Unarmed blacks are several times more likely to be shot than unarmed whites.
>"b-but blacks commit more violent crimes, cops are rightfully more cautious of them"
Oh?
>It is sometimes suggested that in urban areas with more black residents and higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime, and thus the racial bias in police shooting may be explainable as a proximate response by police to areas of high violence and crime (community violence theory [14, 15, 23, 35]). In other words, if the environment is such that race and crime covary, police shooting ratios may show signs of racial bias, even if it is crime, not race, that is the causal driver of police shootings. In the models fit in this study, however, there is no evidence of an association between black-specific crime rates (neither in assault-related arrests nor in weapons-related arrests) and racial bias in police shootings, irrespective of whether or not other controls were included in the model. As such, the results of this study provide no empirical support for the idea that racial bias in police shootings (in the time period, 2011–2014, described in this study) is driven by race-specific crime rates (at least as measured by the proxies of assault- and weapons-related arrest rates in 2012).
Wat do pol?
Whoops forgot the link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634878/
Arm whites, shoot blacks
>>80646398
Tl;dr
>>80646398
>Unarmed blacks are several times more likely to be shot than unarmed whites.
[citation needed]
>>80646398
>higher levels of inequality
what is this some orwell "some people are more equal than others" shit? the reason their areas suck is because they commit so much crime no businesses move to their areas.
>>80646398
Good luck for finding stats on "black people chimp out at cops because they're too stupid to understand due process"
>>80646710
I can show you several sources, although at least one of them is cited in the study linked. But before I go through the trouble of finding it, let's just say I find it and you agree it's accurate. What then? Are you going to concede your argument or just find some other aspect to nitpick?
>>80646398
Roughly 70-80 unarmed citizens in total are shot in a year by police. Compared to the population of the united states, I think that's a pretty small number.
>>80646398
>models
>theory
>ratios
Wall Street Journal and Harvard have both independently shown that cops don't gun down blacks as much as they should.
Please try again with your weak sauce.
I guess unarmed whites are 3.49 times less likely to chimp out and resist arrest
>>80646398
>in the models in this study
>according to my math
>according to my limited data set
Gee, it must be the color of their skin then. Can't be anything else.
Imagine being on a bus full of white people vs being on a bus full of black people.
Which one are you going to feel more uncomfortable on?
all that is bullshit.
Unarmed black is likely to get shot by other blacks. Period.
Whites don't go into black neighborhoods rob, rape, or kill people. Whites, even white supremacists, don't go cruising in black neighborhoods looking to score loot or scalps.
>>80646916
This is probably the most fair rebuttal I've heard. Yes, there isn't a huge epidemic of deaths via cop. But I think you can look at it as a symptom of a greater issue, i.e. how our country is much more forgiving of egregious behavior on the part of cops than other countries.
>>80646398
>according to assaults and weapons-related offenses
Try resisting offenses then? Try Blacks behave differently and act more dangerously?
>>80646974
lol source?
>>80646398
>blacks are several times more likely to be shot
Blacks are several times more likely to be violent.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Blacks have a death wish. It is respectful of their culture to kill them.
>>80647269
Makes me wonder why we don't just reapply segregation.
>>80646398
>"b-but blacks commit more violent crimes, cops are rightfully more cautious of them"
not only that but blacks are more likely to resist arrest, which can lead to escalations involving deadly force.
>>80646977
>resist arrest
So if someone resists arrest it's justified to kill them? And this is even assuming that is even the case, which of course you've presented no evidence of.
>>80647074
>le pithy vague dismissal maymay
How about articulating your point instead of a being a big fag?
>>80647269
>Unarmed black is likely to get shot by other blacks. Period.
Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with the conclusion of the study, which was about police who clearly should be held to a higher standard than random people on the street.
>>80647492
If you KNOW resisting arrest ends in death, then death is justified.
>>80647771
America can't afford impossible "higher standards"
That's why we forgive police. Their job is impossible.
>>80647349
Do you not understand the point of the paragraph I quoted you fucking moron? It is a direct rebuttal to this kind of reasoning and found no correlation between violent crimes by blacks and rate of police shootings of blacks.
>>80646398
>It's because of "inequality"
No, it probably isn't.
>>80647779
Lol kay bootlicker. "Produce your identification or be shot. You have 10 seconds to comply."
>>80647937
>the point of the paragraph I quoted
I do. It's bullshit.
>>80646398
>>80647938
It's far more likely to be the result of poorer parenting on average from single mothers. When you don't know how to behave in general you are less likely to know how to control yourself when under arrest.
>>80646787
>>80647938
More morons who can't read. The point of that sentence was that there is NOT a correlation between inequality (as defined by unnamed 3rd parties) and police shootings of blacks. Not "omg muh inequality".
>>80648010
Fortunately, I have everything they ask for, because I know the laws because i studied in school and got employment.
>>80646398
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf
>>80647276
>>80646814
This. Every single video of a back guy getting shot, it's because they chimp out on the cops trying to arrest them in peace. And the everlasting american mindset that police officers are bad guys who love to use their gun on people for shits and giggles, especially common in black folks, doesn't help.
>>80648045
>asserts thing that study concludes isn't true
>"hurr it's wrong"
>no evidence or argument given
10/10 my friend
>>80647273
>i.e. how our country is much more forgiving of egregious behavior on the part of niggers than other countries.
Fixed that for you. If blacks pulled what they do in USA in any less pacific country they would be public hanged.
>>80648196
If you truly believe that any use of force by police is justified as long as it's simply advertised in advance, you truly are a fucking waste of space and your opinion is worthless
>>80648288
Faggot. This isn't how arguments work. I might as well post
>google.com
In response to any claim before me and ask the reader to go look up whatever is relevant. How about pointing something specific out from that study instead?
How do they define armed?
According to the media, anyone carrying something smaller than a bazooka is unarmed.
>>80648395
A sham is a sham.
Studies are made to say what their investors pay them to say, nothing more.
You might as well take a poll.
>>80646894
post it and find out
>>80646398
> Unarmed blacks are several times more likely to be shot than unarmed whites.
That's because unarmed blacks are retarded and do things such as charging cops. Like, what the fuck do they expect?
>>80648518
I've been arrested 27 times.
I've spent 2 days in jail.
I think I've learned a lot of life-saving information by being a good student.
>>80646398
Unarmed blacks are also 9 times more likely to resist arrest than unarmed whites.
>>80646398
>Unarmed blacks are several times more likely to be shot than unarmed whites.
3% of blacks shot by police were unarmed. 4% of whites shot by police were unarmed. #WhiteLivesMatter
>>80648674
In another thread there was a different database that I think drew from this data set, and they at least defined "unarmed" as "not having a weapon capable of causing serious injury". So they didn't count like airsoft guns or plastic swords. Of course someone shit their pants over MUH NIGGERS PULLING OUT REAL LOOKING AIRSOFT GUNS so I went through and counted how many cases had toy guns or swords and there were only a handful.
>>80646398
I'm pretty sure they're both at a 3% rate of being shot unarmed.
>>80648669
>http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks
and
Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in
interactions
with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior
reduces, but
cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-
involved shootings
–
we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual
factors are taken into account.
