No one the Scott shooting planted a spare gun on the scene.

Because compliance is not a sufficient condition to avoid being killed, as we have seen, and we also have numerous examples of white people not being fully compliant and somehow avoiding death or serious bodily harm. It's a meaningless platitude that does nothing constructive. It only shifts blame from the police to the dead victim so that we dare not do something like suggest things the police could do better.

It's just a way to continue to blame the victim.

if you want to Lead the charge in revolutionizing law enforcement in the US by all means go ahead.

In the meantime I would suggest to anyone of any race, creed or color that when a police officer is pointing a gun at you and giving comands you comply as a means of maximizing your odds of surviving the encounter.

Noncompliance does not necessarily make one a threat to the lives of officers or the public at large. It should not intrinsically carry a risk of death.

And at what point does this line of thinking stop? If a police officer points his gun at me during an interrogation am I now compelled to answer questions? If they demand a warrantless search of my home?

OK, kinda hard to argue for change when ~half the country concludes that the slightest noncompliance = ****** had it coming.

Your mean kind of like when a moderator arbitrarily bans you and everyone just shrugs their shoulders and says "they must have had it coming"

Oh, it's just like that. Much arbitrary. So injusticed.

LOL at comparing a forum ban to being killed by the police.

I wouldn't call refusing to put a gun down the "slightest noncompliance"

And the guy in Tulsa?

But you're not black. You have no idea what black people experience every day.

Why don't officers just have their guns pointed out during a speeding ticket stop? Just follow his commands and you have nothing to worry. If you get shot, it is your own fault.

Pointing a gun at a person never de-escalates any situation. These have become military situations with guns drawn and split decisions have to be made. The two shooting here we 100% non-violent and became violent (deadly) solely because of the police, not the victim. Each could have been diffused or avoided.

You arent a cop.

And I never claimed to know what they go through or state how they should act.

You sure of that? Has anyone else in this thread? If I show you who, will you lecture them for me?

I have never claimed to be a cop not have stated how they should act. Feel free to find a post of mine claiming otherwise.

I was responding to someone who explicitly said, "If I were black," I'd do this... But he's not black and how can he know what he would do in that situation if he's never experienced it?

Ah, yes, a typical small government libertarian taking the obvious position.

I'm neither a cop nor black, but I can tell you what I would want if I were black and lived in a high crime black neighborhood is a significant non-militarized police presence with an emphasis on community relations and populated by, as much as possible, people from my community.

Black people don't get paid to be black, they didn't apply for that ****.

For ****'s sake, cops are trained and paid and equipped by the state to protect its citizens.

I get a say on cop behavior because I'm subject to that behavior, up to and including deadly violence. It's not relevant that I'm not a cop myself. As a bonus, I get a say because I'm a citizen and a tax payer. Same with the military.

Delving into the past of people shot by the cops in order to help determine whether the shooting might or might not have been justifiable is wrong.

However delving into the past of the COP is not wrong. If the justifiableness of the shooting is unclear what we know of the cops past does indeed change the probability. From what I have read so far of the police officer who did the NC shooting, it seems that he had no dishonorable motives

(edit: realized I wasn't looking at 17-35 age range. I strongly suspect this number is false though, and at the very least is citation needed)

This is also false. In general, it is well established that crime rates are highly correlated with socio-economic measures like concentration of poverty. For example, see the FBI's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) report on Household poverty and violent victimization.

Or this:

I can't find an easily accessible source for this, but there's a fairly obvious correlation between the victims of crimes and the offenders, and that is neighborhood. The kinds of crime you are discussing take place within neighborhoods, and victims and offenders tend to occupy similar socio-economic categories. This is already evident in the way people talk about "black-on-black" crime. The victims of those crimes tend to be black precisely because of neighborhood segregation. So, already, the NCVS data suggests that you are wrong:



Beyond that, some more specific research exists. This one is well known:

There are other studies that examine the relationship between race, poverty, and crime, and those relationships are complex. But your assertion that blacks are far more likely to commit violent crimes after controlling for socio-economic factors is unsupported by any available evidence.

Partly, you are asking the wrong questions. The complaint isn't just about comparing police shooting rates to population numbers or even crime rates, it's about whether shootings are justified or not, and whether or not black people are more likely to be shot for unjustifiable reasons. There is research that suggests the answer is yes, although there is also a great lack of good data on the question of police shootings. You can find an analysis of two studies on police shootings, including the above which finds evidence of racial bias, and a second which does not, here. But also, it's really not just about police shootings, but evidence of other problems in the broader criminal justice system.

The problems are more than cultural. I'll refer you again to this thread which discusses the cultural argument at some length.

One of the main reasons for discussing the socio-economic factors underlying racial disparities in crime is precisely because it makes sense that the best way to eliminate the disparities in crime is to reduce the disparities in wealth, income, education, and also reducing segregation and concentration of poverty in black communities. Which is my main argument in the PU thread I keep linking.

That's interesting. Violence is clearly a poverty issue. Poor whites are the biggest victims. Wealth protects whites more than any other group and it protects non-white Hispanics the least.

The biggest factor though is the difference between "Poor" and "Low-income".