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.

 

Looks like the Left will be destroying St. Louis tonight

page: 35
31
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

What is the 'upside' to the officer risking his job and career to lie? Just wondering. I do not think this was murder. Manslaughter? There may be a case. It is not however murder. The person killed if he was not killed would have been charged with evading, eluding, resisting and attempted murder of an officer. Let that sink in. It is not like this was an innocent kid walking to high school who was gunned down.


I've made the argument earlier that Smith's actions fall within the range of viable use of deadly force by the LEOs.

However, Stockley's actions afterwards cast considerable doubt on might have been an understandable shooting. (Might.)

No reason for him to be the one searching the vehicle; according to reports, nine or so other officers were present.

No reason for him to be going back and forth from Smith's car to the police vehicle.

No reason for the dash cam in the police vehicle to be shut off.

No reason for him to remove his gloves when touching Smith's alleged weapon.

Etc. etc.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Xcathdra


Then protest in ignorance then.


Not ignorance.... although many would like us all to be ignorant about what's really happening and has been happening, eh? Us uppity citizens refusing to comply with the abuse of powers being forced on us must be quite frustrating for the thugs and bullies.



Core authoritarians can't help it. Note above, unless one is an "expert" *cough cough* one can't say anything about known facts. Which is why the judge in the Stockley trial made a decision based not on evidence, but on the absence of evidence. LOL.
edit on 19-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Hey, if we can agree on a source of statistics, care to go another few rounds so long as we agree to keep the personal bickering out of the discussion?

Washington Post has been monitoring police shootings for the last three years or so, and has developed a pretty smooth interface to do searches, linked previously at Washington Post

Here is a description of the methodology used.

I'd love to have a rational discussion if you're willing and we can agree on the sources.


I can partipate later but I got some work stuff for a while.

But I would definitely be interested in discussing it.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Hey, if we can agree on a source of statistics, care to go another few rounds so long as we agree to keep the personal bickering out of the discussion?

Washington Post has been monitoring police shootings for the last three years or so, and has developed a pretty smooth interface to do searches, linked previously at Washington Post

Here is a description of the methodology used.

I'd love to have a rational discussion if you're willing and we can agree on the sources.


I can partipate later but I got some work stuff for a while.

But I would definitely be interested in discussing it.


Perfect. I'll get a first post together; respond at your leisure.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The Washington Post database that we've agreed to use here is a collection of data based on police shootings. The data is organized by year: we have 2015-2017 to date. Citation as to methodology is noted above.

One of the questions that has come up in regard to the Shockley murder case and the resultant civil unrest as a result of the acquittal is whether the protestors (mostly Black citizens of St. Louis) had any fact-based reason to be angry. In general, the belief among many is that instances of unnecessary violence by Law Enforcement (including lethal force) are on the rise, and specifically, that Black men, particularly unarmed ones, are targeted at a higher rate.

So, starting in 2017, thus far ... out of 706 incidents

1. The number of unarmed Blacks who have been shot nationwide is 10.

2. The number of unarmed Whites who have been shot nationwide is 13.

3. The number of unarmed Hispanics " " is 8.

4. The number of all other race/ethic groups " "is 1.

In 2016 (using the same scheme as above): 1) 17, 2) 22, 3) 8, 4) 1

In 2015, 1) 38, 2) 32, 3) 19, 4) 5

The categories of "Hispanic" and "Other" are included for completeness but will not be discussed.

Using Demography of the United States as a base line resource, population by race in the US is:

White 73.6%, Black 12.6% (This ignores multi-racial numbers).

Given a normal frequency simply based on population numbers then, one could expect to see a factor between Whites and Blacks of about 6 to 1, that is there are 5.8 as many White people as Black people in the US.

(Admittedly, this is a very gross comparison at best, for the sake of a basic argument.)

So, now looking at "unarmed individual shot by police" we can say the following:

2017: 31.25 percent were Black, 40.6% were White.

2016: 35.4% Black, 45.8% White

2015: 40.4% Black, 34% White

The percentage of Blacks killed comparing total population in a given year should be Whites by a factor of 5.8 which would result in

2017 7% Black, 2016 7.89% Black, and 2015 5.86% Black.

Yet, the actual numbers are 4.4 times expected in 2017, 4.5 times expected in 2016 and almost 7 times expected in 2015.

Averaging those for the three years discussed, shows that unarmed Blacks are shot at a rate five (5) times what the relative populations would suggest.

I am aware that these are gross calculations. I am aware that the source of the data is considered Liberal MSM.

This does demonstrate a reasonable, fact-based explanation of why many believe that Black Americans are targeted unfairly.
edit on 19-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I apologize it took me a while to respond.