We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model
in which police officers are utility
maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for
discrimination, who incur relatively high expected
costs of officer-involved shootings
>>80648729
You strike me as a retard.
>>80646398
>heres a scientific study we did but the results are based on conjecture of the control groups environment
wew lad
>>80648424
TIA
>>80648824
Again, what will be the point if the goalposts just move? I'd rather not go hunt something down if there's no effect on the debate. You can look at the source cited in the study if you're dying to get one now, or answer my question and I'll find sources.
>>80646398
Unarmed blacks
Hoky fucking shit why do you lie?
>>80646398
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634878/
OP, you are the first person that even remotely resembles BLM that has made a clear, concise, well sourced and viable argument against racial bias. While I may not agree with all of your views, I am glad that you at least got your shit together. Thank you.
That's because whites don't do shit like webm related.
>>80649216
I didn't strike you at all.
Go ahead and claim I did.
I have enough character witnesses to clog a court for decades.
Joke besides the point, there is rarely any vetting for "studies".
>>80646398
Blacks are several times more likely to resist arrest.
/thread
>>80648986
Source?
This would lead credence to the theory that blacks are causing their own undoing, but even if it's the case, I think it's a problem that American cops apparently aren't capable of subduing an unarmed suspect without killing them. Certainly there are people who resist arrest in other countries like Australia, yet their shootings by police are a fraction of the US's per capita.
>>80649381
you have a chance at completely proving me wrong and supporting your argument
you should be posting evidence from the start
Might it have something to do with the fact that white people don't really shoot at the police?
>>80646398
>>80646398
Tie lights to their back.
No more sudden teeth in the black night to shock shoot at.
This black SJW Harvard found the biggest surprise in his life when he studied how much more blacks are shot by police than whites.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7343/new-study-no-racial-bias-police-involved-shootings-james-barrett
>>80646894
Translation:
>I have a shitty source that could be easily destroyed by a /pol/tard in his mom's basement and therefore do not want to post it .
>>80649639
OP, if you're still here, you may want to consider that black police officers are 2-3x more likely to pull the trigger on another nigger.
This may be a confounding factor in analyzing police shootings because black areas are more likely to have black officers.
![2fb0d5a7d5f85bcffa97c419437b1570f7d81247cd9949ca284dbc7eeba1184e[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZOXGYcF.jpg "2fb0d5a7d5f85bcffa97c419437b1570f7d81247cd9949ca284dbc7eeba1184e[1].jpg")
>>80646398
Has been debunked bythe jew york times of all places:
>A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
>But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FPolice%20Brutality%20and%20Misconduct&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=14&pgtype=collection&_r=0
>>80648175
so what is the point then?
>>80649934
well the source he posted assesses the PROBABILITY of being shot given various cases with data from several counties across the US
it doesn't seem to actually bring figures into the question, it uses a "bayesian" approach
https://bayesian.org/Bayes-Explained
>The Bayesian interpretation of probability can be seen as an extension of propositional logic that enables reasoning with hypotheses, i.e., the propositions whose truth or falsity is uncertain. In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under frequentist inference, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.
>>80649639
>capable of subduing an unarmed suspect
It's possible, but it's normal for criminals to have illegal weapons obtained by criminals.
Laws can't fix this.
>>80646398
kek, nope.
Maybe retarded unarmed blacks should stop acting erratically and trying to tackle cops and taking their weapons like good boi michael brown.
>>80646398
I admittedly don't entirely understand how they came to their correlations (some scatterplots would be nice), but even if I believe everything they claim there are some issues.
>It is important to reiterate that these risk ratios come only from the sample of individuals who were shot by police and census data on race/ethnicity-specific population information. The USPSD does not have information on encounter rates between police and subjects according to ethnicity. As such, the data cannot speak to the relative risk of being shot by a police officer conditional on being encountered by police, and do not give us a direct window into the psychology of the officers who are pulling the triggers.
In other words, blacks might just have more interactions with police than whites, or alternatively, they're more likely than whites to react violently in any given interaction with police.
>There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.
I'm not entirely sure I understand this, but did they try to correlate with the RATIO of black crime to white crime? Because it sounds like they didn't, when that would be the most interesting thing to check. But this could just be me not getting what they did.
>>80649639
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/African-Americans-cited-for-resisting-arrest-at-6229946.php
this is just Frisco but it may be generalizable
unfortunately the city of SF doesn't really report crime statistics by race, I've already looked into this
>>80650367
>Understanding the source of racial bias in police shootings is difficult to do from county-level data, as the ecological inference fallacy can potentially obscure any results [39]. County-level data are far too coarse to use to reliably tease apart the conditions that drive racial bias in police shootings; more reliable findings will likely be based on rigorous, yet qualitative, investigations that are resolved to a more local level.
This could also be a big factor. Look at their shooting risk data
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634878/figure/pone.0141854.g008/
I wouldn't be surprised if there are resolution issues. What happens if you try this analysis on a city-by-city basis instead of county-by-county?
>>80649210
This study uses 4 datasets. 3 of them are solely derived from police statements/documents which are subject to distortion or outright lying, and the 4th is a survey of a biased sampling of people. The author of the paper even notes that the sources are shit. Anyone who accepts the conclusions of this study while rejecting the initial one on the basis of validity and robustness of data is a goddamn moron.
>>80649306
>getting BTFO
>let me throw some random stat words around so it looks like I have a clue
>>80649456
Well thank you.
>>80649663
>you should be posting evidence from the start
My evidence was directly quoting a study you imbecile. Your issue is with something the study itself is citing, and you refuse to go look at the citations and instead are putting the burden of proof on me as a way of weaseling out.
>>80649701
Do you even understand the meaning of the graphs you're posting?
>>80651108
Your study basically makes shit up as a point and admits it.
>>80650281
>>80650367
>>80650552
Why else would they have used bayesian analysis of probability instead of actual figures? Because the police lie?
>>80646398
the choice of variables is stupid. It is ratio between armed and unarmed persons with different race and it focused on that fact instead on the behavior of the person. In many cases officer dont know what the person has on him and he can only asess the danger from their behavior. The better variable would be ratio of shot persons commiting violent crimes vs not or ratio of persons resisting arrest.
>>80650001
That's an interesting thought, but I'm not putting together a study here, just posting one particular study that directly addresses one of the most popular replies to anything hinting at police bias against blacks.
>>80649504
Were I in the officer's position I would have shot him too. He was feinting with one hand, and pretending to draw from his other hand while it was concealed behind him. I legitimately thought there was going to be a gun in that hand when it came out and I have full view of it in this video. The officer does not.
>>80650751
ty, i didnt even read it myself
>>80650227
Try reading the words after "the point is".
>. In the models fit in this study,
If you look at the models, they suck. They aren't designed to even answer the question. Political correctness is a disease and "scientists" who practice it deserve no respect.
>>80650281
>>80651314
Certainly you can't be this dumb. He quotes his dataset source multiple times as the U.S. Police-Shooting Database. He took the data and determined the probability of outcomes based on certain factors.
>>80651504
It's a stupid argument and a stupid study.
