Racial Tension in the U.S.

[Wrathe]

Oh right that DJ is scared of people carrying guns into pie shops and if he was a cop he could shoot that guy cause he was in fear for his safety.

or that if Yosemite Sam came to your aid he would most likely get shot?

I disagree with Q tips assertion that most gun carriers are Yosemite Sam.

Are you feeling left out, is that what this is really about?

 

[Tornicade]

I disagree with your assertion that I ever made that assertion in the first place.

So I'd suggest replacing your Yosemite Sam with this:

You were talking about Civilians who are armed responding to gun shots with their guns drawn.


Why make up hypothetical scenarios when there is a textbook scenario right in front of us.

Guys hears a Car crash. He goes to investigate. He runs not police. they order him down. he complies and then they release him. someone else comes and shoots him.

Irresponsible gun ownership or irresponsible shooting ?

Carrying a gun in and of itself is not an acceptable reason to shoot.

and likelihood of getting shot while carrying a gun by a police officer shouldn't be dictated by race.


In your scenario whats more Yosemite Sam than running out of the house with guns drawn. that's your scenario. not mine.

Theres two always equality treatment by police happen.. either the police start shooting everyone on the same basis that they do black people or they start treating blacks the same as they do whites which means less unarmed shooting for blacks.

Personally I would prefer the latter and not the former.

Cops can shoot people out of fear regardless of the basis of the fear... however people in fear of police typically get shot for that fear.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You were talking about Civilians who are armed responding to gun shots with their guns drawn.

Right. As a concept, in response to a broader discussion involving @Wrathe and @DJTJ. I made that comment specifically in responding to a post by @Wrathe -- which I actually quoted -- in which he offered the situation of himself running "to the sound of gunfire". So, I made a comment about that broader situation of citizens in general running to the sound of gunfire.

Discussions here are not limited to the points you want to discuss. So butt the fuck out if you're just going to be a dick about it.

Also, paragraphs, complete sentences, and non-random punctuation are your friend. You ought to try it some time.

 

[Tornicade]

Are you feeling left out, is that what this is really about?

Feeling left out because you have decided to exclude me in a conversation I was already involved in by making multiple post saying I shouldn't be posting. .
do I have to repost the multiple post I have regarding your"tangent" to show I can post on the topic or do you want to pretend I don't understand the course of this conversation.
I responded to the good Samaritan post as well.

If you want to have a private conversation with DJ and Q tip.. feel free there are pms for that.


Otherwise your stereotype of the good Samaritan is just that.. a stereotype.

 

[Tornicade]

Right. As a concept, in response to a broader discussion involving @Wrathe and @DJTJ. I made that comment specifically in responding to a post by @Wrathe -- which I actually quoted -- in which he offered the situation of himself running "to the sound of gunfire". So, I made a comment about that broader situation of citizens in general running to the sound of gunfire.

Discussions here are not limited to the points you want to discuss. So butt the fuck out if you're just going to be a dick about it.

Also, paragraphs, complete sentences, and non-random punctuation are your friend. You ought to try it some time.

I had responded to the same DJ post. you may have taken the bait to respond to wraithe's conceptional stereotype of a good Samaritan.

which is by far not an accurate representation of what happens in the real world.

its not really a broader conversation if everyone Is removing the variable to replace them with ones that make look gun owners as crazy and irresponsible and asking to be shot.

 

[Tornicade]

Oh Jesus man.

Have you controlled for the amount of crime committed when comparing white and blacks killed by cops? Because when you do, blacks commit 4x as much crime. Which means they're shot less often per interaction with police than whites. So that sort of completely fucks up the narrative, doesn't it. If a population commits 4x the crime and only make up 2.5 times as many killings what is your conclusion? It's that they're underrepresented when controlling for actual crime committed, which is the correct variable for which you should account. Why are you calling "statistical explanations" "excuses"?

The population of specifically black specifically men doesn't matter when considering, among other things, that women commit less than 10% of any crime, and black men commit more than 50%. You're not looking at the right denominators. At all.

Does tamir rice qualify as unarmed? Or Mike Brown? Do you see why this isn't a great analysis?