First let me say that I have no rpoblem with the source. This is a little of the subject, but I think that when it comes to most factual statements like lists like this, most outlets are honest. It is just I may disagree with their opinions on what these numbers mean.

So unless something striking comes up, I will not contest these numbers whatsoever.

I am finishing up looking at them now and will post more shortly.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So there are several things I want to say and I may break it up into different posts just to make it easier to read.

To start with, I can definitely understand how just a look at the numbers could make people in the black community angry and think they are being unjustly targeted.

I do not condone the rioting (as you don't) but I can understand anger. I think that much of that anger though can be vented by discussing the issue in full, which is why this is a good discussion.

To start with I although I think you did a great job listing the data from the past 3 years, do to the fact the trends are very similar and out of simplicity I will just use this years numbers for this post.

So this year we have had 10 unarmed black men shot by the police. For arguments sake, lets assume all 10 of those shootings were unjustified for a moment.

That is still a very minuscule percent of the population. When this is looked at in conjunction with the amount of black people killed by gang violence, it is a drop in the bucket. So you can see why people are confused that there aren't more groups protesting in anger over this.

Now keep in mind, even 1 innocent person shot by the cops is to many. But it seems like a small number for the amount of riots and such we have seen.

Now we also should keep in mind that just because a person was unarmed does not mean the shooting was unjsutified. I can be unarmed but attacking someone and be shot; or I could have reached for something that although was not a weapon the police reasonably thought it could have been and shot me.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The bigger issue that I want to get to is this; what is the reason for the increased proportion of blacks getting shot.

This is why I was citing studies and FBI numbers earlier.

A person could look at the numbers and say blacks are shot 5 times more than they proportionally should be, therefore the police must be unjustly targeting them.

This doesn't look at what the factors are that lead to these numbers.

So for example, I linked to a thread where we were discussing FBI violent crime stats. It showed that for most years, blacks commit around 50% of homicides. That is roughly 5 times more than their population size.

A person could look at this and say blacks are 5 times more violent than there population size would dictate. But you would rightfully point out that its not necessarily race thaat is the factor, it would be things like geographics, poverty, income disparity, cultural factors, relationships to law enforcement, etc.

This would be the honest discussion to have.

I am merely contending that we need to do that in much the same way with the fact that unarmed blacks are shot 5x more than their proportion.

Another reason that we must do that is because if we don't then by looking at the numbers this year we see that 95% of the people killed by police were male.

This means men are 19X more likely to be shot than women, and we should see huge screams of unjustice over this fact. But we know that men actually commit much more violent crime andd have many more violent encounters with police, and so this doesn't occur.

More to follow.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I don't condone rioting, but I am aware that people in groups can become influenced by what we call herd mentality. This is tangential but I think we should differentiate between those who commit violence intentionally or in a pre-meditated way, those who go to these protests with the intention of rousing negative feelings in the attendees (creating a mob situation), and the vast majority of the people in attendance (normal people) etc.

Ten people (10) is a minuscule portion of the population. However, when there is a long-standing belief, based on actual facts, that certain groups are targeted, to the point where community activists (admittedly, with an agenda) start to motivate members of the overall group to be hyper-aware of this targeting, then any occurrence anywhere, but particularly in terms of the shooting/killing of an unarmed person, is exacerbated a million-fold. Also, media coverage, whether fair or not, whether right or left wing or not, promulgates and perpetuates and yes, probably exaggerates the issue of unarmed people being killed by cops.

edit on 19-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I definitely agree that race in the larger sense is not the issue, that is, no one is more violent because of their race, no one is more prone to criminal activity because of their race, etc. (Mostly because race, like gender, is a socio-cultural construct.)

We are all violent ... I'm sometimes amazed at just how shallowly that violence lives under all of our surfaces.

However, I think, aside from a certain percentage of psychopaths who truly enjoy violence for violence's sake ... when most of us harm others we are motivated by some force and we feel like there is no other way to resolve the situation.

The poorest people in this country are struggling to feed, clothe and provide shelter for themselves. Even the social safety net programs that provide assistance ... still create a situation of bare survival in most cases.

Anyway, suffice it to say that I can agree that economic level is a primary factor in criminal activity.
edit on 19-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So what are the factors that could lead to police shooting unarmed blacks.

The first could be racism. No doubt this could be true, and I will guarentee that there are racist cops.

But we rarely see flat out proof that the cops that shoot were racist. In fact, often times the cop isn't white in the first place. But still its a possibility.

I don't believe though that there are racsit cops just itching to shoot a black man. To me, they would be more likely to maybe mess with them in other ways, trumped up charges, lengthy detainment, etc. But to kill someone out of purely racial reasons, knowing that in todays climate even if you are found innocent your life will be destroyed would seem very unlikely.