Blackness correlates WAY better with all types of violent crime than poverty, unemployment, or single motherhood do. Inequality and crime are but symptoms of Nigdom itself. Also the county-level resolution makes it worthless because blacks concentrate in very small gibsmedat areas.
Unarmed blacks are far more likely to resist arrest and to act as though they are actually armed. Sub-Saharan Africans simply have fundamentally different behaviour under stressors than Europeans do, and attempting to govern them with our European laws simply does not work out if they are allowed to feel equal to us. The cause is biological and any officer who attempts to treat them the way he would treat a white man will end up dead.
These are the kind of "oppressive" numbers the nigs are whining about.
>>80649381
>Again, what will be the point if the goalposts just move?
Can't speak for that anon, but I'm setting the goalposts here and now:
if the shootings by police of unarmed blacks who
>have NOT reasonably threatened the officer, threatened another, or escalated resisting of arrest
disproportionately exceed the shootings of police of unarmed whites who
>have NOT reasonably threatened the officer, threatened another, or escalated resisting arrest
I see it worth looking into.
However what I expect to find is:
>The apprehended persons who were shot were threatening the officer or others some other way
>The apprehended persons who were shot were armed- but not with a firearm
>The apprehended persons who were shot were resisting officer orders and/or arrest, and after a justified escalation
'Unarmed' is only one component here.
It's like covering 'gun deaths' without covering aggregate violent crime trends.
>>80650367
>blacks might just have more interactions with police than whites
Seriously doubt that considering several times more whites are arrested than blacks.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
>they're more likely than whites to react violently in any given interaction with police
This could be (no sources cited in this thread besides one city's stats), however as I've said before, I think it's a problem that police can't subdue unarmed people without using a gun. No amount of uppity-niggerdom should force police to shoot someone to death.
>>80648010
Alton Sterling reached for his gun after being explicitly told not to, and was shot. He deserved to be shot.
Castille reached for his gun after being told not to, and was shot. He deserved to be shot.
If you compare what victims of violent crimes say the race of the perps were to the rates at which those races are arrested, they're almost exactly the same. Not a coincidence.
Stop nigging, stop getting shot. It's simple. Stop being violent criminals, or die.
>>80652344
OI.
Don't forget the number of black officers that shoot unarmed black suspects is higher than the number of white officers who shoot unarmed black suspects.
>>80651443
Part of the issue is that the data is not there to be able to look at widespread trends. You basically have two choices: look at a large dataset with limited details, or a small dataset with lots of details. I seriously doubt you'll find any decent-size dataset that goes into detail about the "behavior" of the suspect, certainly not one that could remotely be called objective since the vast majority of the time it's coming from the arresting officer's report. This study looked at things that would be much harder to fudge, like race, armed status, location, and demographics of their location.
>>80647492
>So if someone resists arrest it's justified to kill them?
No, you fucking idiot--it means the likelihood that deadly force is employed will increase exponentially.
>>80652586
>I think it's a problem that police can't subdue unarmed people without using a gun. No amount of uppity-niggerdom should force police to shoot someone to death.
NO amount? What if they're shooting at the police? Or, in the unarmed case, beating an officer to death because he weighs 3 times as much?
>>80652586
2.5 times more arrests, 5 times the population
Also worth noting that the prison population in absolute numbers has more blacks than whites
yeah I bet they do have more negative interactions with cops than whites
>>80646398
micheal brown was unarmed lol.
>>80649504
this kid unarmed also.
once upon a time i was like you op (assuming not bait/hillshill). people all have the same potential creative or intellectual output, and it is only societies structure that prevents one from unlocking this potential.
but i think the reality is that lots of factors lead to more 'unarmed' blacks being shot and killed, racism of some police officers being one, socio-economics being another, along with ridiculously high violent crime and arrest rates for black people etc. it seems to be more blacks are playing what are referred to as 'stupid games' and therefore winning 'stupid prizes' more frequently. here, have a source:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler
>>80652125
>this study is stupid because <unsupported racist assertions>
you seem to be a whiny piece of shit raging at anything outside your narrative. But I'm only halfway down this thread, so maybe the twist ending is you aren't trash. You started this thread, put out more info, engage more people, or fuck off. Like the guy who asked for source and your response was'you'll just move goal posts'. You're a shill, and it's clear because you didn't come here to discuss something, you came for confirmation.
Don't worry, OP. Blacks will be around for a long time so you can suck as much black cock as you like.
>>80646398
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634878/
I'll humor you
>A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data
This has benefits and drawbacks, depending on the data. I won't get into that now.
The problem here is
>County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction...
I can judge the probable 'risk outcomes' and what variables trend with them myself by looking at the raw data.
>of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilian
Now here is why I will not continue reading this bunk study beyond its abstract: the omission of a third variable (or set of variables in the same vein): whether or not the apprehended/suspect was
>reasonably believed to be threatening the police officer
>reasonably believed to be threatening another civilian
>reasonably believed to be resisting arrest and/or officer orders after other means of apprehension have failed
Any math, economics, political science, or criminal justice department worth its salt would throw this out.
Not give me a source that takes the three things I mentioned into account, and isolates only
>UNjustified shootings
of people by police.
>>80652344
No one's stopping you from pulling up the data yourself and looking at it. There are actually anecdotal records on basically every shooting so you can get some idea of the context of the situation, although I don't think the source of the description is ever clear so there could be bias.
found a link
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/07/09/black-lives-matter-and-the-lies-that-caused-the-police-shootings-in-dallas-and-elsewhere/
>>80653304
these assertions are supported by all the data we currently have
being racist as fuck doesn't make them wrong
Niggers are less likely to carry the ADRA 2b deletion, which increases empathy, and more likely to carry the 2R allele of MAOA, which increases weapon use as well as gang and chimpout behaviour
>>80653164
The probability of it happening may increase, but the justification of it shouldn't. But of course you're too much of a goddamn idiot to understand that.
>>80646398
Blacks commit more crime, and more violent crime. Thus, they get apprehended more. Thus, cops in their neighborhoods are more edgy. You fucking moron.
>>80653171
UNarmed you goddamn Downie. That was the WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THE THREAD.
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/poverty-and-crime/
>>80653709
8/10 troll, you got me
>>80652278
Where does this info come from?
>>80646398
It's literally anyone else's fault but the blacks, because they are but beasts with no higher agency. Am I getting you right OP?
>>80652692
Heh. Well that seems to be a function of
>a greater crime rate in areas with a high amount of blacks per capita
>high amount of blacks per capita resulting in a disproportionate amount of black police officers drawn from that pool
Though the left would still blame it on 'internalized and institutional racism'.
>>80653888
Jewyork Times article covering an uncle tom study
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0
>>80653176
If you agree that more whites are arrested but think that blacks have more negative interactions, then whites must be getting arrested at a higher rate per encounter. Doesn't this directly contradict the view that blacks are more violent/resistant to arrest than whites?
>>80653785
For someone who accuses others of not reading, you don't do a very good job of it yourself.
>>80653405
>post study
>"This thing in the conclusion of the study, where's the source?"
>it's cited in the study anon
>"HURR SHILL REFUSING TO POST SOURCE"
And ironically I've actually posted the source anyway but you're too fucking retarded to have noticed: >>80652101
>>80654266
No. Negative interactions don't necessarily include intent to arrest, or end with arrest.
