As was said above. In response to a question of why this is racism, you're claiming the cops would be punished if they shot RS - because he's RS, not because he's white. The equivalent situation should be Roger Stone - a white ER technician - being killed in a crossfire by cops returning fire after being shot at by Roger's startled boyfriend.
Roger Stone would never be in that situation, now would he? Stone's whiteness is a
part of who he is. It's why his class of people don't generally get shot. Hypotheticals and edge cases do not change the reality of the race-driven drug war or its consequences, which are predominantly enacted against black people and is exactly what happened here.
Ultimately the question is, if you see a cop coming, should you be more afraid if you are white or if you are black? The statistics are clear: you should be more afraid if you're white.
Guy who admitted he hasn't seen a cop in 10 years thinks whole national crisis is overblown, news at 11.
No, black people are more likely to be killed by cops. There are just more white people total. That's how likeliness works, comparison to the base set.
That's actually not true. Per interaction, white people are more likely to be killed by cops.
That's not actually true. Black people are more likely to be killed by cops, because there are fewer black people in comparison.
Both are true, you dunces.
MS is saying per interaction. I.e. if you find yourself in an interaction with cops, you're less likely to be shot if you're black. That's independent of demographics.
MSH is saying per lifetime. I.e. if you're born black you have a higher likelihood of being killed by cops. Or, in other words, blacks in the US are killed disproportionally to the population percentage.
bless you
although it would have delighted me if you began with something with "actually"
Actually, MS is still wrong. You're more likely to receive every type of police violence if you're black.
One shouldn't be using these data carelessly to make such points, methinks. The same data (Fryer's paper, right?) show that the number of interactions is disproportionally higher for blacks. Which is to say, the number of interactions dilutes the likelihood of killing per interaction.
(It's like if we had an imaginary Eskimo state, which mandated that any Inuit should be visited daily by a cop, and after 100 visits shot dead. You would have low likelihood of Inuit shooting per interaction, but it'd still be plenty racist.)
So one could say something along the lines of: statistically, if you see a cop and you're white, it's less likely that the cop will approach you. Or, if you wake up in the morning and you're white, it's less likely that you won't live to see another day due to a cop killing you. So you should be less afraid.
Why yes, that is correc-
But that would also be manipulation, since it ignores the crime rate statistics. I.e. statistically, if you wake up and you're black, you have a higher likelihood of having committed a violent crime, so no wonder you'll be seeing more police.
Which is not to say there is no racism involved, but it's not a clear-cut issue that can be closed (either way) with a single sentence and a reference to statistics.
Good god. You ever think maybe the cops trading neo-Nazi shit and Q memes in their private chats
might be the ones padding the crime stats? They are the ones creating them, after all.
The other major catch here is that police are not actually required to stand by and die politely when lawfully fired upon. Did they make mistakes? Clearly, since they shot someone they didn't mean to shoot, which is a mistake. Are no-knock warrants wrong? As a property owner, hell yes they are. But as soon as bullets are flying at the police, the police are allowed to fire back, and if someone gets caught in the crossfire, "oops". I'm not thrilled about it, honestly, but it would seem a bit unreasonable to require officers stoically to take a bullet when one's offered.
Actually, it is legal to use lethal self defense against the unlawful use of force by police.
SCOTUS verified for over 100 years. Since the police violated the terms of their warrant, they were under no legal protection - they were just some guys breaking into someone's house and shooting.
It's obviously not a good look, but realistically, there's nothing to charge the officers with, not by actual legal definitions.
have you considered
stay with me now
...murder?
That's what a person under normal laws would be charged with if they broke into your house and shot you by super my bad mistake after your boyfriend shot at the intruders, not that you've apparently ever met another human being in the rural voidspace you say you live in.
Author
Topic: The Abusive Policing Thread: Beyond Brown, No Justice (Read 442314 times)