WSJ--The Myth of Systemic Police Racism

[Spider-Dan]

According to statistics reported to the FBI, 89 law enforcement officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents in 2019. What percentage does that make up? I'm pretty sure there are a hell of a lot less police than black or white in this country.

Out of those 89 deaths, how many officers do you think a) were unarmed and b) were blamed for their own deaths, with their admitted killer being absolved of any crime?

The problem is precisely that even when black people are unarmed, police regularly use lethal force to subdue them... and the use of such force is almost always determined to be "justified."

[Dolphster]

Narrowly as in the cops being charged with the crimes they should have been charged with day 1.  

I agree that they should have been charged day 1 as long as they had enough information at the time to establish probable cause.  Not having sufficient probable cause when they filed charges against him would have resulted in him avoiding charges on a technicality.  And none of us want that.    Not sure what that has to do with whether riots "work" or not though.  I thought we were discussing whether or not rioting brings about positive, impactful, and lasting improvement for inner city minorities.  If you meant rioting works just in how fast charges are filed, I would say that is pretty short sighted and not treating the actual problem.  I would much rather that the DA takes a couple days to make sure they are putting together airtight charges rather than rushing to throw something together sloppily that could lead to the cop beating the rap on a technicality.  If the cop was a flight risk, then I would think differently.  As for Murder in the 1st degree versus Murder in the 3rd degree, I'm not an expert in Minnesota state law.  Actually I know nothing about Minnesota state law.  But from what I have read, in Minnesota that differentiation is based upon intent.  The court would have a hell of a time proving that he intended to kill the victim.  I'd rather have a conviction on Murder 3 than an acquittal on Murder 1. 

[Tenshot13]

The problem is precisely that even when black people are unarmed, police regularly use lethal force to subdue them... and the use of such force is almost always determined to be "justified."

From the article:

a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

Do you think this might have anything to do with it? 

[Dave Gray]

From the article:

a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

Do you think this might have anything to do with it? 

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

[Sunstroke]

Narrowly as in the cops being charged with the crimes they should have been charged with day 1. 

Day 1? As in "the day it happened?"  If you believe that a cop would be charged without any kind of investigation into it, I believe you might be high.

[Spider-Dan]

From the article:

a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

Do you think this might have anything to do with it?

It has nothing to do with it, on multiple levels:

1) How likely is it for an officer to be killed by an unarmed black man?
2) How likely is it that if an officer kills am unarmed black man, it will be considered a crime?

It's obvious that getting the police to treat armed black men the same way they treat angry armed white men is hopeless; we are far, far away from that fantasy.  But we should be able to get to a point where police killing unarmed people (which is disproportionately black men) is not considered everyday police business, but rather a serious offense and potentially a crime.

[Dolphster]

Day 1? As in "the day it happened?"  If you believe that a cop would be charged without any kind of investigation into it, I believe you might be high.

That was pretty much my take on it too, but I just didn't want to be that blunt.   LOL

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

He is pivoting away from “cops aren’t racist” to the racism is justified.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Day 1? As in "the day it happened?"  If you believe that a cop would be charged without any kind of investigation into it, I believe you might be high.

Once the video was seen probable cause existed.  The day they were fired they should have been arrested. 

[Spider-Dan]

Once the video was seen probable cause existed.  The day they were fired they should have been arrested.

This is why the apologists for the Minneapolis cops are so pitiful.  If there were a 9-minute-long VIDEO of George Floyd kneeling on a restrained person's neck until they died, he would be booked instantly.

The fact that the coroner initially tried that weak-ass coverup of "Floyd just happened to have a heart attack which could have been caused by his poor health" - after the nation's eyes were already on this case! - is just more evidence of how disgustingly corrupt the system is.  They are so blatantly unaccustomed to accountability that they thought that was going to fly.

[Tenshot13]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

Socratic method.

[Dave Gray]

The socratic method is the way in which you're trying to get me to arrive at the point.  ...which I'm not.  So I'm asking, what's the point you're trying to make?

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[Tenshot13]

The socratic method is the way in which you're trying to get me to arrive at the point.  ...which I'm not.  So I'm asking, what's the point you're trying to make?

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

The Socratic Method isn't just some method to get you to arrive at a point.  The point was already made by Spider, the regularity of police deadly force used on unarmed black men.  That is the commonly held belief, the base of our discussion in this instance.  I'm asking Spider if a police officer is more likely to be shot by an African American influences the reason why police force is regularly used on unarmed black men, scrutinizing the commonly held belief.  It's all about asking questions to find contradictions in a belief, if there are any.  Questions are answered, then it's determine whether it's still capable of scrutiny of accepted as an absolute truth.  

I'm not in some us versus them mentality for this one, the article resonated with me so what better place to find scrutiny with it.  Plus I think it's a fair question to ask when a lot of people believe the police are inherently racist.

Why did you feel the need to ask what my point was?  What did you think I was getting at?

[Spider-Dan]

I'm asking Spider if a police officer is more likely to be shot by an African American influences the reason why police force is regularly used on unarmed black men, scrutinizing the commonly held belief.

I'm wondering why you posted the original article in the first place, since you apparently don't believe it (or are arguing as if you don't).

See, the point of the original article is that police treat black people fairly and without prejudice, and the statistics just reflect that black people commit more crimes.  But your argument is that since black people are "more likely" to commit violent crimes against police, this is why police treat them more harshly.

"More likely" is an calculation of probability.  By acting on a calculation of probability based on a person's race, the police would be - by definition - engaging in racism. Which directly contradicts the original article that says such action is a myth.

So which one is it?  Do the police use force more regularly on unarmed black men because black people are "more likely" to be a threat, or is "systemic police racism a myth"?

[Tenshot13]

I'm wondering why you posted the original article in the first place, since you apparently don't believe it (or are arguing as if you don't).

See, the point of the original article is that police treat black people fairly and without prejudice, and the statistics just reflect that black people commit more crimes.  But your argument is that since black people are "more likely" to commit violent crimes against police, this is why police treat them more harshly.

"More likely" is an calculation of probability.  By acting on a calculation of probability based on a person's race, the police would be - by definition - engaging in racism. Which directly contradicts the original article that says such action is a myth.

So which one is it?  Do the police use force more regularly on unarmed black men because black people are "more likely" to be a threat, or is "systemic police racism a myth"?

I didn't say I didn't believe the article, where are you getting that?  I took a part of the article and applied it to the question I asked you regarding your stance on unarmed African Americans.  She doesn't make that claim, I posed the question, and that's all it was...a question.

You guys seen to think I have some ulterior motive, like I'm going to have some "gotcha" moment.  So far, I've found this to be a healthy discussion.