>>80647492
> someone resists arrest it's justified to kill them
Not outright, but if one is a suspect of violent crime that successfully resists arrests
>i.e. escapes
then it may lead to greater violent crime.
Yes, the police (when they are justified) may use force to make an arrest.
If this force is resisted, the police may respond with increasing levels of force, up to and including shooting the apprehended.
>>80648010
Did you fail Law 101, or otherwise live your life without hearing of or understanding the
'reasonable person test'?
>>80649504
The proprt outcome in those milliseconds was him shooting the nigger and he did it.
Congrats, good shot, well done, take some time off and relax knowing you did well.
>>80653497
First off, I'm going to congratulate you, because you're one of maybe 2 people in this thread to have actually looked at the study for more than 10 seconds and attempted to apply some amount of critical thinking to it.
As stated elsewhere, the data you're demanding simply doesn't exist in an ideal form. Police reports are the most readily available description of the encounter, but are highly subject to bias. Family members' descriptions are biased in the opposite direction. Witnesses are unreliable, although if several witnesses corroborate that's probably one of the more objective sources (although if all the witnesses were friends of the suspect, again, bias).
I agree that the perfect study would be able to include the factors you outlined, although as I've stated over and over, simply "threatening" or "resisting arrest" should not automatically be justification for lethal force--there is a plethora of tools and techniques that police worldwide have used successfully on those threatening or resisting arrest, and it's simply asinine to think that someone deserved to die because they were swearing and wiggling around. Choking an officer? Grabbing for their gun? Yeah, I can see a strong case being built behind the officer's actions in those situations. "He kicked at my leg while handcuffed so I shot him"? No.
>>80653721
Another retard who can't comprehend the meaning of the paragraph he's quoting.
>>80653840
>getting BTFO
>no response, quick need to say something
t-troll
>>80655595
>the data you're demanding simply doesn't exist in an ideal form. Police reports are the most readily available description of the encounter, but are highly subject to bias.
The facts are racist and police lie.
Why are people even responding to you?
>>80653925
Neither I nor the study identifies a cause--there's only a bias identified. The conclusion of the study is basically "we need more data to be able to make better-informed policy decisions".
>>80654272
>Unarmed blacks
Literally the first two words of this thread, holy shit
>>80654493
So what are you saying, police just shoot blacks sometimes without planning to arrest them?
>>80646398
I don't think one study, just because it may be less biased than police reporting, disproves the mountain of evidence detailing that blacks are very much more violent and criminal than whites. It appears you're attempting to create an anti-"racist" narrate from its conclusions. The study, of course, ignores the facts of racial differences and cultural reaction to police. Sorry but the entire model of this kind of thinking is tainted by ideology from Trotsky and Lysenko, etc, you can't have reason in racial arguments if you ignore the science of genetics. Fucks sake, its like building a wall with no mortar.
http://www.colorofcrime.com/2016/03/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/
>>80653574
>No one's stopping you from pulling up the data yourself and looking at it.
Well since the paper you linked claimed
> In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices.
I'm not sure what you would make of them.
The paper itself says that 17,000+ departments across the country report police fatal shootings with varying levels of fidelity, so the best we have are the
>Wagner's U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD)
>Fatal Encounters, which Wagner mentioned as an influence on his project
>FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report
>CDC’s National Vital Statistics System
The paper linked here
http://regressing.deadspin.com/deadspin-police-shooting-database-update-were-still-go-1627414202
for the first reference, in regards to the USPSD.
Here is the problem with that:
the 'raw data' it collects does not necessarily take into account what I mentioned:
>standard definition of 'armed' (some may have had a weapon other than firearm, others no weapon)
>if the apprehended was a reasonable threat
>if the apprehended was resisting arrest
Wagner's guidelines for submission include
>google search results about new police shootings
>non duplication
>location, age, sex, race, and armed/unarmed status of those involved
>tangential summary section where those three variables may or may not be covered.
Here is a link to the database
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cEGQ3eAFKpFBVq1k2mZIy5mBPxC6nBTJHzuSWtZQSVw/edit#gid=1144428085
>>80653574 >>80656728
cont.
and a random selection from the database:
>8/20/2014 13:30:17
>9/27/2003
>OH - Ohio Preble
>West Alexandria
>Preble County Emergency Services Unit Clayton Helriggle 23 Male White
>Not of Hispanic or Latino origin
>Killed
>Weapon:Cup
>Summary:They killed the dog too, of course. Clayton took shotgun round to the chest. >Reports of the police high-fiving each other afterwords.
http://triplehomicide.proboards.com/thread/12
The summary didn't state that the officers felt reasonably threatened- a very important variable that has not been taken into account:
>Friends called Helriggle "peaceful and nonviolent," but police said the 1997 Twin Valley South High School graduate held a 9 mm handgun, not a blue cup, in his right hand when he descended the dimly lighted stairs. Roommates said Helriggle owned a 9 mm gun, but that it was upstairs when police entered their house.
>TLDR The officers perceived the apprehended as carrying a weapon.
Was this justified? Unjustified? I can't make that call until more details come to light, but the fact that this was excluded from the database makes me wary of the methodology.
>>80654751
Tennessee v. Garner pretty much BTFO your entire post. Only if there is probable cause that the officer's life or another's life is in jeopardy are they justified in using deadly force during an attempted arrest.
>>80646398
>It is sometimes suggested that in urban areas with more black residents and higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime
>suggested
Excellent way to discredit yourself in the first sentence.
>>80655952
>facts are racist
Where did I say this?
>police lie
This statement is readily accepted by people on both sides of the fence, why is it suddenly in question? Oh, because in this instance doing so would help a nigger lover's argument, better stonewall and play the obtuse game.
>>80646398
Unarmed blacks are twice as likely to be shot by a black officer than by a white officer.
>>80647320
>>80655595
>"threatening" or "resisting arrest" should not automatically be justification for lethal force--there is a plethora of tools and techniques that police worldwide have used successfully on those threatening or resisting arrest,
Then to make a fairer judgement we have to look at total police interactions.
Not all cases of resisting arrest are met with firing upon the resistor, and I suspect a very small portion.
>there is a plethora of tools and techniques that police worldwide have used successfully on those threatening or resisting arrest
and they are typically used, depending on how the situation turns out.
a situation may go from verbalization, to restraint, to tasering, to shooting.
it may go from tasering to arrest in an apprehension, if the suspect was violent and a taser deemed appropriate.
It may go from verbalizing straight to shooting.
>>80649504
What the fuck
Are those tweets real?
Holy fuck I am mad
It looks literally no different from actually drawing a gun
>>80646398
learn to green text you fag
>>80649639
>I think it's a problem that American cops apparently aren't capable of subduing an unarmed suspect without killing them.
Then maybe unarmed suspects should stop
>motioning as if they are drawing a gun (alton sterling)
>grabbing at a cop's gun (michael brown)
>>80656447
This study doesn't disprove other evidence; it makes some specific claims based on data whose limitations the author admits, and one claim in particular I chose because it contradicts an argument used very widely on this shithole.