Just for starters. The rest is filled with faulty logic and leaps.

I have a post with controlled statistics. even included a handy chart.

Unarmed blacks are shot at a higher rate when you factor in crime rates.. its in the damn post your responding to...


how about you read the source material

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I had responded to the same DJ post. you may have taken the bait to respond to wraithe's conceptional stereotype of a good Samaritan.

What the hell are you talking about? He actually rejected that stereotype, explicitly:

Absolutely man, would never suggest otherwise, that's crazy! That's what I'm asking, where is everyone seeing the crazy CCW guys running at bad guys w/ their firearm drawn?

That's how normal, civil discussions go. Someone makes a comment, someone else questions it, then the discussion gets, refined, clarified, etc..

Then someone else starts tossing out Yosemite Sam cartoons, and the whole place goes to hell!

 

[DJTJ]

I'm just concerned you speak like it occurs a lot, does it there?

People here are literally fucking insane. Think like rural Ohio... and then on steroids.

 

[DJTJ]

Defending the officers today? Then this post?



Your conversion has begun.

I'm considerably more logical when my emotional connection to issues don't get the best of me.

 

[DJTJ]

Millennials are scared of their own shadow



You seem to believe that its okay for a cop to just shoot people just for being at a crime scene.

I am far more fearful of Cops shooting first and asking questions later than a guy walking into a pie shop with a holstered weapon.

This man who was shot. He was shot because he stood up and walked toward some Cops after they had asked him too.

Why because he was black and the radio said the suspect was black.... so therefore all black people are threats and shooting is justified?

This isn't an instance of someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. it also doesn't matter what race the officer shooting is.

This guy was racially profiled and shot.

Your inability to not misrepresent posts is astounding.

Your inability to understand this specific situation was a considerably higher probability in terms of outcome.

You've attempted to say he didn't shoot the white cops so it's profiling.

You've attempted to say that the off duty was black so it's racial profiling, even though the officer responding was told there was a shootout with black assailants. The suspect... Was involved... In a shoutout. Is the cop showing up to a routine traffic stop? Is he pulling up to a general domestic disturbance? No. He's pulling up to shots fired.

You've seriously been trying to jam a square peg into a smaller round hole, and you're just demonstratably wrong. This occurance was not racial profiling, it doesn't fit into the systemic narrative.

 

[Tornicade]

What the hell are you talking about? He actually rejected that stereotype, explicitly:



That's how normal, civil discussions go. Someone makes a comment, someone else questions it, then the discussion gets, refined, clarified, etc..

Then someone else starts tossing out Yosemite Sam cartoons, and the whole place goes to hell!

Its less than a page. I am the one who introduced the concept of civilians with guns and how they are treated into the conversation.

meanwhile you and wraithe are attacking me the poster like I have no right to post.

How did wraithe reject that concept ? he brought up the good hero charing int to the fray you responded that guy running into the scene would get shot...


I posted a reminder that in the actual sample case that none of these things occurred.

I would take that as an invitation to speak towards the scenario at hand. you took it as butting in.

 

[Tornicade]

well looky here. I make a post supporting a black mans right to carry a gun and 4 people gang up on me and make a blatant attempt to exclude me from the conversation that I introduced

 

[DJTJ]

well looky here. I make a post supporting a black mans right to carry a gun and 4 people gang up on me and make a blatant attempt to exclude me from the conversation that I introduced

But you you introduced a story that isn't what you're saying it is, and refuse to understand or accept why it actually isn't a story.

In fact, him being noticed contradicts the systemic problem. Him being shot is the result of no provided updates.

If you're not willing to not sit your heels deep in the dirt, I'm not really sure what point there is to continue until you present your opinion in a way that proves/supports your goal. Because it hasn't so far... Four pages deep.

 

[Tornicade]

You're inability to not misrepresent posts is astounding.

Your inability to understand this specific situation was a considerably higher probability in terms of outcome.

You've attempted to say he didn't shoot the white cops so it's profiling.

