It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Just Shot by White Supremacists

page: 26
31
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66

I still don't entirely understand... but I think you confirmed for me what I was thinking. So, for example, if one Black gangbanger commits 100 crimes, those 100 crimes are going to be statistically represented as 100 Black people commiting crimes, which totally and completely skews the statistical perception.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics -- Mark Twain



That's another rather extreme way to look at it, but that is part of the problem using a per capita estimate, yes.


But the statistic it doesn't change is the race of the offender the police will have to deal with. Police respond to violent crime. If over 70 percent of incidents are caused by blacks which group do you think is more likely to get shot by police. Want to solve this problem they need to get the numbers back in line with population. Since right now it screams a problem when vs whites and hispanics.


You make things up as necessary. Sort of like the sites you read. You're not being factual.




posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Indeed, we all have different experiences, different attitudes toward different things, and our own opinions.

I know Blacks who hate BLM as much as anyone, I know Whites that think it's the true social revolution of our time.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66

I still don't entirely understand... but I think you confirmed for me what I was thinking. So, for example, if one Black gangbanger commits 100 crimes, those 100 crimes are going to be statistically represented as 100 Black people commiting crimes, which totally and completely skews the statistical perception.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics -- Mark Twain



That's another rather extreme way to look at it, but that is part of the problem using a per capita estimate, yes.


But the statistic it doesn't change is the race of the offender the police will have to deal with. Police respond to violent crime. If over 70 percent of incidents are caused by blacks which group do you think is more likely to get shot by police. Want to solve this problem they need to get the numbers back in line with population. Since right now it screams a problem when vs whites and hispanics.


You make things up as necessary. Sort of like the sites you read. You're not being factual.


Feel free to prove the DOJ wrong on their stats. Violent crime statistics are straight forward so shouldn't be hard for you to disprove the department of justice who tracks it. All you do is offer your opinion good luck.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You didn't quote the DOJ. Please don't misrepresent the situation so obviously; that's just ridiculous.

The snippet that your white supremacist website "analyzed" says very clearly that for 2012, 22.4 percent of "violent crimes" convicted were perpetrated by Blacks.

Not 70%. Not "most." Not any of the other ludicrous examples you've made.

I see you're ducking completely the rancid, overt bias of your source, and the fact that you offer nothing to back up your claims about police violence.
edit on 29-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: dragonridr

You didn't quote the DOJ. Please don't misrepresent the situation so obviously; that's just ridiculous.

The snippet that your white supremacist website "analyzed" says very clearly that for 2012, 22.4 percent of "violent crimes" convicted were perpetrated by Blacks.

Not 70%. Not "most." Not any of the other ludicrous examples you've made.

I see you're ducking completely the rancid, overt bias of your source, and the fact that you offer nothing to back up your claims about police violence.


I agree with you that their source is biased, but it seems a large portion of those who visit such websites feel that the DOJ stats are also biased. An example would be in how the govt outreach programs for domestic abuse had a hotline for women to call if they were being abused by their spouse while the men were provided a hotline to call if they were going to abuse their spouse. The actual stats on that matter show a near parity of rates of abuse by both sexes.

That example is tangential to to racial stats, but would stand as evidence of a bias which fits in to the narrative put forth by many news organizations. So it is not too difficult to extend the idea that stats in other areas which are heavily scrutinized by those same organizations would carry a similar bias fitting their narrative.

In terms of terror though, the DOJ/ FBI/ CIA are responsible for far more of the actual plots which come to light than radicalised people of any given politics.

-FBB



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Can't make any statement about plots and so forth originating with government; I don't doubt what you say.

However, regardless of faulty statistics (which I would also allow for as DOJ admits they rely on local law enforcement data which we know is biased) the cited stats just don't say what was claimed.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: dragonridr

You didn't quote the DOJ. Please don't misrepresent the situation so obviously; that's just ridiculous.

The snippet that your white supremacist website "analyzed" says very clearly that for 2012, 22.4 percent of "violent crimes" convicted were perpetrated by Blacks.

Not 70%. Not "most." Not any of the other ludicrous examples you've made.

I see you're ducking completely the rancid, overt bias of your source, and the fact that you offer nothing to back up your claims about police violence.


Again your offering an opinion and doing nothing to prove the DOJ stats wrong. Shouldn't be hard if you claim there is some bias and the DOJ is some racist organization. Got to love it people don't agree they yell racism. This is why it has no meaning anymore but people like you still think it's effective. Again to make it simple prove the DOJ wrong show us how somehow the blacks were framed by the government or the doj altered the records for some racist agenda. I await your post this should be good.

Here to help you out I already compared doj to fbi data but here's the fbi too

www.fbi.gov...
edit on 11/29/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

If you're trying to be cute, you're failing miserably. I'm going over the facts between you and I one more time, and then, you're on your own.

1. I have not said that the Department of Justice is racist, nor have I challenged the validity of any stats provided by the DOJ.

2. I did note that the site you referenced that has cherry-picked the actual DOJ report you seem to think you're referring to, is owned and edited by a known White supremacist.

3. In the first table in the article from American Renaissance on your link, which is the only element that is actually FROM the DOJ in that article, it notes the following in the first line:

Total Violence (violent crimes) 6,484,507

Of that considered by "Race of Offender" (This is also in the first line.)