So far, besides the study in the post immediately before yours that I haven't had a chance to look at in detail, there's been literally one contradictory study posted here, and I've given my thoughts on why I think it's hardly the nail in the racial bias coffin. It's all well and good to make vague claims about the proportion of evidence supporting you, but until you provide it, your claims are worthless. I posted one study and have mostly limited myself to discussing that one study.
>>80656331
Yes, sometimes police just wanna talk to a nigga and he forces them to BTFO him
Unnecessary escalation is symptomatic of law enforcement in ghetto environs, as a consequence of attempting to enforce White laws on Black bodies
>>80656135
>>80653785
Anon was referring to the fact that anon actually made an example about unarmed people being arrested. Which you apparently overread but no biggie.
Here's how I view it - you oppose the police, you risk getting shot. Point blank period. Nobody's perfect and we can talk about suboptimal police training, or these guys going overboard here and there, but these are the guys in charge of keeping peace and order. If you attracted their attention, chances are you've already fucked up and have been a threat to public wellbeing. Now if even while handcuffed on the floor you feel the need to kick them, I mean it sounds harsh but man you don't deserve to partake in this society any more. If you don't even respect the guys who's express purpose is protecting others from threats? Enforcing the laws we all live by? Who are the single one instance legally able to apply force? And armed, and trained in the usage of arms? And you feel the need to attack them? Attacking a police officer is like attacking the entirety of society. And if there's even only the SLIGHTEST bit of a possibility that you pose a threat to a police officer, I'd rather have him shoot the guy on the floor than taking any chances. Because the mere act of opposing him is testament of the fact that you have no qualms opposing the basicmost principles every single one of us has to abide by in order for our society to work.
That's my 2 cents.
>>80649504
>pretend to be drawing a gun
>WHY U SHOOT ME
>RACISSSSSSSSSS
>>80657602
shit report due to incredibly tiny sample size
seriously, look it up
>>80658243
Nobody's absolutely denying the existence of racial bias
Hell ethnocentrism is a biological human instinct and I would hope a white cop still has some of that left in him
But there's no way 90% of the effects we're observing aren't due to incredibly excessive niggery in the first place.
>>80658550
Make Deutschland Gross Again
>>80658243
>I posted one study and have mostly limited myself to discussing that one study.
You haven't. I've read most of your posts. You make your own conclusions and betray your beliefs which have nothing to do with your study at all about race, and then claim some arrogant attitude that everyone else is being stupid for not being obedient to your study. Hypocrisy is definitely hard to see in yourself but it will due you good to see it.
I should say also a major flaw in your way of thinking is that cops are somehow going to be sane and reasonable when it comes to violence and shitty attitudes towards them. Everyone knows that many black people especially in poor areas have very shitty attitudes and one upping behavior and thinking. The bias based on race is inconclusive to say the least. And if this is real bias, its based on real, actual differences between races, and thus not "racist".
You put to much credence in studies instead of observation and intelligent correlation.
>>80657313
>Tennessee v. Garner
Kek I fucked up. Mea culpa
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html
>Officers cannot resort to deadly force unless they "have probable cause . . . to believe that the suspect [has committed a felony and] poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community if left at large."
However, lets cede that and assume officers need to be held to a probable cause standard as opposed to reasonable suspicion.
But say that is true
>Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given
I still suspect this accounts for a disproportionate amount of shootings done by police, and unjustified shootings still remain the minority.
The real question we need to answer is
>are unjustified shootings by police, under this standard, done disproportionately against one race over another, and if so by how much?
>>80649504
I feel like this is a form of natural selection.
>>80656728
>>80657170
Reading over the details of that case, it seems very grey-area to me. Apparently the police raided the house under very tenuous reasoning, and the guy coming downstairs wasn't even aware that it was the police, who shot him without any verbal warning. So technically he had a weapon, but it doesn't seem like he did anything to justify being killed.
So overall I'd say that particular entry is not indicative of the dataset being invalid.
4% of the population (black makes between 16 and 35) are responsible for around 50% of homicides.
>higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime
I see, blacks have no agency and no moral compass.
>>80646398
Simple response:
blacks resist arrest more violently/stupidly when unarmed
>>80658550
>Here's how I view it - you oppose the police, you risk getting shot.
>And if there's even only the SLIGHTEST bit of a possibility that you pose a threat to a police officer, I'd rather have him shoot the guy on the floor than taking any chances
Whoah, Fritz hold on. This is bad, but in the other direction.
I still support the resistance, by force, if need be, of LEOs were negligent, unwarranted, did not have probable cause, or were otherwise unjustified?
Did the entire internet devolve into cucks and bootlickers on this matter with no middle ground?
>>80646894
Being unarmed does make you not a threat. I'm pretty sure mma fighters are unarmed but could kill a cop with their bare hands. Your mentality of "unarmed people should not be seen as a threat" is fucking stupid
>>80649504
What was that stupid prick's name?
>>80657852
This was a lot of words to not address my point that resisting arrest is meaningless--only actions indicating imminent harm are justification for shooting, at least according to SCOTUS. If police can't subdue a suspect they need to call for backup; if the suspect is going to run off in the meantime, so be it. If they're unarmed and not about to choke the officer or make a gesture indicating they are drawing out a gun or run across the street to a nuclear bomb trigger device, then you don't fucking shoot them, period.
>>80658243
The "study" might as well say "black young men get shot at a rate far beyond their population share because they act like niggers", because those are the findings.
>>80658550
>kicking someone while handcuffed on the group means you should die
OK, thanks for sharing. I'll be sure to not waste any more time reading further shitposting from your ID.
>>80646398
>Unarmed blacks are several times more likely to be shot than unarmed whites.
shot by whom?
>>80659346
Feel free to point out where I made claims requiring evidence outside of the study, besides saying that cops lie in their reports.
>>80659373
>unjustified shootings still remain the minority
I agree with this and never suggested otherwise.
Your final question is one the study asks as well.
>>80660523
black police officers, LOL
this is the real nail in the coffin to OP's nignoggery
>>80660542
Missing the point. I'm pointing out your blind spots and attempting to be polite about it. If you don't want to see them and become a more reasonable and intellectual person, that's fine, but I want everyone to be better.
>>80660048
I like how you just assume, without any evidence, that unarmed black people are unstoppable elite hand-to-hand combat experts who could only be taken down with a gun. Not to mention not once in this thread did I say unarmed = not a threat, although I did imply that unarmed = less of a threat than holding a weapon (which I dare say is a reasonable statement).
Unarmed can't 100% be a proxy for non-threatening, true, and that has been addressed already. But you certainly can't assume the reverse, especially given that all cops have access to things that are both (a) more effective than fists and (b) nonlethal, and if those things don't work, they can withdraw and call for backup. If a life is in danger and waiting for backup is not an option, and you've exhausted all other timely means, only then can you shoot.
>>80660896
No, you're claiming I have blind spots but refusing to point them out. I'm actually requesting that you explicitly show me.
>>80660758
Again, this study and I have made no claims about why the numbers are the way they are--maybe black police officers fucking hate niggers and want to shoot them all, I don't know.
The funny thing is that my true belief is that American cops are too trigger-happy in general, not necessarily biased towards blacks, but I wanted to point out this specific thing that pol likes to harp on like the faggots you all are.