In fact as I will get to later, the Harvard study makes the argument that one of the reasons police are less likely to shoot unarmed black men even when they feel justified is because they will be crucified in the public square.

The far more likely reason for these shootings seems to be that more police shootings will occur in areas with more violent crime.

If we look at where most of these shootings of unarmed black men occur, it is usually in high crime areas. It doesn't seem like cops are shooting many unarmed blacks (or anyone) in areas with very low violent crime like marthas vineyard.

The reason to use deadly force from an officer is because he/she feels that there is a danger, rather correctly or incorrectly. And so if they are working areas with multiple homicides every week, they are far more likely to have high intensity encounters where there could be danger than in other areas. Thus, the chance for the cop shooting someone rather armed or unarmed increases substantially.

It doesn't seem to be mere coincidence that blacks tend to commit 5X more homicides than their population would suggest, and are shot 5X more unarmed by police than population would suggest.

Now I don't think that this means blacks deserve it or anything like that. On the contrary, I think that the vast majority of blacks are no different than any other race. However, there are communities that happen to be mostly black that have so much violence that it skews the numbers for black violent crime. As I said before, I believe that if you looked at the violent crime rate for black and whites not living in gang areas, the numbers for violence would be close to identical.

It jsut so happens that most of the police shootings of unarmed blacks occurs in the very areas that skew the numbers so bad for black violent crime, further suggesting that the shootings are less about race, and more about violent areas.

Now there is a very meanigful discussion to be had about why these violent areas are black. Is it due to historical discrimination, poverty, purposeful government policies, etc. But the cops have no control over any of that. They get sent into these violent areas and have to deal with the it no matter what the reasons are.

Hence I feel that even though the numbers suggest that blacks are shot disproportionately, I don't believe it is because of race in the vast majority of the cases.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lastly, here is what the black professor aat harvard who did the most substantial study on this concluded, which he suggested was the most surprising result of his career.


Freyer and a group of students spent over 3,000 hours sifting through police data from 10 major police departments in three states: Texas, Florida, and California.

They examined 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015. In those shootings, the study found that police officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were also equally likely to have been carrying a gun.

To answer the more basic question of whether shootings were more likely to occur in the first place if the suspect were black, Freyer and his team turned to Houston. The study examined police reports of not only shootings, but also arrests in which lethal force would have been justified, coded with characteristics like attempting to murder an officer, evading or resisting arrest, or using a Taser.

In these charged encounters, police were 20% less likely to shoot if the suspect was black. Even more surprisingly, the recent rise in videos of these kinds of altercations didn't alter the pattern.


www.businessinsider.com...

This doesn't seem to be a biased man. 3000 hours of looking at cases, and it turns out that blacks were 20% less likely to be shot by police.

Now this study did show that blacks were in fact more likely to be handcuffed, pushed against a wall, etc., and none of that is ok.

But that is not what these riots and groups like BLM are focusing on. In fact by there definition, whites should be the ones angered by being 20% more likely to be shot. But this too would be outrageous.

So although this is a complicated matter and I understand the anger, I think that the facts show this isn't as much about race, and I think that people on both sides are using it to drum up racial tensions for their benefit.

And as a result, we see things like riots.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

I don't condone rioting, but I am aware that people in groups can become influenced by what we call herd mentality. This is tangential but I think we should differentiate between those who commit violence intentionally or in a pre-meditated way, those who go to these protests with the intention of rousing negative feelings in the attendees (creating a mob situation), and the vast majority of the people in attendance (normal people) etc.

Ten people (10) is a minuscule portion of the population. However, when there is a long-standing belief, based on actual facts, that certain groups are targeted, to the point where community activists (admittedly, with an agenda) start to motivate members of the overall group to be hyper-aware of this targeting, then any occurrence anywhere, but particularly in terms of the shooting/killing of an unarmed person, is exacerbated a million-fold. Also, media coverage, whether fair or not, whether right or left wing or not, promulgates and perpetuates and yes, probably exaggerates the issue of unarmed people being killed by cops.


And to further your point, I get tired of people acting like herd mentality is a black thing.

People think that herd mentality didn't lead to lynchings of balcks by white in the past, or driving blacks out of towns?

People think that herd mentality doesn't still affect whites blacks, and every other race today?

of course it does.

I know for a fact I too have allowed this to happen to me, and probably will in the future. But that is why it is important to try to look at facts as opposed to just feelings on an issue, and try to find the underlying reasosn for things occuring.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Based on what I presented above, we have no information on location of shooting. However, pointing out that all police interactions occur in areas of higher crime incidence seems ... obvious. Police go where the crimes are being committed.

Are more crimes committed in areas with high concentration of violent populations. Sure, I'm willing to go there. Since most shootings occur in urban areas, which are areas of high population density and crime, that's logical.

