own hands, against an armed officer, on the volatile and unpredictable streets is never the answer, and yet far too many try just that.

I know this is really easy to say. And right in concept.

But.

I'm a white guy in my forties who works for the federal government, and the thought of being physically restrained and helpless while (potentially) currupt and dangerous and (potentially) life-threatening people with the state-backed power to end my life do with me as they will makes my skin crawl. I can't imagine what it feels like for a black person who KNOWS that police have gotten away with shooting/killing innocent black folks feels.

The only comparison I can think about is if I am travaling in another country where I know that the citizens distrust/fear my race/nationality at best (and fear/hate us at worst). Mexico? Liberia? Russia? Cambodia? Columbia? Whatever. Now imagine I've gotten stopped/detained by the police and fear that the police with hurt me very badly if they incapacitate me. Will I have an urge to resist or run, rather than trust that if I submit I won't be hurt? You bet your ###.

And I wonder if that is what it feels like to be a young black man dealing with police in the united states -- the same way I'd feel as a white american dealing with Columbian police, or Somali police, or Russian police.

It's easy to say: "just comply with the police." If you are a race and class that isn't scared shtless (with good reason) of the police.

Oh my God, you are really going to compare American police to Mexico, Liberia, Cambodia and Columbia? Is there a profiling issue in this country where black people get targeted for routine stops more than white people? Absolutely. Are the police indiscriminately killing black people in this country for no reason? No.

I don't think you have any concept of how black people in this country get treated by police. Or how they feel about it. None.

Oh please. Do you really think you are helping the black community by propagating this relentless sense of persecution? It's 2015. We have a black President. There is more equal opportunity in this country than at any time in its history. You could actually make a very good argument that there is BETTER opportunity for minorities at certain companies than similarly qualified white workers. The best way to keep someone down is to keep pounding into their heads that they are a victim.

You are an idiot of the highest order.

Do you always call people names when they disagree with your patronizing view of the world?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

I talked about most of the bolded in the previous post, so I'll just add this- if the shooter is a member of law enforcement it's a much bigger story, as it should be, because then it's not just about a dead body but the fact that the killer was a person directed to serve and protect the citizens, and armed based on their pledge to do so, and entrusted by the justice system to make judgment calls in life-or-death situations where a civilian would certainly face trial. You see why that's a MUCH bigger story, right?

 

[mcintyre1]

Stop breaking the law. If you have broken the law and are caught do not flee, resist, or argue. Comply and Keep your mouth shut, as is you Constitutional right. If you are wrongfully accused have the brains to not argue that fact with the wrongful accuser/cop. Arguing is not going to get that person to change their mind and it conflates the situation. Wait to make your arguments with a cool head and cooled passions in court, perhaps with the aid and assistance of a criminal defense attorney who also has a civil rights specialist in their firm. Taking matters into your own hands, against an armed officer, on the volatile and unpredictable streets is never the answer, and yet far too many try just that.

I know this is really easy to say. And right in concept.

But.

I'm a white guy in my forties who works for the federal government, and the thought of being physically restrained and helpless while (potentially) currupt and dangerous and (potentially) life-threatening people with the state-backed power to end my life do with me as they will makes my skin crawl. I can't imagine what it feels like for a black person who KNOWS that police have gotten away with shooting/killing innocent black folks feels.

The only comparison I can think about is if I am travaling in another country where I know that the citizens distrust/fear my race/nationality at best (and fear/hate us at worst). Mexico? Liberia? Russia? Cambodia? Columbia? Whatever. Now imagine I've gotten stopped/detained by the police and fear that the police with hurt me very badly if they incapacitate me. Will I have an urge to resist or run, rather than trust that if I submit I won't be hurt? You bet your ###.

And I wonder if that is what it feels like to be a young black man dealing with police in the united states -- the same way I'd feel as a white american dealing with Columbian police, or Somali police, or Russian police.

It's easy to say: "just comply with the police." If you are a race and class that isn't scared shtless (with good reason) of the police.

Oh my God, you are really going to compare American police to Mexico, Liberia, Cambodia and Columbia? Is there a profiling issue in this country where black people get targeted for routine stops more than white people? Absolutely. Are the police indiscriminately killing black people in this country for no reason? No.

I don't think you have any concept of how black people in this country get treated by police. Or how they feel about it. None.

Oh please. Do you really think you are helping the black community by propagating this relentless sense of persecution? It's 2015. We have a black President. There is more equal opportunity in this country than at any time in its history. You could actually make a very good argument that there is BETTER opportunity for minorities at certain companies than similarly qualified white workers. The best way to keep someone down is to keep pounding into their heads that they are a victim.

You are an idiot of the highest order.

Do you always call people names when they disagree with your patronizing view of the world?

Do you always ignore when people point out that you use junk data to support your views?

 

[matttyl]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

I talked about most of the bolded in the previous post, so I'll just add this- if the shooter is a member of law enforcement it's a much bigger story, as it should be, because then it's not just about a dead body but the fact that the killer was a person directed to serve and protect the citizens, and armed based on their pledge to do so, and entrusted by the justice system to make judgment calls in life-or-death situations where a civilian would certainly face trial. You see why that's a MUCH bigger story, right?

Honestly, no - unless it's happening at a higher rate than other killings, which it isn't. Let me rephrase that - I see/understand why it is a bigger story; I don't see why it should or needs to be.