>>80646398
>socio-economic situation/circumstance determines the morality of an action
Heh, no.
this comes this discredit Leftwing idea that Humans are born innately good and the ones that are bad are corrupted and therefore their crimes aren't really theirs but just societies shortcomings manifest.
The Left has no morality, they believe morality is relative and malleable, this is the reason we have these garbage theories.
>>80648309
"Every single video..."
Simply not true, you're empirically wrong, kill yourself.
See: Eric Gardner
>>80646398
Blacks resist arrest and fight with police at higher rates than any other group.
The reality is they commit more violent crime and have shown to be statistically violent with citizens or police. It is only logical that more unarmed blacks would be shot by police, given the amount of violent crime they commit and the rates at which they resist arrest.
Before "muh racism in crime," the NVCS correlates nearly perfectly with the FBI crime data.
better study >>80661267
>>80662049
"It is sometimes suggested that...
HOWEVER..."
How many times in this thread is someone going to misinterpret this very clear set of English sentences? You literally are deriving the exact opposite fucking meaning from what was intended.
I am really getting butt blasted over how dumb you fucking right wing pol faggots are; it's no wonder that you're so incredibly ignorant given your pathetic reading comprehension.
>>80662391
They shouldn't have had him in a choke hold, but he was visibly resisting arrest prior to the point you can logically claim "he was fighting for air!"
>>80662662
Literally posted 3 times before you cuck, responded to, debated over, etc
>>80661549
I've pointed them out already, but lets try another way.
If you were only disputing arguments against the study, you would not be disputing arguments saying that blacks are far more criminal in nature on average and less capable of suppressing instincts due to to genetics, and thus this is the likely cause of more police shootings of blacks. If you were only basing things on that study and refuting assertions without evidence, you would not feel the need to refute arguments which attempt to show the study is not really conclusive because of empiricism, observation and other mountains of evidence. This displays hat you have attachment to the study and want to have it contribute to your worldview and thus are being unreasonable about its conclusions
Then you be snippy to people who aren't entirely basing things on the study. Thus you are also being arrogant without cause and hypocritical.
You also betray biases for the term "racist" which is simply Soviet thought control. You think cops should be good people and not act unreasonably. That isn't humanity. No one is capable of that. Another display of bias.
One study doesn't doesn't prove much, it has flaws for basing anything on it that have been pointed out again and again.
>>80646398
It's not violent crimes that correlate, it's IQ/resisting arrest. Take those into consideration, and the discrepancy is entirely accounted for.
>>80646398
I would just show you these stats and go about my life after btfo-ing you.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7347/7-statistics-show-systemic-racism-doesnt-exist-aaron-bandler?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Blacks are also much more likely to resist arrest.
>>80662804
Philando Castile was resisting as well, I presume? And Tamir Rice?
>>80662957
>tfw human behavioral genetics is in its infancy
>tfw the jews are trying to kill it
>>80662936
>you would not be disputing arguments saying that blacks are far more criminal in nature on average
You mean I wouldn't be asking for sources of these assertions? Because that's what I've done. I suppose you could interpret "not blindly accepting a statement about niggers being violent" as implicit denial of said statement, but you could also call it "fostering an evidence-based debate". It's baffling to me that you're trying to call me out for NOT basing my posts on naked assertions; this is truly new ground being broken in the history of rhetoric.
>empiricism, observation and other mountains of evidence
Again, things that haven't been posted.
>attachment to the study
The whole thread is based on the study, do you realize that? That's why it keeps coming back up. This isn't "blacks harmed by police general".
>snippy to people who aren't entirely basing things on the study
I think it's more accurate to say "Insulting people who expect pulling things out of their ass to be equivalent of presenting supporting evidence".
>racist" which is simply Soviet thought control
lol
You're using the word bias to basically mean "opinion". You certainly are able to do that, but just be aware that everyone else has collectively agreed that "bias" has a negative connotation and therefore you look like an absolute tool when you keep dragging that word out to try to discredit me for having a stance that I made a reasonable attempt to support.
>>80649504
Shit like this woke me up to the fact that Soros is pulling a Rhodesia on us. They keep up the narrative and the rest of the world will believe it and then come the accusations of mass nigger genocide, then the sanctions and blockades, then we become Africa.
>>80662957
[citation needed]
>>80664894
the overwhelming evidence is that Americans of African descent commit more crime per capita than other ethnic groups, to such a degree that it matches the violent crime rates of much, much poorer African countries.
Humans are animals, and the burden of proof is on you to show that it is not in the nature of this particular group of animals to be more violent, when they are more violent
>>80664068
Wow what a well-reasoned critique of the study I linked to, that totally addresses the points the study raises
>>80665353
the study unfortunately has not been done, however there is a good correlation between having an IQ of 85 or lower and propensity to violent crime
>>80646398
http://www.colorofcrime.com/2016/03/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf#page=15
>>80649504
white guy near Tulsa just got shot for pretty much the same thing
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/newly-released-video-shows-man-fatally-shot-by-wagoner-officer/article_2e78147a-89db-5bc9-8db0-cf54693ed23a.html
pretty sure he doesn't have a hashtag trending
>>80665595
[citation needed]
>>80665694
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/demographics
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221
>>80665790
http://www.census.gov/
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-6
>>80661427
It's always easier to know if one is unarmed after the fact isn't it? Pretty sure it's different in the moment when a suspect reaches for something. Personally I'd rather not find out what he goes for. I bet you've never been in a threatening situation in your life.
>>80646613
tl;dr It's not the blackies fault they commit more violent crimes, because they are poor they should e excused from prosecution
>>80665912
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
>>80664328
>nigger walking around with realistic weapon
Are you implying he was harmless? Fuck you and fuck that kid along with his dumb ass parent
>>80665608
how is it not?
>>80665694
>>80665790
>>80665912
>>80666155
The Color of Crime report basically says "crime's going down, including black crime, oh blacks are still incarcerated more but they're arrested more therefore there can't be any cultural bias involved lol"
All the rest are just lazy "I can't articulate a point so let me post general links without any context or argument instead". Really the Color of Crime is barely related to the OP too but at least it addresses the issue of bias.
Wow this guy is so dumb he literally cherry picks his data to draw stats based on a few counties.
Anyone who replies to this guy is a faggot.
>>80666157
First off, that wasn't the fucking argument you moron. Secondly, if that kid was shot he wouldn't have been killed. Third, keep saying nigger, hopefully soon it make help you form your argument better.
Wonder how often unarmed blacks are more likely to resist arrest or become aggressive towards an officer.
>>80666155
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-biggest-murder-capitals-in-the-us-2014-07-14
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/04/gun-control-advocates-who-say-more-guns-equal-more-crime-might-not-want-to-read-this/
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/11/gun-violence-and-mass-shootings-myths-facts-and-solutions/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/11/gun-violence-and-mass-shootings-myths-facts-and-solutions/
>>80665994
Yep every time a black person is shot by police they always were reaching for something, brilliant work detective
>>80666405
The point is to throw the data out there from the horses mouth when possible and let people consume it and hopefully form an opinion.
