Racial Tension in the U.S.

[David.]

Maybe no one would really get so upset if we talked about police using excessive force in general and escalation of bad situations into tragic ones.

I think maybe this conclusion is correct that the police just killed too many people?

I agree.

Interesting point though, is that is the use of excessive force has shown to result in less shootings.

 

[Tornicade]

Excissive force isn't using an arm bar to restrain a suspect. it is using the arm bar. cuffing the suspect then reapplying the arm to beak the persons arm....

how does that reduce the potential of shootings.


The use of force itself isn't inherently excessive.

 

[David.]

Excissive force isn't using an arm bar to restrain a suspect. it is using the arm bar. cuffing the suspect then reapplying the arm to beak the persons arm....

how does that reduce the potential of shootings.


The use of force itself isn't inherently excessive.

Youre using whose definition of excessive force? Your own? Its definition varies greatly according to the report, and to the reporting.

If an officer uses enough force to make a perpetrator complicit, that obviously can help prevent a situation from escalating. "Excessive" is subjective as evidenced by high profile cases.

 

[Wrathe]

Maybe no one would really get so upset if we talked about police using excessive force in general and escalation of bad situations into tragic ones.

I think maybe this conclusion is correct that the police just killed too many people?

I honestly think it would.

 

[Tornicade]

Youre using whose definition of excessive force? Your own? Its definition varies greatly according to the report, and to the reporting.

If an officer uses enough force to make a perpetrator complicit, that obviously can help prevent a situation from escalating. "Excessive" is subjective as evidenced by high profile cases.

so your saying the basis of your conclusion that excessive force reduces shootings is subjective on the definition what is "excessive"

I think you made my point for me.

 

[David.]

so your saying the basis of your conclusion that excessive force reduces shootings is subjective on the definition what is "excessive"

I think you made my point for me.

well lets back it up. Your post was a response to mine, regardless of whether or not you quoted me, which stated 'excessive force mitigates shootings.'

you responded:

1. excessive force doesnt reduce shootings.

to which I responded 'using force (calling it excessive vs. sufficient is subjective, and ultimately inconsequential in pursuance of concluding whether or not it) prevents shootings.' It does. ^^this is the actual rebuttal to my post.

and

2.the use of force isnt inherently excessive.

i agree, but thats subjective, as I stated above. People have discrepant conceptions as to how much force is appropriate to in order to establish control of a situation, and reporting is subject to bias, errors, and fraud.
^ancillary point introduced peripherally.
and

3. excessive force isnt applying an armbar after cuffed and then breaking the arm.

I would agree generally, but there isntances where this would happen and I wouldnt consider it 'excessive. if an arm is broken while in an armbar after cuffing has not sufficiently incapacitated a perpetrator, then it wouldn't be excessive.
^ancillary point, introduced peripherally.
and

4. excessive force reduces shootings is based on a subjective opinion of what 'excessive' is.

^ancillary point, again, that does not refute my point, and is simply peripheral.

I agree, but this doesnt really address the point I intrdouced. but lets digress.. you dont necessarily know whether or not force is sufficient or excessive until an officer or the perpetrator is dead (or if they escaped), so that's not an easy word to define in practice. i never defined 'excessive', so if we're attempting to, thats an entirely different discussion. I deliberately qualified my statement by explaining 'excessive' is subjective, as evidenced by popular reactions to high profile cases. Prison itself has occasionally been proven to be insufficient imprisonment for people who escape. For others whose crime was relavtively innocuous, its excessive. So of course the definition matters, and of course its subjective. But sufficient vs. excessive imprisonment and sufficient and excessive force have and do work to 1. successfully imprison and 2. succesfully prevent shootings.

If you'd like to engage in substantive conversation rather than unnecessarily combative pedantry, we can replace the word "excessive" with "significant and pre-emptive" and address the actual issue we both know we're talking about.


its been determined that blacks are 17% more likely to be subjected to the application of 'excessive force' than whites, but whites are shot and killed 20% more often by cops if adjusted for violent crime. That data would indicate that there is potential causality in applying significant, pre-emptive force and its consequential mitigation of shootings. Excessive force, in that study, was defined as 'force applied before the detainee exhibited threatening behavior'. The statistics speak loudly. If you control a situation earlier and with more force, it does appear to prevent shootings. If you havent seen perpetrators take out a gun and shoot without warning, i assure you it happens. So in that scenario, a black person is pulled over and doesnt ostensibly pose a threat and the officer applies 'excessive force'. but now, the detainee has no opportunity to pull a gun and shoot the officer, OR pull a gun and lose in a showdown to the officer. so when considering this hypothetical, applying excessive force, as defined by that study, would be a plausible determinant to mitigate shootings. The mitigation of shootings isnt contingent on whether or not the force being applied was post direct threat, its contingent upon 'there was force applied, and it resulted in less shootings.' Doesnt need to be considered justified at the time to be succesfull in stopping a shooting. It still can stop shootings.

id say we disagree on my main point, you introduced a new one that I genearlly agree with, but really isnt as important imo as much as 'significant force applied pre-emptively reduces shootings' before I would say 'I proved your point.'