Law Enforcement Officers are presumed to be above average in many ways ... particularly they're highly trained in their field. They are trained to control their emotional/physical responses. Use of lethal force is strictly and carefully controlled.

Given both of these facts, particularly in areas of high volatility ... it seems to me that we could reasonably expect LEOs to exercise MORE caution when crossing the line to the use of deadly force.

I'm not sure we're seeing that trend; in fact, I'd say we're seeing the opposite.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Addressing the specific statement that use of lethal force is not based on race ... I agree.

Use of lethal force is based on a constellation of causes and motivations.

However, I would say that for whatever the explication of those reasons are, the facts remain: more unarmed Black Americans are killed each year by police than one could reasonably project from population sizes, and the BELIEF is that the motivations are purely racial.

So, as we think of ways to change the current trend of events, it seems to me that the place to start is in addressing that BELIEF and allowing for the validity of it and doing everything we can to change it.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Based on what I presented above, we have no information on location of shooting. However, pointing out that all police interactions occur in areas of higher crime incidence seems ... obvious. Police go where the crimes are being committed.

Are more crimes committed in areas with high concentration of violent populations. Sure, I'm willing to go there. Since most shootings occur in urban areas, which are areas of high population density and crime, that's logical.

Law Enforcement Officers are presumed to be above average in many ways ... particularly they're highly trained in their field. They are trained to control their emotional/physical responses. Use of lethal force is strictly and carefully controlled.

Given both of these facts, particularly in areas of high volatility ... it seems to me that we could reasonably expect LEOs to exercise MORE caution when crossing the line to the use of deadly force.

I'm not sure we're seeing that trend; in fact, I'd say we're seeing the opposite.


I agree with this. In no way am I excusing poor policing. And as I have said before, I think there is a problem with a code of silence where cops hesitate (not all of them) to out the bad ones. And bad doesn't mean malicious, it may just mean not fit for the job.

I think there is a lot of work to be done on the side of police. More community outreach, more training, better non lethal options. In conjunction with better laws such as decriminlizing non violent drugs (most of them anyway) ending forfeiture laws.

One area where I think we could immediately see a benefit is traing police to deal with folks with mental illness. My job is working with people with many of these challenges, and although I have not seen extreme violence from police against the people I care about with these challenges, I can see the police get frustrated and not no how to best resplve situations. And this makes sense; I am trained to work with each indiviual and do so for years and it could still be challenging.

As you cite shows, 1 in 5 police shootings are people wwith mental illness, so I think this is an area where great improvements can be made through training.

I would also support body cams and other transparent measures.

But I think that many people make the misstake of just screaming cops are terrible or racist, and this doesn't help the sitaution at all. The fact is most of them are good people doing a damn near thankless job, and they are human. So we need to acknowledge mistakes and fixes on all sides.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The Harvard study is interesting indeed. I've looked at it before but I'll dig back into it.

If the facts show that these killings are not about race, indeed, we need to share those facts and work to discover ways to reduce these events. However, I still believe that before we can start discussing factual statistics, we must, as a society, address the beliefs and feelings of Black Americans, and stop simply saying "You have no reason to feel that way; the facts prove otherwise."

(I'm not saying that would be your response, but it is, sadly, the response of many here, and for the most part, that is the response of the general society to the issue.)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Agree. No further comment, LOL.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Absolutely. Generally Black Americans and those who support them aren't moving toward any sort of resolution of these issues by rioting, shutting down roads and interstates, vandalism, etc. etc.

On the other hand, all these vague generic attempts to classify all of these events as the same as White kids rioting in Berkeley or even worse, dehumanizing Black Americans simply into terms like "left" or "leftist" is absolutely not solving any problems either.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Addressing the specific statement that use of lethal force is not based on race ... I agree.

Use of lethal force is based on a constellation of causes and motivations.

However, I would say that for whatever the explication of those reasons are, the facts remain: more unarmed Black Americans are killed each year by police than one could reasonably project from population sizes, and the BELIEF is that the motivations are purely racial.

So, as we think of ways to change the current trend of events, it seems to me that the place to start is in addressing that BELIEF and allowing for the validity of it and doing everything we can to change it.


Again I agree. That is the belief. This is fostered by people that I think have a personal stake in spreading that belief on both sides.

That is why the media will cover cops shootings blacks and not whites, this is why stories of black looters are shown.

I am not saying these stories shouldn't be covered, but context needs to be given.

Now I admit that I am biased, so take this for what you will. But I think identity politics is a big motivator in this. There are people that want to make everything about race, or gender, or class, etc. And so they push this narrative of racist police.

Then there are people that get fed up with this, and start to believe the police are always right. Both of this is wrong.

Most of the loud voices on this do not want to have an honest conversation. They want to start from one extreme or the other, and as such nothing gets solved.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join