Maybe I come at this from a bit of a different perspective as a life insurance agent. I'm much more of a "numbers guy". I've dealt with death claims from car accidents, suicides (too many recently for some reason), heart issues, and others. A death is a death - the end result is the same. You may have read in another thread that I lost my father in law to cancer late last year, and nearly lost a closer family member more recently in a horse riding accident (thank God they are fine now) - but had my FIL died a different way he'd still not be with us today. He'll be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery later this Spring, but how would our family be different today if he had died in the line of duty? He'd still not be here today, and my mother in law and her three kids and their families would still be dealing with the sorrow and loss.

Suppose Michael Brown had been the victim of a black on black homicide, which I'm sure you'd agree the statistics tell us would have been far more likely. He still wouldn't be here today - and/but there wouldn't have been a protest or a march and the two recent officers wouldn't have been shot. That's, in a way, my point about this entire situation. I'm sure we can pull up hundreds of situations of b on b homicides since Michael Brown's unfortunate death - none of which had nearly the outcry or publicity that his death had. Isn't the end the same?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

I talked about most of the bolded in the previous post, so I'll just add this- if the shooter is a member of law enforcement it's a much bigger story, as it should be, because then it's not just about a dead body but the fact that the killer was a person directed to serve and protect the citizens, and armed based on their pledge to do so, and entrusted by the justice system to make judgment calls in life-or-death situations where a civilian would certainly face trial. You see why that's a MUCH bigger story, right?

This makes sense but why does the police officer always have to be accused of being motivated by race. Even the Eric Garner case everybody hangs their hat on was not motivated by race. It was motivated by a career criminal continually breaking the law to the tune of some thirty times .

 

[TobiasFunke]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

I talked about most of the bolded in the previous post, so I'll just add this- if the shooter is a member of law enforcement it's a much bigger story, as it should be, because then it's not just about a dead body but the fact that the killer was a person directed to serve and protect the citizens, and armed based on their pledge to do so, and entrusted by the justice system to make judgment calls in life-or-death situations where a civilian would certainly face trial. You see why that's a MUCH bigger story, right?

Honestly, no - unless it's happening at a higher rate than other killings, which it isn't. Let me rephrase that - I see/understand why it is a bigger story; I don't see why it should or needs to be.

Maybe I come at this from a bit of a different perspective as a life insurance agent. I'm much more of a "numbers guy". I've dealt with death claims from car accidents, suicides (too many recently for some reason), heart issues, and others. A death is a death - the end result is the same. You may have read in another thread that I lost my father in law to cancer late last year, and nearly lost a closer family member more recently in a horse riding accident (thank God they are fine now) - but had my FIL died a different way he'd still not be with us today. He'll be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery later this Spring, but how would our family be different today if he had died in the line of duty? He'd still not be here today, and my mother in law and her three kids and their families would still be dealing with the sorrow and loss.

Suppose Michael Brown had been the victim of a black on black homicide, which I'm sure you'd agree the statistics tell us would have been far more likely. He still wouldn't be here today - and/but there wouldn't have been a protest or a march and the two recent officers wouldn't have been shot. That's, in a way, my point about this entire situation. I'm sure we can pull up hundreds of situations of b on b homicides since Michael Brown's unfortunate death - none of which had nearly the outcry or publicity that his death had. Isn't the end the same?

The end for the victim is the same. The ramifications for the living are very, very different.

Imagine you're mugged, and the mugger steals $100 from you. You call the cops. A cop comes to meet you, pulls out his gun, and demands $100. You call the cops again to report the incident. They pull up ranks around their colleague and tell you to go #### yourself.

What part of that story is the more troublesome one, the mugging by the civilian or the mugging at the hands of an officer? The ends result is the same, right? You're out $100 and the crime is going to go unpunished. The difference in how it makes you feel about your place in society and your ability to seek justice and discourage or prevent future crimes to both yourself and others? Not the same.

BTW in case it wasn't clear I'm not saying what happened to Brown or anyone else is analogous to being mugged by a cop and then told to go #### yourself. I'm using that as a way to illustrate how the stakes are different when the person causing the harm is a cop.

 

[matttyl]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

I talked about most of the bolded in the previous post, so I'll just add this- if the shooter is a member of law enforcement it's a much bigger story, as it should be, because then it's not just about a dead body but the fact that the killer was a person directed to serve and protect the citizens, and armed based on their pledge to do so, and entrusted by the justice system to make judgment calls in life-or-death situations where a civilian would certainly face trial. You see why that's a MUCH bigger story, right?

Honestly, no - unless it's happening at a higher rate than other killings, which it isn't. Let me rephrase that - I see/understand why it is a bigger story; I don't see why it should or needs to be.

Maybe I come at this from a bit of a different perspective as a life insurance agent. I'm much more of a "numbers guy". I've dealt with death claims from car accidents, suicides (too many recently for some reason), heart issues, and others. A death is a death - the end result is the same. You may have read in another thread that I lost my father in law to cancer late last year, and nearly lost a closer family member more recently in a horse riding accident (thank God they are fine now) - but had my FIL died a different way he'd still not be with us today. He'll be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery later this Spring, but how would our family be different today if he had died in the line of duty? He'd still not be here today, and my mother in law and her three kids and their families would still be dealing with the sorrow and loss.