White 42.9%
Black 22.4%
Hispanic 14.8%
Other 12.1%
Unknown 7.8%

You asserted that these data prove that Blacks commit more crime than any other racial group.

If you understand percentages, you realize that 22.4% is less than 42.9%.

If you don't, take my word for it, 22.4% is less than 42.9%


edit on 29-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: dragonridr

If you're trying to be cute, you're failing miserably. I'm going over the facts between you and I one more time, and then, you're on your own.

1. I have not said that the Department of Justice is racist, nor have I challenged the validity of any stats provided by the DOJ.

2. I did note that the site you referenced that has cherry-picked the actual DOJ report you seem to think you're referring to, is owned and edited by a known White supremacist.

3. In the first table in the article from American Renaissance on your link, which is the only element that is actually FROM the DOJ in that article, it notes the following in the first line:

Total Violence (violent crimes) 6,484,507

Of that considered by "Race of Offender" (This is also in the first line.)

White 42.9%
Black 22.4%
Hispanic 14.8%
Other 12.1%
Unknown 7.8%

You asserted that these data prove that Blacks commit more crime than any other racial group.

If you understand percentages, you realize that 22.4% is less than 42.9%.

If you don't, take my word for it, 22.4% is less than 42.9%



Go back and look there is two classification the race of the offender and the race of the victim. You gave the statistics for a white victim only. You have to average it when they break it down my race it's called statistics. For example a black victim 6o percent of the time it's a black offender. Notice how out of skew that is when you add up white Hispanic and black you'll get your average.
edit on 11/30/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The first line is the TOTAL violent crimes and the breakdown is by race of offender.

I've pointed the fact out to you three times, and I'm done now.

I'm uninterested in how you want to manipulate and play with the data to make it fit your argument.


edit on 30-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
This thread has derailed into stupidity.

Just a conclusion from a guy who happily spend four days away from ATS and came back to look at this.

This thread really should be closed at this point, as it's one person basically telling everyone else that they are spinning a narrative. As Susan Powter once said:



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Charges will be filed against the four shooters (can anyone else confirm this? I'm watching the news)

Minneapolis Star Tribune



Meanwhile, charges are being filed Monday against the four men suspected in the shooting of several protesters last week outside the Fourth Precinct police station. Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said he’ll discuss the charges Monday afternoon during a downtown Minneapolis news conference.


Shooters are being charged (?) details to follow? (Judge had given prosecutors until 12 PM TODAY to decide on charges).

UPDATE: According to Channel 5 Eyewitness News Minneapolis (ABC) Source



Prosecutors say they'll announce charges against four men who were arrested after shots were fired at demonstrators protesting the killing of a black man by police in Minneapolis.

Police say five people were shot in the attack on Nov. 23, which happened near a police precinct where dozens of protesters have been camped since the Nov. 15 fatal shooting of Jamar Clark. No one had life-threatening wounds.

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman is planning a 1 p.m. Monday news conference to "announce charges against four defendants." Additional details weren't immediately available.

edit on 30-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

live.mprnews.org...

just saw it here



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonlover12
a reply to: Gryphon66

live.mprnews.org...

just saw it here


Thanks for another link. We'll have details on charges at 1 PM CST.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
from the Wall Street Journal



Prosecutors in Minneapolis charged four men Monday in connection with a shooting last week that left five people wounded at a protest sparked by the killing of a black man by police.

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman charged Allen Scarsella with five counts of second-degree assault and one count of second-degree riot. Joseph Backman, Nathan Gustavsson, and Daniel Macey were charged with second-degree riot.

Mr. Freeman said the shooting was racially motivated and described the four men as “sick people” when discussing their statements and videos he had seen. Federal officials continue their investigation and could pursue hate-crime charges, he added.

“These four individuals violently impacted peoples’ rights to demonstrate,” Mr. Freeman said at a news conference Monday.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonlover12
a reply to: Gryphon66

live.mprnews.org...

just saw it here


The riot charges won't stick those people will get away with a minimal sentence and probably community service. The person being charged with 5 counts of assault with a deadly weapon will be in jail for a long time each one carries a 7 yr sentence.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   


According to criminal complaints, Scarsella and others had been going to the Black Lives Matter demonstration at the 4th Precinct on numerous occasions, often armed, with the intention of starting a commotion. Discussions on the websites 4Chan and Reddit showed they were trying to “stir things up.”

A video featuring Scarsella and another man, named in the complaint as J.S., shows them going to the protest one night, using derogatory terms for African-Americans and Scarsella brandishing a handgun. He ends the video with the words “stay white.”


CBS Minnesota

Perhaps the reaction of some of the protesters makes a bit more sense now ...
edit on 30-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It was always understandable. I don't think any protesters punched anyone either, no audio so can't tell for sure but to me it looked like someone was pushing their phone down, not punching. These four are clearly thugs who caused the entire thing and intentionally.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Gryphon66

It was always understandable. I don't think any protesters punched anyone either, no audio so can't tell for sure but to me it looked like someone was pushing their phone down, not punching. These four are clearly thugs who caused the entire thing and intentionally.


Also, strong evidence exists that the motivation on the part of the shooter/rioters was essentially racially motivated/White Supremacist.

[snipped]


edit on Mon Nov 30 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: off topic material removed



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
31
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join