People are Individuals - recent shootings

↑ sushilover ↓

Wed, Jul 13 2016, 5:58 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

I applaud your attempt at decency and fairness, but it is so far removed from practical reality that it's scary. With your reasoning cops should be frisking woman in equal numbers as they are frisking men even though the men are committing 95% of the crimes. How about the elderly? Should cops frisk people over 80 who commit less than 1% of violent crimes in equal proportion that they frisk young males? Should law enforcement devote an equal amount of man power to neighborhoods that have virtually no violent crime at all as with neighborhoods that have shootings everyday? Please answer yes or no.

I agree.
I would also like to add that De Blasio and all the frisk and stop opponents have blood on their hands. As stop and frisks have gone down, violent crimes and murders have gone up. And guess who are the victims of 96% of the shootings? You got it. Minorities.

↑ WhatFor ↓

Wed, Jul 13 2016, 9:04 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

I think we completely disagree on the role of police in the US. I don't believe we should live in a police state. Police should neither be stopping people at random nor based on race. Police should not be interfering in any citizen's day to day life unless the individual has given the police reason to believe that he or she is in the act of committing a crime. If they've not given the police reason to believe they are a danger or in the act of committing a crime (including on their way to and fleeing, which is part of committing a crime) then police should be required to get a warrant to search people. The government should not have that much power over the civilian's day to day life.

↑ shoshanim999 ↓

Wed, Jul 13 2016, 10:43 pm

WhatFor wrote:

But you say that from the standpoint that you live in a safe neighborhood where you don't have to worry that bullets will fly thru your window as your putting your kids to sleep. In a hypothetical situation if people in your neighborhood c'vs were getting shot and people would wake up during the night from the gunfire outside their windows, I think you wouldn't be so liberal about law enforcement doing everything they can to contain the danger in your neighborhood including frisking people that look the part.

↑ shoshanim999 ↓

Wed, Jul 13 2016, 11:00 pm

youngishbear wrote:

They should be targeting individuals who raise their suspicion.

Not "blue people because blue people commit most of the crimes."

Do you get the difference?

I highly doubt criminals that commit acts of violence look suspicious even 10 seconds before the act. Criminals don't walk down the street waving there guns in the air for cops to determine that someone is suspicious. The bottom line is that we can't have it both ways. We can't have our civil liberties fully protected and also live in the safest possible environment. Something has to give on one side. For some reason people hate statistics but here's a good one: In the 11 years the followed the former mayor of NY Michael Bloombergs stop and frisk policy, there were 7500 fewer murders then in the preceding 11 years. The lives that were saved by this policy? Blacks and Hispanics. Now I'm sure the majority of the minorities that were S@F during those 11 years were completely innocent and felt violated by the intrusion. But at the end of the day it indisputably saved thousands of black lives. Again we can't have it both ways.

↑ sushilover ↓

Thu, Jul 14 2016, 10:25 am

WhatFor wrote:

Tim Scott, a Republican congressman from South Carolina had this to say:

Scott is hardly the first Republican to fall for the BLM narrative.

It's very easy and politically smart to put feeling before evidence. The black community feels like they are unfairly targeted. Anecdotal evidence and headlines back up the feelings. Politicians unfortunately have nothing to lose by showing off how sensitive and emotional they are instead of looking at the real data and talking about solutions that are backed by facts.

Marco Rubio: "millions of our fellow Americans feel they are treated differently, and they are scared." (evidence shows that minorities are actually stopped less than the rate of criminal behavior in their population.But it would be political suicide for most politicians to actually point that out.)

Newt Gingrich: " if you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don't understand being black in America." (So now we are only allowed to have a say in areas which directly affect us? Does that mean that non-inmate politicians are not allowed to discuss policies which can affect inmates? Does that mean that female voters cannot vote on a bill about paternity laws?
Pro-choice advocates have already told us that men are not allowed a say in the abortion discussion because it only affects women's bodies.... Where will this identity politics end???