Suppose Michael Brown had been the victim of a black on black homicide, which I'm sure you'd agree the statistics tell us would have been far more likely. He still wouldn't be here today - and/but there wouldn't have been a protest or a march and the two recent officers wouldn't have been shot. That's, in a way, my point about this entire situation. I'm sure we can pull up hundreds of situations of b on b homicides since Michael Brown's unfortunate death - none of which had nearly the outcry or publicity that his death had. Isn't the end the same?

The end for the victim is the same. The ramifications for the living are very, very different.

Imagine you're mugged, and the mugger steals $100 from you. You call the cops. A cop comes to meet you, pulls out his gun, and demands $100. You call the cops again to report the incident. They pull up ranks around their colleague and tell you to go #### yourself.

What part of that story is the more troublesome one, the mugging by the civilian or the mugging at the hands of an officer? The ends result is the same, right? You're out $100 and the crime is going to go unpunished. The difference in how it makes you feel about your place in society and your ability to seek justice and discourage or prevent future crimes to both yourself and others? Not the same.

BTW in case it wasn't clear I'm not saying what happened to Brown or anyone else is analogous to being mugged by a cop and then told to go #### yourself. I'm using that as a way to illustrate how the stakes are different when the person causing the harm is a cop.

Ok, but what's happening far more often? Someone getting mugged by a civilian, or someone getting mugged by an officer? Lets say the former happens 100x more often than the latter. Maybe 500x more, maybe 1,000x more. Lets say the latter is 100x more of a problem in terms of "ramifications for the living". See where I'm going with this? Which is the bigger problem?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

I talked about most of the bolded in the previous post, so I'll just add this- if the shooter is a member of law enforcement it's a much bigger story, as it should be, because then it's not just about a dead body but the fact that the killer was a person directed to serve and protect the citizens, and armed based on their pledge to do so, and entrusted by the justice system to make judgment calls in life-or-death situations where a civilian would certainly face trial. You see why that's a MUCH bigger story, right?

This makes sense but why does the police officer always have to be accused of being motivated by race. Even the Eric Garner case everybody hangs their hat on was not motivated by race. It was motivated by a career criminal continually breaking the law to the tune of some thirty times .

I assume personal experience? I've walked down city streets smoking something not entirely kosher many times. I've probably driven above the legal limit for BAC a handful of times. I've probably exceeded the speed at which a speeding ticket becomes a reckless driving misdemeanor many times. I'm sure I've committed other misdemeanors in plain public view that I can't remember right now. I'm guessing many other white people have done the same, with little to no consequence. Why have I been stopped only once and never charged while Garner was hassled constantly? And sure, selling loosies is a different crime than those other things ... but why? Why did the cops choose to enforce the loosie law so strictly while not appearing concerned with other misdemeanors? Or to use Brown's example- I've walked down the middle of the street hundreds of times in my life. I've jaywalked thousands of times. Never had a cop say a single word to me. My guess is many other people have the same experiences- many white people realize they get away with these petty "crimes" all the time, and many black people see that we do and they don't.

That doesn't mean we can conclude that race played a role in those incidents or any other incidents. But that stuff, plus knowing the stats that have been rehashed lots of times in this thread, means it's fair to ask the question. And even if race isn't factor in a particular incident (really there's no way to know), it can still do some good to point out the reasons why they were suspicious. Look at all the racist idiots that have been booted from the Ferguson PD and local government as a result.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

I talked about most of the bolded in the previous post, so I'll just add this- if the shooter is a member of law enforcement it's a much bigger story, as it should be, because then it's not just about a dead body but the fact that the killer was a person directed to serve and protect the citizens, and armed based on their pledge to do so, and entrusted by the justice system to make judgment calls in life-or-death situations where a civilian would certainly face trial. You see why that's a MUCH bigger story, right?

Honestly, no - unless it's happening at a higher rate than other killings, which it isn't. Let me rephrase that - I see/understand why it is a bigger story; I don't see why it should or needs to be.

Maybe I come at this from a bit of a different perspective as a life insurance agent. I'm much more of a "numbers guy". I've dealt with death claims from car accidents, suicides (too many recently for some reason), heart issues, and others. A death is a death - the end result is the same. You may have read in another thread that I lost my father in law to cancer late last year, and nearly lost a closer family member more recently in a horse riding accident (thank God they are fine now) - but had my FIL died a different way he'd still not be with us today. He'll be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery later this Spring, but how would our family be different today if he had died in the line of duty? He'd still not be here today, and my mother in law and her three kids and their families would still be dealing with the sorrow and loss.

Suppose Michael Brown had been the victim of a black on black homicide, which I'm sure you'd agree the statistics tell us would have been far more likely. He still wouldn't be here today - and/but there wouldn't have been a protest or a march and the two recent officers wouldn't have been shot. That's, in a way, my point about this entire situation. I'm sure we can pull up hundreds of situations of b on b homicides since Michael Brown's unfortunate death - none of which had nearly the outcry or publicity that his death had. Isn't the end the same?

The end for the victim is the same. The ramifications for the living are very, very different.

Imagine you're mugged, and the mugger steals $100 from you. You call the cops. A cop comes to meet you, pulls out his gun, and demands $100. You call the cops again to report the incident. They pull up ranks around their colleague and tell you to go #### yourself.

What part of that story is the more troublesome one, the mugging by the civilian or the mugging at the hands of an officer? The ends result is the same, right? You're out $100 and the crime is going to go unpunished. The difference in how it makes you feel about your place in society and your ability to seek justice and discourage or prevent future crimes to both yourself and others? Not the same.