>>80649504
>sell narcotics like a dumbass
>resist arrest and dont comply in any way and act belligerent enough to get a gun pointed at you
>rush police officer as he points a gun at you
>bluff him into thinking you have a gun
>while he has a gun pointed at you
>move your hand quickly like you are about to draw
>get shot
>WHY DID THIS HAPPEN
Im fucking baffled people are in an uproar over scumbags like Sterling and Brown
Why are cz's so pretty?
>>80666810
The reason they use poor examples of society often is because they don't actually care about their community. The victimization is just the angle from which they hope to profit from themselves. They try to make a career out of it some who are just not intelligent enough it's fifteen minutes of fame.
Unarmed blacks are several times more likely to be more shot by what other race?
Blacks. Killing rate by cops was already demonstrated to be equal in both races. It's all rethorics and shit, to up the democratic party on the elections. Don't buy that shit.
>>80664328
What do two anecdotes have to do with entire bodies of statistical data?
>>80666348
I guess you're trolling me but I'll throw this out before I leave:
the study I linked was that violent crime rates don't correlate with police shootings. The clickbait you posted was a mishmash of context-less stats, only one of which matched the point of the study. That stat was a reference to a study where they used a proxy experiment to try to determine how likely police were to shoot white vs black suspects--interesting, but its results don't match the actual rates at which police shoot whites vs blacks in real life, which isn't surprising considering it's literally one mid-size city police department out of thousands and thousands.
>>80664894
>The whole thread is based on the study, do you realize that?
It isn't. I just showed how it isn't. Your reply is weird and snippy instead of being reasonable or based on what I was trying to convey.
>You're using the word bias to basically mean "opinion".
I demonstrated how they were biases.
I guess you're fine with ignoring all your blind spots. Your ego is a little strange on an anonymous site.
>>80647320
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0
>>80666470
>literally cherry picks
You don't know what literally means, also you're a leaf so you're probably a fucking inbred faggot piece of shit
>>80646398
Black men are hundreds of times more likely to rape and murder white women than white men are to rape and murder black women.
What should white women do to save themselves from the high likelihood of being raped and murdered by black men?
>>80646398
This argument has been made and made and made. Do you know what the answer as to why cops seem racist is?
>Black people that get shot wouldn't shut the fuck up and do as commanded.
White people are 100% exactly as afraid of being shot by the cops as black people. Cops fucking terrify me. The difference is that we fucking KNOW that they will fucking shoot us if we don't shut the fuck up for the 15 minutes they are telling us what to do and that if they do, there won't be shit we or our families can do. Cops have unlimited power and white people are smart enough to realize we give them "license to kill" so that way they can when we need them to. There are certain sacrifices that must be made to maintain the social contract.
>>80666746
No, the point is to try to drown out debate by flooding with links so that you can try to play "gotcha" when someone voices a contrary opinion. "B-BUT YOU CAN'T ARGUE UNTIL YOU READ ALL THOSE LINKS!!" You have no intention of presenting a coherent stance and you know it you intellectually dishonest subhuman. Not to mention I doubt you've read 10% of what you posted--it's probably just citations from some Stormfront faggot's niggerbashing megapost.
>>80646894
No, because you didn't prove racial profiling. All you did was post evidence to the OPPOSITE.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634878/
OP is an idiot. I oonly read twenty posts in before deciding to kill myself. He had the study, but for whatever fucking reason, decided not to post it.
This is why /pol/ is winning. Because of idiotic liberals like you, >>80667952
>>80667779
Don't bother. Argument has been ignored. Not peppered with citations for justified use of common sense.
>>80646398
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399
>tfw it was conducted by a black Ivy Leaguer
>>80668183
>yfw he accomplishes more than you ever will in your miserable life
>>80667779
Our society is vile and corrupt. The whole fucking system is the damn problem but only black people are brave/stupid enough to try and fight back.
>Think about it.
White people are generally wage slaves but we trade our freedoms for safety and prosperity. It's the social contract theory. Google that bullshit. So in a way, blacks are truly free to do whatever the fuck they want but they pay for that freedom in blood at the hands of those whose job it is to maintain the status quo.
>>80668275
You're probably right.
>>80650367
OK, if I'm reading this correctly it is based on population and refers to the lifetime / in a specific time period risk of being shot, regardless of how often you have interacted with police.
Of course a black is more likely to be shot. All this shows is that people with more interaction with police are more likely to be shot. This is obvious.
Also unarmed does not mean "did not assault the officer."
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
This table can be used for a number of interesting calculations. First, we find that during the 2012/2013 period, blacks committed an average of 560,600 violent crimes against whites, whereas whites committed only 99,403 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites. This figure is consistent with reports from 2008, the last year DOJ released similar statistics. Perhaps not coincidentally, that was the year Mr. Obama was elected president.
Blacks commit 84.9% of ALL violent crimes against BLACKS and WHITES.
Maybe they should fix this number and things will work themselves out.
>>80667590
Maybe you don't know how 4chan works, but we have these things called "threads". The original poster (OP) sets the topic of the thread. I'm the OP, I posted a study and asked for a response. Thus, this thread is a debate about whether blacks committing violent crimes is an explanation for why they're shot so often.
If people want to sling shit that's outside the scope of the thread, I'm going to call them on it. They have the right to keep doing it I suppose, if they want to derail the thread.
I've noticed that you like to make vague claims about things you've done in the thread that you haven't:
>I've pointed them out already
>I just showed how it isn't
then when pushed to give specific examples you just post more vagaries. It's a very lazy way of arguing and honestly you should try to clean that up if you want to be taken seriously. Try posting actual quotes, post numbers, things like that. I can give you more pointers if you are looking to improve yourself friend.
>>80656331
Yep, police interactions are a lot different in high-crime areas than low-crime. You may have an overall negative relationship with police in these areas and people even who don't commit crimes are used to speaking with police on a day-to-day basis as the police are always around and trying to maintain a relationship or "keep and eye on" things.
>>80667952
>No, the point is to try to drown out debate by flooding with links so that you can try to play "gotcha" when someone voices a contrary opinion. "B-BUT YOU CAN'T ARGUE UNTIL YOU READ ALL THOSE LINKS!!" You have no intention of presenting a coherent stance and you know it you intellectually dishonest subhuman. Not to mention I doubt you've read 10% of what you posted--it's probably just citations from some Stormfront faggot's niggerbashing megapost.
Quite a bit of assuming going on. You don't have to read or open a single link. I didn't offer an opinion on any of those articles or links. If someone wants to look at the information they can. If they do not then that's their choice too.
Looks like you're getting emotional perhaps a bit irrational.
>>80668292
Being randomly violent and aggressive isn't fighting back. They are incapable of even directing their anger at the right people it seems like.
>>80646398
>>80667616
What a surprise, the study doesn't at all conclude what pol said it did (blacks "should" get gunned down more). Also this is what, the 5th time someone has posted it in this thread? You guys know modern browsers have a Find function to help you search for things on a page right?
>>80668275
>tfw he only got there to fulfill a diversity quota
>>80647273
Yeah yurop police have never been corrupt or abused power or beaten people in custody.
How could they when they don't have guns?