 

[David.]

http://alternativemediasyndicate.co...cebook&utm_campaign=FB_Biz_Part&utm_medium=FB

so just for example, this says blacks are pulled over at a 4 to 1 rate as whites. blacks commit 4 times as much crime as whites per capita, so that makes sense. Additionally, there are more police patrolling black neighborhoods because statistically, that is where more crime is occurs. Additionally, if there's a report of a black male etc etc over the radio, it only makes sense to pull over a black person, and seeing as more crime is perpetrated by blacks and more officers patrol black neighborhoods, thats a completely reasonable statistic.


the article goes on to mention that at the very least a good amount of the shootings were justified. '1000 deaths' is illusory, it lacks sufficient context. Of the 25 or so deaths BLM has showcased, roughly half were justified. A lot of the 1000 are whites. There isnt enough context in these numbers, and as someone who's researched it, the narrative does not properly depict reality and the animus towards police offers is not only inaccurate, but counterproductive to the actual notion that 'black lives matter'.

 

[AZ_]

Good to see Richard Spencer back in the news.


@gourimoko

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Interesting article about the murder rate and policing in Baltimore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...2372da-631e-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html

I thought this excerpt sort of highlighted part of the problem:

BALTIMORE — They’d come to the same church on the same night to confront the same quandary facing this city’s beleaguered police department. But what they wanted from the police couldn’t have been more different.

Eight days had passed since the Justice Department issued a scathing review of the Baltimore Police Department, detailing years of racial discrimination in its law enforcement practices.

Yet the 40 or so longtime residents who gathered in a West Baltimore church basement on this August night — many of whom were older black women afraid to walk to the store or leave their homes at night — had come to urge police to clear their corners of miscreants and restore order to their crime-plagued community.

“Please, help me,” pleaded gas station owner Chaudhry Masood, whose parking lot has been overrun by loiterers and where a 17-year-old was recently shot and killed.

At the same time, in an adjacent church hall, Justice Department civil rights attorneys were discussing how to overhaul the police department with another group of residents intent on curbing the abusive behavior of corner-clearing cops. Those attending included black youths long targeted by police.

The organizers of each gathering didn’t know the other was taking place. As people showed up Aug. 18, a priest from St. Peter Claver Catholic Church hurriedly attached paper signs to metal railings to direct the flow. The meeting with the police community relations council to the right, the meeting with Justice Department lawyers to the left.

The disconnect between those focused on crime and those focused on police reform looms large as Baltimore reaches an agreement with the federal government to restructure the department and end unconstitutional detentions, arrests and beatings....

On the surface, it would appear that there should be a happy medium that is easy to achieve. But I don't think it is. The citizens don't even want the same things, and the incentives for police who wish to comply with the Justice Department is to minimize the possibility that they will be even accused of improper behavior.

 

[David.]

Good to see Richard Spencer back in the news.


@gourimoko

Apparently they just left when asked nicely.

The strategy is to show theyre the civil ones, as opposed to antifa.

 

[AZ_]

Apparently they just left when asked nicely.

The strategy is to show theyre the civil ones, as opposed to antifa.

Chalk this one up as a win for the racists, then.

 

[David.]

Chalk this one up as a win for the racists, then.

Plenty of those around on both sides. But generally, the ones who dont harm people are the better racists. Frankly theyre better than the "non-racists" who do.

 

[Huber.]

Plenty of those around on both sides. But generally, the ones who dont harm people are the better racists. Frankly theyre better than the "non-racists" who do.

Racists that don't harm people simply aren't trying hard enough to get their point across.

 

[David.]

Racists that don't harm people simply aren't trying hard enough to get their point across.

I've spoken with a handful of the alt-right, and I've listened to conversations between white nationalists and people who I respect. Its not a monolith; there are some who are reprehensible, and some view their opinions as the other side of the coin of political platforms that say, look out for the best interests of blacks.

Like there have been instances where ive listened to ones worldview and its like "ok that makes sense. Ok im with you here. Wait. Your conclusion is what? Your suggestion is what? ..."

 

[gourimoko]

Good to see Richard Spencer back in the news.


@gourimoko

He's just talking about politics... he's not a White supremacist at all, right?