BTW in case it wasn't clear I'm not saying what happened to Brown or anyone else is analogous to being mugged by a cop and then told to go #### yourself. I'm using that as a way to illustrate how the stakes are different when the person causing the harm is a cop.

Ok, but what's happening far more often? Someone getting mugged by a civilian, or someone getting mugged by an officer? Lets say the former happens 100x more often than the latter. Maybe 500x more, maybe 1,000x more. Lets say the latter is 100x more of a problem in terms of "ramifications for the living". See where I'm going with this? Which is the bigger problem?

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

 

[Hang 10]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

I talked about most of the bolded in the previous post, so I'll just add this- if the shooter is a member of law enforcement it's a much bigger story, as it should be, because then it's not just about a dead body but the fact that the killer was a person directed to serve and protect the citizens, and armed based on their pledge to do so, and entrusted by the justice system to make judgment calls in life-or-death situations where a civilian would certainly face trial. You see why that's a MUCH bigger story, right?

This makes sense but why does the police officer always have to be accused of being motivated by race. Even the Eric Garner case everybody hangs their hat on was not motivated by race. It was motivated by a career criminal continually breaking the law to the tune of some thirty times .

When your only tool is a hammer, all the problems look like nails.

 

[matttyl]

I assume personal experience? I've walked down city streets smoking something not entirely kosher many times. I've probably driven above the legal limit for BAC a handful of times. I've probably exceeded the speed at which a speeding ticket becomes a reckless driving misdemeanor many times. I'm sure I've committed other misdemeanors in plain public view that I can't remember right now. I'm guessing many other white people have done the same, with little to no consequence. Why have I been stopped only once and never charged while Garner was hassled constantly?

I bet if you had been stopped multiple times, you would have changed your actions. Why didn't he? What makes him different?

 

[matttyl]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I assume personal experience? I've walked down city streets smoking something not entirely kosher many times. I've probably driven above the legal limit for BAC a handful of times. I've probably exceeded the speed at which a speeding ticket becomes a reckless driving misdemeanor many times. I'm sure I've committed other misdemeanors in plain public view that I can't remember right now. I'm guessing many other white people have done the same, with little to no consequence. Why have I been stopped only once and never charged while Garner was hassled constantly?

I bet if you had been stopped multiple times, you would have changed your actions. Why didn't he? What makes him different?

Beats me. The question was why did people assume discrimination in these incidents. My answer was personal experience, mixed with some knowledge of the statistics regarding discriminatory policing repeated many times in this thread. And in any event, what does it matter? I think we should probably be more concerned with the question of why law enforcement is policing misdemeanor violations in a way that looks to all the world to be discriminatory before we worry about why one particular dead man didn't alter his behavior after being subjected to (likely) discriminatory policing.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Personally I would refer to all crime as crime. It's just that - crime. I thought this thread got turned into a conversation about black on black crime, I certainly wasn't the one who started it. I think the media has a WHOLE LOT to do with that (turning a "crime" in to a crime that has to be placed in some specific racial category), if to get ratings to generate some emotion to the story. Maybe that emotion that they are stirring is just adding to the story itself (likely), which then make it more of a story and generates more emotion.

Be that as it may, the facts are still there about how much white on white, and black on white, and white on black, and black on black violent crime is out there. When put into the context of how much of the population are each of those races, personally I find the results fairly staggering.

As to your comment above to Tim where you think I feel that blacks "don't care that much" about black on black crime - that isn't the case. Of course they care, likely about any crime (b vs w, w vs b, b vs b....) as do I as a white, and as would any decent human because of simply being a decent human. I'm sure you feel the same. Death is horrible no matter how it comes. Having said that, me personally I don't see nearly the outcry over the b vs b crime from the black community as I do in the w vs b crime from that same community. Do you dispute that? Even if they are "equal", with the former happening hundreds of times more often wouldn't my argument still hold water?

I talked about most of the bolded in the previous post, so I'll just add this- if the shooter is a member of law enforcement it's a much bigger story, as it should be, because then it's not just about a dead body but the fact that the killer was a person directed to serve and protect the citizens, and armed based on their pledge to do so, and entrusted by the justice system to make judgment calls in life-or-death situations where a civilian would certainly face trial. You see why that's a MUCH bigger story, right?

This makes sense but why does the police officer always have to be accused of being motivated by race. Even the Eric Garner case everybody hangs their hat on was not motivated by race. It was motivated by a career criminal continually breaking the law to the tune of some thirty times .

I assume personal experience? I've walked down city streets smoking something not entirely kosher many times. I've probably driven above the legal limit for BAC a handful of times. I've probably exceeded the speed at which a speeding ticket becomes a reckless driving misdemeanor many times. I'm sure I've committed other misdemeanors in plain public view that I can't remember right now. I'm guessing many other white people have done the same, with little to no consequence. Why have I been stopped only once and never charged while Garner was hassled constantly? And sure, selling loosies is a different crime than those other things ... but why? Why did the cops choose to enforce the loosie law so strictly while not appearing concerned with other misdemeanors? Or to use Brown's example- I've walked down the middle of the street hundreds of times in my life. I've jaywalked thousands of times. Never had a cop say a single word to me. My guess is many other people have the same experiences- many white people realize they get away with these petty "crimes" all the time, and many black people see that we do and they don't.