>>80668660
You don't magically set the tone for a thread because you're the OP, and you've made tons of posts not even about the study. This is silly.
Why are you such a snippy bitch when I was trying to help you? I'm not going to go back and find every single post you made that was showing your biases. I showed what they were you can see them in your posts now. If you had more self-understanding you'd see my critiques were valid, you should remember what you've posted in your own special thread. You defensiveness suggests you may know I was correct in some way.
>>80668705
I didn't say they were doing it right. The fact they keep getting shot and arrested proves that. But statistics show that if a black guy wants to steal, rape, kill, fight, or otherwise he is more likely to just do it. In a way it's true freedom, but true freedom cannot exist in organized society. It works as hunter/gatherers because there is no "law" to uphold. Without the social contract the world would have never developed and we'd still be shitting in bushes. All black people are trying to accomplish is the total dissolution of the social contract. They just don't understand that is what they are doing.
>>80667779
Already addressed this shit Fascist Cucklord. Police don't get to shoot just because someone's talking shit or squirming on the ground.
>le bootlicker may-may
I swear to God, you police haters. What if we were in a civil war? You'd fight against our police and military and then exclaim "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW YOU CAN'T DO THAT" when your ass gets shot.
>>80653709
Welcome to statism.
Social rules are ultimately enforced with a threat of death. Shiit racism!!!
>>80669140
That goes off into criminality and median IQ on the races though.
>>80669190
And you've been addressed back numerous times that police aren't moral paragons, they're people who are under a massive amount of stress and life threatening situations. They see black people behave worse, they have to act worse to control the sitch. This is one of the blind spots I was showing you. But this is becoming weird, I'm gonna leave your cool thread man. Maybe one more. Here's a post number of yours displaying bias.
>>80669190
Really? Because it sure fucking seems like they do. You can argue the morality all you want, but guess what... if some guy of any fucking color is assaulting you or your loved ones you are gonna want someone to beat his ass or fucking shoot him. To have that power you are inherently giving the cops the authority to decide when they can kill you. Either they can or they can't. You can't tell them they can but then say they aren't allowed to decide when it is necessary. Of course they are going to fuck it up. They are humans and it's what we do, but either let them make that decision or tell them they aren't allowed to at all and see how fast shit breaks down.
>>80668689
Then why not just post google.com if you're just here to facilitate the spread of information? Certainly you didn't just pick sources that only support one side of the debate, no, you're the great neutral wise one.
>>80646398
1. IS THE DATA ADJUSTED FOR THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MORE WHITES THAN BLACKS IN AMERICA? Yes, the data is adjusted for the different population sizes.
2. WHAT IF YOU USED NONVIOLENT CRIME DATA INSTEAD OF VIOLENT CRIME DATA? The data comes to the same conclusion, no matter if we use violent or nonviolent crime numbers. This post today looks at ALL arrests.
3. WHY USE ARRESTS? The best way to measure police violence would be to calculate what percentage of police interactions result in people being killed. The problem is, "interactions with police" is simply not a statistic I've ever come across. So to test the theory that police are more apt to resort to deadly force during an interaction with blacks than with whites, we need a proxy measure for "interactions with police." The best one I can think of for which data exists is arrests. An arrest pretty much necessitates an interaction between police and citizens.
SOURCES: SOURCES: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=%2Farrests%2Findex.cfm#
http://wonder.cdc.gov/cmf-icd10.html #crime #Dallas #blacklivesmatter #AltonSterling #police
>>80669719
Semantics. You're also being a bit disingenuous. Bulk of the stats are from the source where most people draw from the government. The others posted were more or less from either side of the political spectrum in the USA. New York Times? The Blaze come on man stop being obtuse.
>>80665708
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/dylan-noble-fresno-white-lives-matter-police-shooting-video
This as well. I have no issue with the protests against police officers and people wanting them to be accountable, but I feel like the entire situation is being poisoned by BlackLivesMatter and the mainstream media.
The mainstream media has primarily been reporting on black killings by white cops, and then social media has these hashtags saying "#Justice4____" when they're black and get the coverage. When it happens to someone who's skin isn't dark enough like a latino or a white person, it just gets ignored and social media doesn't get enough traction to get it trending.
All this is going to do is lead to legislation only to aid blacks and make cops extra sensitive around blacks. The focus needs to be shifted towards cops paying attention to everybody and being aware of their consequences if they do something like his to anyone.
>>80669081
>You don't magically set the tone for a thread because you're the OP
Actually that's the whole point. You don't start a thread about hotrods and expect it to turn into a Game of Thrones general. It's true that I don't have any ability to moderate it, but the idea is that the thread is centered in the topic broached by the OP and straying from that is derailment, which is generally looked down upon.
I feel like I'm talking to an autist, explaining why they can't hum Minecraft music during a funeral.
>I showed what they were
There we go again. Not even one time have you actually pointed out one specific thing I said and how it was an example of whatever horseshit you claimed.
I said I was leaving a while ago so I'm leaving for real this time. Maybe I'll run into you in another thread and give you a few pointers on how to communicate effectively.
>higher levels of inequality
call you a fag and tell you kill yourself
Holy shit as I was closing tabs I saw this, I have to post it as a parting shot:
>“The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black,” said Justin Nix, a criminal justice researcher at the University of Louisville and one of the report’s authors. “Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.”
>Black individuals shot and killed by police were less likely to have been attacking police officers than the white individuals fatally shot by police, the study found.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/study-finds-police-fatally-shoot-unarmed-black-men-at-disproportionate-rates/2016/04/06/e494563e-fa74-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?tid=a_inl
Enjoy hating niggers pol.
The black bros on Fox News BTFO'd all of you racist assholes. You don't understand systemic racism. You're so poorly educated, and you probably didn't even graduate college. Have fun being bitter permavirgins.
>>80666097
but poor white people don't commit nearly as many crimes, and there's more of them
>>80646398
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZRCt4v4G_I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMVysV1lp98
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU9mI4fkiDo
>>80671100
>The racial biases and behaviors of officers upon encountering a suspect could clearly be components of the relative risk effects observed in the data, but other social factors could also contribute to the observed patterns in the data. More specifically, heterogeneity in encounter rates between suspects and police as a function of race could play a strong role in the racial biases in shooting rates presented here.
>>80671100
Cool, you should make a thread about it later.
>>80647183
Imagine your mom being on a bus, sitting with people who listen to nirvana vs being on a bus, sit ting with people who listen to NWA
seriously, just imagine that
>>80646398
>ore black residents and higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime
How exactly does being poor justify 6% of the population being responsible for...
>60% of murders
>30% of rape
>30% of arson
>>80671275
That's the other tidbit many look over when presenting racially biased data on blacks. White communities even poor don't show the same level of criminality as black/hispanic/immigrant(muzzie) which brings it back to a racial difference which is ignored. Whites of course are at a disadvantage due to racist and other discriminatory practices but East Asians are more often than not hurt even more and are as such a minority population.
>>80666097
This is literally what liberals are saying. The poverty defense for every crime.
What about Asians? Asians and just about every other race/ethnicity for that matter is able to rise out of poverty within a generation or two.
>>80670127
Anon, you're using logic and rationality vs emotions and feels. It's unwinnable.