↑ WhatFor

Thu, Jul 14 2016, 6:30 pm

sushilover wrote:

I'm not really sure what your angle is, but you've been provided with sufficient evidence to indicate that black people suffer from racism in the US.
Scott spoke about true experiences, not feelings. You're the one inserting commentary about feelings in response to ample data, evidence, and statistics. In the previous article I posted, the officer specifically was instructed by seniority to target black men.
It's not politically beneficial for any Republican to stand behind the BLM movement. They don't earn more votes from their party by supporting BLM.
In any case, I'm done here. I've dedicated enough time to trying to help you understand what the BLM is upset about.
It seems that you're more interested in sounding off on why black people are not being treated inferiorly than in entertaining the very likely possibility that they are.
Irrelevant to the rest of the topic, you've also indicated that you're upset that men cannot have a say in women's reproductive lives. I'm not sure how that's relevant or why that even concerns you, but I'll leave that to others to speculate why.

↑ sushilover

Thu, Jul 14 2016, 10:34 pm

WhatFor wrote:

I'm not really sure what your angle is, but you've been provided with sufficient evidence to indicate that black people suffer from racism in the US.

I never really argued about racism in general. My arguments have been to prove that contrary to what BLM claims, there is no evidence of institutional/systemic racism- particularly in law enforcement. Anyone who claims otherwise, from Obama down, is slandering and maligning our cops.

WhatFor wrote:

Scott spoke about true experiences, not feelings. You're the one inserting commentary about feelings in response to ample data, evidence, and statistics. In the previous article I posted, the officer specifically was instructed by seniority to target black men.

I was not given too much accurate and up to date "data and statistics". I was mostly given anecdotal evidence, while I have shown clear proof that blacks in this country are not being targeted unfairly.
Even assuming that the officer in your article was told to target minorities, that would be bad, but it does not prove that law enforcement are racist. You would need to show a statistical trend.

Whenever anyone on this thread showed data, I have analyzed and responded to it. You have not responded to any of the data I have presented except to say that you haven't looked at the statistics on shooting. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?

WhatFor wrote:

It's not politically beneficial for any Republican to stand behind the BLM movement. They don't earn more votes from their party by supporting BLM.

I disagree with that. But in any case, they gain by making themselves appear compassionate without actually having to help anyone.

WhatFor wrote:

In any case, I'm done here.

WhatFor wrote:

I've dedicated enough time to trying to help you understand what the BLM is upset about.

I know what BLM is upset about. They are upset because they think African Americans are being murdered by cops. Shouldn't you be thrilled to be presented with clear proof that no, they are not? In the rare case that a cop has acted unlawfully, the cop was charged and imprisoned.

WhatFor wrote:

It seems that you're more interested in sounding off on why black people are not being treated inferiorly than in entertaining the very likely possibility that they are.

I would entertain the possibility if the facts backed that up. They don't.
Again, I wrote about so many studies and statistics proving my point, that I started to bore myself! (Nah, just kidding. Well researched data will never be boring! Very Happy

) The numbers are quite clear: blacks were not being targeted unfairly during stop and frisk. There is no evidence they were targeted unfairly in Ferguson. And they are not being "systematically and intentionally targeted for demise" (words of BLM)

WhatFor wrote:

Irrelevant to the rest of the topic, you've also indicated that you're upset that men cannot have a say in women's reproductive lives. I'm not sure how that's relevant or why that even concerns you, but I'll leave that to others to speculate why.

This concerns me because claiming that a specific population can have no say in a policy simply because it doesn't seem to directly concern them is a dangerous path to go down.

↑ cbsp

Mon, Jul 18 2016, 10:13 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

I thought of your post when I read this today:

A Facebook post by Jay Stalien, a black police officer from Brooklyn (Jul 9, '16)

https://m.facebook.com/story.p.....84159