That doesn't mean we can conclude that race played a role in those incidents or any other incidents. But that stuff, plus knowing the stats that have been rehashed lots of times in this thread, means it's fair to ask the question. And even if race isn't factor in a particular incident (really there's no way to know), it can still do some good to point out the reasons why they were suspicious. Look at all the racist idiots that have been booted from the Ferguson PD and local government as a result.

Just an assumption, but I would imagine they kept hassling Garner because he was selling (loosies) cigarettes without paying sales tax and this was probably a complaint that they kept receiving from the store owners in that area that sold cigarettes according to the law. In other words they were doing their job. Garner continually chose to ignore the law. So doesn't it make more sense that Garner was confronted because he was a habitual law breaker, rather than he was targeted and killed because he was black like many would like us to think. I do know one thing if people keep playing the race card, race relations will never improve. For proof, as you know police officers were shot in retaliation in that case as well, unfortunately they didn't survive.

 

[matttyl]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

Don't forget the 67% fatherless families which has a direct relationship with dropout rate, crime rates etc.

 

[matttyl]

Another good point, Ditka. A quick google search showed in California the high school drop out rate for blacks is 19.7%, but only 7.4% for whites. Not sure that holds nationwide (haven't found those numbers yet). Are the police causing a a dropout rate 2.5x as high?

Adding another point -"The Schott Foundation for Public Education, which has tracked graduation rates of black males from public schools since 2004, said 52 percent of black males who entered ninth grade in the 2006-07 school year graduated in four years. That compared with 78 percent of white, non-Latino males and 58 percent of Latino males." That was the first time it was over half in this study which is done every 2 years, in 2008 it was 47%. These are the same public schools and the same curriculum for all students, regardless of race, correct? Why such a big difference? Is that the fault of the police or of society at large?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

You've gone from comparing apples and oranges to comparing apples and an assortment of bath soaps. This is a bizarre argument you're making I don't even know what you're saying ... are you saying that people should have repressed their justified anger and instead directed their time and efforts towards other problems? That is silly.

First, protests arise in part from an emotional reaction, it's absurd to expect people to redirect that rationally.

Second, the whole "you can't protest X because Y is a bigger problem" is, with all due respect, a really stupid and pointless argument, because the inevitable conclusion is that nobody is allowed be be upset about or work to resolve anything unless it's literally the biggest problem in the world. Why focus your time and efforts on gangs and unwanted pregnancies when 3,200 children a year die of cancer? Why focus your time and efforts on children with cancer when there's signs of genocide in Burma and millions dying of AIDS in Africa? Come on.

 

[matttyl]

I'm talking about problems inside of a set community, not nationwide or worldwide. I'm also talking about issues which much more greatly affect people of only one race or group (like gangs and unwanted pregnancies), not that affect all members of a society fairly equally (like AIDS and cancer). And I'm the one comparing apples and oranges?

I get that protests arise from an emotional reaction. Why are there no big emotional reactions (resulting in some call to action or something) from the items which I listed, which are just a few of the root causes for an even larger violence problem in their own community?

Maybe I live in a very sheltered situation, I don't know. But if I lived in a community where half of the kids are growing up without fathers, and half the high school males aren't finishing their high school education in 4 years, and the proportional murder rate inside of my group is something like 10x larger than that of society at large - you better believe I'd have an emotional reaction.

 

[General Tso]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

Don't forget the 67% fatherless families which has a direct relationship with dropout rate, crime rates etc.

And also a direct relationship with a lack of discipline and respect for authority figures. I know it sounds terribly old fashioned, but it's true. These values are instilled at a very young age and the success rate is much higher when you have a father in the home. If you really want to change things in places like Ferguson for the better, make that your causus bellum. Redirect all that negative energy being used to protest the cops and start figuring out ways for black fathers to be more actively involved in the lives of the children they create. If you're genuinely interested in tackling the root cause of Ferguson - disparate profiling by the police as a result of disproportionate black crime rates - that's a good place to start.

 

[Sweet J]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

Don't forget the 67% fatherless families which has a direct relationship with dropout rate, crime rates etc.

And also a direct relationship with a lack of discipline and respect for authority figures. I know it sounds terribly old fashioned, but it's true. These values are instilled at a very young age and the success rate is much higher when you have a father in the home. If you really want to change things in places like Ferguson for the better, make that your causus bellum. Redirect all that negative energy being used to protest the cops and start figuring out ways for black fathers to be more actively involved in the lives of the children they create. If you're genuinely interested in tackling the root cause of Ferguson - disparate profiling by the police as a result of disproportionate black crime rates - that's a good place to start.

If only we could get those animals to behave, right, Tso? That's been the problem for 250 years. We brought them here and civilized them! The least they could do is learn the rules of civilized society and family structure!

 

[Sweet J]

I just love all this talk from the privileged white folk who know what those blackies should really be concerned about.

 

[General Tso]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

Don't forget the 67% fatherless families which has a direct relationship with dropout rate, crime rates etc.

And also a direct relationship with a lack of discipline and respect for authority figures. I know it sounds terribly old fashioned, but it's true. These values are instilled at a very young age and the success rate is much higher when you have a father in the home. If you really want to change things in places like Ferguson for the better, make that your causus bellum. Redirect all that negative energy being used to protest the cops and start figuring out ways for black fathers to be more actively involved in the lives of the children they create. If you're genuinely interested in tackling the root cause of Ferguson - disparate profiling by the police as a result of disproportionate black crime rates - that's a good place to start.