You've attempted to say that the off duty was black so it's racial profiling, even though the officer responding was told there was a shootout with black assailants. The suspect... Was involved... In a shoutout. Is the cop showing up to a routine traffic stop? Is he pulling up to a general domestic disturbance? No. He's pulling up to shots fired.

You've seriously been trying to jam a square peg into a smaller round hole, and you're just demonstratably wrong. This occurance was not racial profiling, it doesn't fit into the systemic narrative.

well you said the white cops weren't in uniform( they had police jackets).. which they were. that specific response was a reply to you saying that the officer didn't know who was who because the other officers were undercover. (when they were part of a non uniformed task force)

What I said and am saying was that if the guy had been white the officer would of been less likely to be fearful and less likely to shoot.

I also said that an Officer didn't have to be personally racist to engage in institutional racism.

MY ability to understand the situation is perfectly fine.

There was a shootout.
The situation was placed under control.
The third officer arrived . saw the victim ordered to the ground
saw the guy get up and shot him even though the officers at the scene did not see him as a threat.
the fact that he was a cop and reports from the officers involved themselves indicated he did everything he was supposed to.

The officer saw a black man with a gun towards two officers and shot him. The officer report made no reference to the gun itself when he indicated "fear for his safety" so it appears to not have been a factor at all.

THe point is an officer is supposed to assess and take action based on what he sees on the scene regardless of why he was called there.

no one had guns drawn at the scene. no shots were being fired and the Officer saw the man detained and released.. chose to shoot him anyways.

The officer who was shot.. obviously doesn't think it was a good shooting or he wouldn't have his lawyer saying it wasn't.

 

[DJTJ]

well you said the white cops weren't in uniform( they had police jackets).. which they were. that specific response was a reply to you saying that the officer didn't know who was who because the other officers were undercover. (when they were part of a non uniformed task force)

I actually said "The armed white guys wearing uniforms... Got it." In response to you. Where you've pulled this from, I have literally no clue. My premise for why this isn't an issue is because he wasn't going to show up to a shootout and shoot the other armed cops.

What I said and am saying was that if the guy had been white the officer would of been less likely to be fearful and less likely to shoot.

I also said that an Officer didn't have to be personally racist to engage in institutional racism.

If a cop pulls up to an active shooter situation, regardless of skin color, the officer will be pulling there standard issue pistol, and shooting when applicable. The lack of a call in, the clear orders about who was engaging police, exacerbate a non-situation that you're trying to make about race.

MY ability to understand the situation is perfectly fine.

There was a shootout.
The situation was placed under control.
The third officer arrived . saw the victim ordered to the ground
saw the guy get up and shot him even though the officers at the scene did not see him as a threat.
the fact that he was a cop and reports from the officers involved themselves indicated he did everything he was supposed to.

The officer saw a black man with a gun towards two officers and shot him. The officer report made no reference to the gun itself when he indicated "fear for his safety" so it appears to not have been a factor at all

Do you though? Officer arrives to a situation in which he's exiting a vehicle, from behind two officers, and watching what he presumes is a perp based on the dispatch walking towards two officers with a gun. This probably happened in, what, five seconds? The other officers don't see him as a threat (they did originally) once they realize who it is. Within five seconds to responding, with no assist from the officers who have it "under control", he's supposed to take everyone's temperature on the situation given what was occurring and what was dispatched? Please.

The point is an officer is supposed to assess and take action based on what he sees on the scene regardless of why he was called there.

no one had guns drawn at the scene. no shots were being fired and the Officer saw the man detained and released.. chose to shoot him anyways.

The officer who was shot.. obviously doesn't think it was a good shooting or he wouldn't have his lawyer saying it wasn't.

The officer who was shot is a civilian. His job doesn't matter when you're not being paid to do it. His lawyer (the one he hired) will attempt to collect from the city, and the union won't smack his wrists.

So, based on your logic; if an officer is dispatched to a shootout, he should show up, and get out, and try to figure out if a shootout is occurring?

You've also contradicted yourself. First, he arrived after the detain and release. Now he saw it happen. All within the same post...

It's not institutional racism. It's not an officer targeting innocent black people. It's an unmitigated risk in a situation that would not have happened, if the situation was under control and updated through dispatch.