A single university professor might have ten thousand interactions with students each semester without killing a single one.

I'm sure it's been argued itt already but I think the argument is that 6% of the population (black males) accounts for 50% of the homicides and violent crimes and greater than 6% for all other crimes. So representing 23% of all police caused fatalities is in line (or a little low) for the amount of police interaction they have.

If you kept reading that argument, you would have seen the counterargument that murders and violent crimes in general represent a very small percent of crimes, and the reason they're cherry-picked by racists to stand in as a proxy for "expected percent of police interactions" is solely because it makes their misleading case look better.

2018 - 7,710,900 total arrests
Blacks make up 2,115,381 of those arrests
27%
And they're probably harassed a lot more for stuff that never ends up in an arrest so probably have even more police interaction.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-43

How to safely topple a statue

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...tatue-science/

Awesome

I like the disclaimer

I still wonder how americans tolerate people in the street with assault rifles and gun in hands
If I saw that I would be freaking livid, turn around or hide.
There is absolutely no reason for a citizen to walk around with that kind of weapon (any weapon actually).
Only in USA

https://www.thedailybeast.com/la-cou...ail&via=mobile

LA County Deputies Shoot Dead Teen Security Guard Who Ran From Them

Andres Guardado, an armed security guard, 18, ran from LA Sheriff’s Deputies “because he was scared.”

He did counter it.
As did I .

You're using statistics in a nonsensical way and claiming there is no problem.

Good thing it's just a statistical anomaly.

It would suck if he was a good kid doing an honest job and was gunned down by state sanctioned execution squads.

It really sounds as if the USA has as ss style death squads running around and killing people.

Even Robocop had a default setting which didn't allow him to shoot. Only if no other way out. Weirdly that default setting is accepted by rest of civilized world and their police.

Even terminator the t1 or t2 was going bananas and shooting everything. Also robocop 2 had a bug in its program and allowed it to going bananas.

The police that is just going bananas and shooting everyone who pose no real threat
Is clearly "programmed" poorly.

You've repeated the same straw man three times now. As I predicted, you will just continue to assert it.

With that said:
You're not going to stop royal flushes from happening. This doesn't mean cop killing is not a problem. It means, it is going to happen, no matter what you do. Dying is a problem, but it's going to happen no matter what you do. I'm not going to demand the entire system be upended based on something that happens so infrequently. You want all cops to change behavior based on something only a few of them are going to experience less often than they would experience a royal flush.

You guys are comparing how people play Royal Flushes and determining all pros skill level at poker based on that.

jUsT a FeW bAd ApPlEs

liberal utopia California has literal right wing death squads running amok murdering blacks for fun. #shitholecountry

Yes.

it is an extreme right or left position. It is one person's opinion piece who said she has held that position for years.

You will not find many other (outside a handful of nutters in the extremes) people who are calling for that.

You are spreading a false narrative and probably purposely so by pretending this what is generally being called for. It is a Tucker Carlson go to move. Find someone who hold arguably the most extreme or ridiculous opinion that is an outlier, in the group and present them as if the norm.

But the call currently, the ACTIONS being looked at currently, are to RESHIFT the FOCUS of policing, not get rid of all cops. In some instances certain police precincts may need to be shuttered and rebuilt from scratch such as in the article I posted upthread and below again in spoilers, if you want to read it.

LOL

Of course you CHASE utopia when it comes to innocent people being murdered. Your goal should be ZERO.


That does not mean you will achieve it. People will get away with it but that does not change that you strive to not let them.

But even in general society we chase utopia. We do not accept a single murder of an innocent saying 'let it go, it is an insignificant number considering the size of the population'.

The standard for cops SHOULD be even higher than that for ordinary citizens when it comes to murdering innocents. Cops are sworn to 'Protect and Serve' the citizens and work for them and the citizens pay them. So there is a real perversity in being an innocent murdered by the cop who swears to protect you and is being paid by you.

"Should" is full of unintended consequences.

This story smells like bullshit all the way around.

First off, California has VERY VERY VERY VERY strict gun carrying laws. You have to do a lot of training and get licenses to carry a gun in public.

Was this person even legally carrying? Go ahead and correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty confident you don't just get hired to a $15 security job and suddenly you are allowed to carry around guns.

Also, who in the world takes out a gun when police officers start walking towards them and then starts running?

Something is really off about this story.

Edit: It is of course possible it is the police who are lying about what happened. I really don't know. But the way the facts are being presented, this story makes no sense at all.

Yes, I've asked you multiple times why you're using the ratio of police killings/total police interactions instead of a more meaningful number.

You presented the ratio not me. Therefore it can't be a straw man.
I'm perfectly able to question your premise in a fair discussion.
Most good faith posters would be happy to defend their reasoning.





This is posted shortly after this exchange :

From your source:



You accused me of having poor reading comprehension but it appears I understood exactly what you meant the first time.

Now this is what sets you apart from me. You're happy with a hundreds of unnecessary deaths a year and aren't willing to life a finger to do anything about it.

I'm not only willing to improve the system but expect better from the public servants we hire to 'keep us safe'.

I've exhibited zero indication of happiness. You are just hopeless. I'm all for police reform, whatever you want to do (not really, but for arguments sake). Statistics tell us it's not going to have an impact on the police killing people. First, majority of all shootings are justified, if not the overwhelming majority. So, those shootings are going to still happen. Second, your premise of it being too high is entirely based on a moral or ideological belief, rather than any sort of science. If you had a scientifically valid argument, you'd point to what the expected rate of shooting should be and compare what it is. However, the entire premise is based on what "should" be, which is formulated from ideology, rather than scientific method.

You think acknowledging reality is someone being happy with reality and that just ****ing stupid. #toxiccult.

That is pretty damning.

Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness....unless you get capped by a cop.
Then it's an anomaly and not worth anyone's time.

lol.

Gotta love conservatives and their superior morals.