If only we could get those animals to behave, right, Tso? That's been the problem for 250 years. We brought them here and civilized them! The least they could do is learn the rules of civilized society and family structure!

No, I think that's where you and me differ. You would like to treat them like children and blame the evil white police officers for the serious problems facing them. I on the other hand treat them with real respect by pointing out the true nature of their situation. One view comes from a position of white guilt. The other comes from a genuine concern based on years of working with the people.

 

[Sweet J]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

Don't forget the 67% fatherless families which has a direct relationship with dropout rate, crime rates etc.

And also a direct relationship with a lack of discipline and respect for authority figures. I know it sounds terribly old fashioned, but it's true. These values are instilled at a very young age and the success rate is much higher when you have a father in the home. If you really want to change things in places like Ferguson for the better, make that your causus bellum. Redirect all that negative energy being used to protest the cops and start figuring out ways for black fathers to be more actively involved in the lives of the children they create. If you're genuinely interested in tackling the root cause of Ferguson - disparate profiling by the police as a result of disproportionate black crime rates - that's a good place to start.

If only we could get those animals to behave, right, Tso? That's been the problem for 250 years. We brought them here and civilized them! The least they could do is learn the rules of civilized society and family structure!

No, I think that's where you and me differ. You would like to treat them like children and blame the evil white police officers for the serious problems facing them. I on the other hand treat them with real respect by pointing out the true nature of their situation. One view comes from a position of white guilt. The other comes from a genuine concern based on years of working with the people.

Oh, sweet jesus, you are hilarious.

person with a rational brain: "Umm. . . the State has to stop shooting unarmed men. And in particular, unarmed black men."

Tso (and many others) "Don't you see, you aren't looking at the REAL problem!! If only we'd have more black fathers sticking around, the police wouldn't be forced to kill so many of them!!"

I can tell your concern (snicker) is deep and sincere.

 

[General Tso]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

Don't forget the 67% fatherless families which has a direct relationship with dropout rate, crime rates etc.

And also a direct relationship with a lack of discipline and respect for authority figures. I know it sounds terribly old fashioned, but it's true. These values are instilled at a very young age and the success rate is much higher when you have a father in the home. If you really want to change things in places like Ferguson for the better, make that your causus bellum. Redirect all that negative energy being used to protest the cops and start figuring out ways for black fathers to be more actively involved in the lives of the children they create. If you're genuinely interested in tackling the root cause of Ferguson - disparate profiling by the police as a result of disproportionate black crime rates - that's a good place to start.

If only we could get those animals to behave, right, Tso? That's been the problem for 250 years. We brought them here and civilized them! The least they could do is learn the rules of civilized society and family structure!

No, I think that's where you and me differ. You would like to treat them like children and blame the evil white police officers for the serious problems facing them. I on the other hand treat them with real respect by pointing out the true nature of their situation. One view comes from a position of white guilt. The other comes from a genuine concern based on years of working with the people.

Oh, sweet jesus, you are hilarious.

person with a rational brain: "Umm. . . the State has to stop shooting unarmed men. And in particular, unarmed black men."

Tso (and many others) "Don't you see, you aren't looking at the REAL problem!! If only we'd have more black fathers sticking around, the police wouldn't be forced to kill so many of them!!"

I can tell your concern (snicker) is deep and sincere.

Fine - keep propagating the myth that the tragedy of Mike Brown is about a racist cop shooting an innocent black man. I'd be interested in knowing where the psychological basis for your white guilt is coming from, but if it makes you feel morally superior in some sort of twisted way - have at it. Tell you what - why don't you take a little trip down to Mexico and talk to some of the folks about how corrupt American cops are compared to theirs. That ought to get a good laugh.

 

[Sweet J]

Fine - keep propagating the myth that the tragedy of Mike Brown is about a racist cop shooting an innocent black man. I'd be interested in knowing where the psychological basis for your white guilt is coming from, but if it makes you feel morally superior in some sort of twisted way - have at it. Tell you what - why don't you take a little trip down to Mexico and talk to some of the folks about how corrupt American cops are compared to theirs. That ought to get a good laugh.

Awesome.

 

[Hang 10]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

Don't forget the 67% fatherless families which has a direct relationship with dropout rate, crime rates etc.

And also a direct relationship with a lack of discipline and respect for authority figures. I know it sounds terribly old fashioned, but it's true. These values are instilled at a very young age and the success rate is much higher when you have a father in the home. If you really want to change things in places like Ferguson for the better, make that your causus bellum. Redirect all that negative energy being used to protest the cops and start figuring out ways for black fathers to be more actively involved in the lives of the children they create. If you're genuinely interested in tackling the root cause of Ferguson - disparate profiling by the police as a result of disproportionate black crime rates - that's a good place to start.

If only we could get those animals to behave, right, Tso? That's been the problem for 250 years. We brought them here and civilized them! The least they could do is learn the rules of civilized society and family structure!

No, I think that's where you and me differ. You would like to treat them like children and blame the evil white police officers for the serious problems facing them. I on the other hand treat them with real respect by pointing out the true nature of their situation. One view comes from a position of white guilt. The other comes from a genuine concern based on years of working with the people.

Oh, sweet jesus, you are hilarious.

person with a rational brain: "Umm. . . the State has to stop shooting unarmed men. And in particular, unarmed black men."

Tso (and many others) "Don't you see, you aren't looking at the REAL problem!! If only we'd have more black fathers sticking around, the police wouldn't be forced to kill so many of them!!"

I can tell your concern (snicker) is deep and sincere.

Troll so hard.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Not a single protest yet about two innocent cops being shot. I'm sure there will be a bunch soon though.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I do. But there's other variables. For example, you can accomplish much more by protesting police corruption (which can be rectified) than by protesting crime in general (which can maybe be reduced by a small fraction but isn't going away). Another difference is that the 500x or 1000x civilian incidents happen over many years in many different places, whereas the single police incident is obviously just one time and place. That makes for a much different reaction and more focused outrage, but that doesn't mean the aggregate concern is necessarily greater.

Bottom line, it's apples and oranges for any number of reasons.

No, the 500x or 1000x example is "per year".

And you aren't going to completely eliminate police corruption any more than you're going to completely eliminate violent crime in general. I bet you'd reduce more deaths, though, if you reduce 10% of general population violent crime than if you reduce police corruption related homicides by half, or more.

Put it another way - lets say you're walking down the street (possibly smoking something not kosher from your example above for this to possibly make sense). You stumble upon an old lamp, and rub it. A genie pops out. He says he'll only grant you one wish, and only one of the following two options - you can either wish to eliminate police corruption relegated homicides (regardless of any race), or you can wish to completely eliminate black on black homicides. Which would you wish for?

The latter of course, but protests don't work like genie wishes.

Look at it this way- the protests in Ferguson likely led to the DOJ report which led directly to a housecleaning in the Ferguson government and quite possibly a lot more to come thanks to increased awareness and possibly more voter turnout and engagement. What positive results do you think would come of a similar protest of black on black violence? For that matter, what would you even be protesting? Stop killing other people? I don't think there's people out there who consider themselves pro-killing, or who don't think murders and violence are a problem we should look at and try to improve. Whose actions would be altered? And of course it's very hard to gain enthusiasm around something so geographically and chronologically spread out. There's a lot of reasons it's silly to compare the two.

Ok, the protests resulted in one town cleaning up some organizations where 1 person (who by the way was a criminal, for whatever that's worth) may or may not have been inappropriately killed. This may, and likely will lead to other improvements in the lives of many, granted. But, over the next 10 years lets say - how many lives did it save? How many people other than Brown had been killed in the previous 10 years in that jurisdiction from whatever the issue was that needed fixing?

Now, if the same community were to unite to protest black on black violence, and they were to look at the underlying issues of what causes it and attempt to prevent those -

maybe they would take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies (In 2006–2008, 58.7 percent of non-Hispanic Black women reported that their last pregnancy ending in a live birth was unintended, followed by 45.3 percent of Hispanic women and 36.6 percent of non-Hispanic White women)...

or other such situations that lead to nearly half of black children growing up in a single parent household (roughly twice the national average)...

or they would take steps to insure the children of their communities don't participate in gang related activities (blacks make up over a third of all gang members while being less than 13% of the total population - compared to around 10% of gang members being white while whites being nearly 3/4ths of the total population).

Sorry, but the police aren't causing any of those issues.

Don't forget the 67% fatherless families which has a direct relationship with dropout rate, crime rates etc.

And also a direct relationship with a lack of discipline and respect for authority figures. I know it sounds terribly old fashioned, but it's true. These values are instilled at a very young age and the success rate is much higher when you have a father in the home. If you really want to change things in places like Ferguson for the better, make that your causus bellum. Redirect all that negative energy being used to protest the cops and start figuring out ways for black fathers to be more actively involved in the lives of the children they create. If you're genuinely interested in tackling the root cause of Ferguson - disparate profiling by the police as a result of disproportionate black crime rates - that's a good place to start.

If only we could get those animals to behave, right, Tso? That's been the problem for 250 years. We brought them here and civilized them! The least they could do is learn the rules of civilized society and family structure!

This is a very foolish post.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Why is the bond only $300k and why isn't the charge two counts of attempted murder?

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/st-louis-police-announce-arrest-ferguson-shootings-article-1.2149978

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Kudos for people from the community outing this dude.

 

[Leviathan]

Why is the bond only $300k and why isn't the charge two counts of attempted murder?

The suspect is claiming that he was in an altercation with a different party and accidentally shot the police officers. If that story is debunked, they will up the charges to attempted murder.

 

[Jim11]

Why is the bond only $300k and why isn't the charge two counts of attempted murder?

The suspect is claiming that he was in an altercation with a different party and accidentally shot the police officers. If that story is debunked, they will up the charges to attempted murder.

Accidentally shot a cop...twice. Seems really believable.

 

[Leviathan]

Why is the bond only $300k and why isn't the charge two counts of attempted murder?

The suspect is claiming that he was in an altercation with a different party and accidentally shot the police officers. If that story is debunked, they will up the charges to attempted murder.

Accidentally shot a cop...twice. Seems really believable.

Oh, know...I don't buy it either but that's where it stands for the time being.

 

[Jim11]

Why is the bond only $300k and why isn't the charge two counts of attempted murder?

The suspect is claiming that he was in an altercation with a different party and accidentally shot the police officers. If that story is debunked, they will up the charges to attempted murder.

Accidentally shot a cop...twice. Seems really believable.

Oh, know...I don't buy it either but that's where it stands for the time being.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to criticize you; just incredulous that his claim would fly.

 

[Ghost Rider]

So, his argument is that he was trying to shoot someone else? Sounds like a real bright guy.

 

[General Tso]

So, his argument is that he was trying to shoot someone else? Sounds like a real bright guy.

and a bad shot.

 

[kentric]

No, you didn't. You brought up a 7 month old article that you needed go find via google about "dozens" of people. That's not "the black community doing more" at all. I think you know that.

Where are the protests and marches of hundreds or thousands?

Huh? Did you not click on all the links I included?

Read this one again. It provides exactly what you are asking for. Lots of protests, with hundreds or more involved. It has video of them and everything.

And I have no idea what "needed to go find via google" has to do with anything. I knew they'd happened and been written up, I just googled it to find those reports. Do you have links committed to memory or something? Nor do I have any idea what the timing has to do with it, whether they're 7 months old or 5 years old or whatever. What exactly are you trying to say? That black people used to care about black on black crime but they abruptly stopped 7 months ago? That unless they're protesting it every day it doesn't count in your eyes?

Honestly you've lost me here. What point are you trying to make with this "black on black crime" argument?

So an article from "The Atlantic" that's 3 years old with a video of Chicago from 5 years ago and Newark from 6 years ago?

My point, rather than argument cause it's not really debatable, is when there is a white on black crime (Fergueson, Zimmerman, whatever) it makes national news - there are protests and marches. These are for individual situations with singular deaths. It makes nationals and international news and gets thousands of people gathered for a singular cause. You don't see that with black on black crimes, which are far more prevalent to the tune of hundreds (maybe a thousand) times more often to nearly the same degree - it at all on a national news scale. Why is that?

How come I can turn on my TV (and not just Fox News, which I don't watch by the way), or via a social media page and see nothing but these singular situations and their huge reactions - but never see anything of the other? Why do you have to go to google and pull up articles from years ago with videos of even further back to show it? Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all - what I'm saying is that when it does happen it's on a far smaller scale, and never receives any "real" attention (which I understand are two different issues, but both exist).

Because potentially racially charged crime makes for a better story? In all the stories that grab national news the black victim is also unarmed. Brown, Garner, Rice, Grant, Martin ... all of them. Once the victim is armed the notion that race played a role in the incident falls by the wayside, right or wrong. That's just what interests the public, and thus what the media reports. That's less than ideal I guess, but it's hardly surprising and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. It certainly has nothing to do with your clearly incorrect claim that the black community doesn't care very much about black on black violence. And as to your second claim that those attitudes and marches and sentiments doesn't receive any real attention ... I'm with you, obviously. You shouldn't have to read the Atlantic Monthly to know that black people care a lot about the violence in their communities.

Maybe you just don't live in areas where homicide is prevalent, but in the NYC Metro area, there are always stories of drive-by shootings where an unarmed black person (even kids sitting in their homes) dies.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not a single protest yet about two innocent cops being shot. I'm sure there will be a bunch soon though.

Something stopping you?

 

[matttyl]

Not a single protest yet about two innocent cops being shot. I'm sure there will be a bunch soon though.

Something stopping you?

Unfortunately, in today's world, it would probably come off as racist if he did.

 

[Bucky86]

Not a single protest yet about two innocent cops being shot. I'm sure there will be a bunch soon though.

Something stopping you?

Unfortunately, in today's world, it would probably come off as racist if he did.

It's racist to stage a protest against crime?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not a single protest yet about two innocent cops being shot. I'm sure there will be a bunch soon though.

Something stopping you?

Unfortunately, in today's world, it would probably come off as racist if he did.

Ah, preemptive whining about being accused of racism and patronizing comments about what black people/protestors should and shouldn't care about. Nice. Just throw in a few lines about how rappers can say the N word but you can't and you'll hit the "conservatives talking about racial issues" trifecta.

 

[Clifford]

Stop breaking the law. If you have broken the law and are caught do not flee, resist, or argue. Comply and Keep your mouth shut, as is you Constitutional right. If you are wrongfully accused have the brains to not argue that fact with the wrongful accuser/cop. Arguing is not going to get that person to change their mind and it conflates the situation. Wait to make your arguments with a cool head and cooled passions in court, perhaps with the aid and assistance of a criminal defense attorney who also has a civil rights specialist in their firm. Taking matters into your own hands, against an armed officer, on the volatile and unpredictable streets is never the answer, and yet far too many try just that.

As long as every single cop who makes a false arrest is found guilty of such and every single person arrested under false arrest has 100% of their costs returned to them along with compensation for the time they had to spend defending a false arrest.

Until that happens every time, you will never get what you typed. Cops need to be held accountable as much as people do when it comes to the fallout from a simple arrest. Otherwise cops can continue to bag people on trumped up bs charges and the public will never trust them.

Ferguson blew up because there is no trust between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect. That is on the cops for not making outreach efforts and engaging in a system of extortion to increase revenue. They severed the trust and that is why they have the situation on their hands that they do.

You can police troubled neighborhoods without going to war with them. The Ferguson PD treated its community like enemies (and paychecks) and they helped create the situation they now have.

Now, I live in a town where the underprivileged black communities do vote, and they do own the mayor's office and the city council seats and they perpetually run both into the ground. So Ferguson voting in all black members of their own communities will not solve things (though it will win several things they want). The solution has to be that the entire community, in Ferguson and in this country, demand better than what the DOJ uncovered. No one should put up with a corrupt, racist police department because it is bad for everyone. White/black/whatever, we should all demand better.