Racial Inequality?

[LIPTON BASH]

Am I?

 

We hold everything I mentioned to a certain standard that otherwise we'd take objection to if those standards weren't aimed to be met 100% of the time.

 

Why then do we not hold police officers to the same standard to perform their job professionally 100% of the time?

 

If the statistics presented here are correct why then is it OK that 1 in 10 people shot by a police officer is done so unnecessarily?

 

If a police officer does this he should be held accountable, and not get off easy just because he is a police officer.

 

And where was I specifically referring to cops shooting blacks?

 

They shouldn't be unnecessarily shooting anyone of any race.

 

In what other industry do we expect and demand 100% accuracy. They are near perfect statistically speaking. Why is their entire movement based off a statiscally false proven idea?

 

If the movement was about economic divide and improving quality of living I'm on board. I can't get behind a movement that falsely paints our LE as racists.

[B-Ball-fan]

In what other industry do we expect and demand 100% accuracy. They are near perfect statistically speaking. Why is their entire movement based off a statiscally false proven idea?

 

If the movement was about economic divide and improving quality of living I'm on board. I can't get behind a movement that falsely paints our LE as racists.

 

Using just one example if 10% of all commercial flights crashed, how often do you think you'd ever fly, supposing that on occasion you do?

 

If not you, then do you think people would be a little nervous about flying if the statistics were that 10% of flights crashed?

 

While knowing that on occasion there are accidents, we indeed hold airlines to a 100% standard.

 

You can apply this same thinking to so very many of the the other examples that I used.

[LIPTON BASH]

Using just one example if 10% of all commercial flights crashed, how often do you think you'd ever fly, supposing that on occasion you do?

 

If not you, then do you think people would be a little nervous about flying if the statistics were that 10% of flights crashed?

 

While knowing that on occasion there are accidents, we indeed hold airlines to a 100% standard.

 

You can apply this same thinking to so very many of the the other examples that I used.

 

Again 10% is not an accurate analogy.

[oldgrappler]

1 in 10 would be way too high. The actual number is no where near that. Way less than 1%. The number of African-American males shot by police is about the number you would expect to get struck by lightning in a year.

 

Someone posted the percentage in one of these threads. It is really hard to wade through multiple threads to find it. As someone pointed out, the shooting of an unarmed individual, black or white, isn't always unjustified. There are those times when the individual acts aggressively, attacks someone, tries to take the police officer's gun, does not obey the officers clear commands, continues in a threatening manner, etc. In these cases, it is clearly the person's behavior that resulted in the unfortunate instance that they were shot. This is a justified shooting. So, each incident needs to be examined to know what happened. Each must be judged on the merits of what actually occurred. When this is done, the number of Afriacn-American males unjustly shot is so low that no one can justly conclude that African-Americans are being shot due to racist tendencies among the police. Police officers who do a very dangerous and stressful job sometimes make errors in judgment and then are held accountable for that error.

[oldgrappler]

In what other industry do we expect and demand 100% accuracy. They are near perfect statistically speaking. Why is their entire movement based off a statiscally false proven idea?

 

If the movement was about economic divide and improving quality of living I'm on board. I can't get behind a movement that falsely paints our LE as racists.

 

That is the issue in a nutshell. Thank you for this clear and concise statement.

[Jesse James]

I can never get behind anything that is technically built on false numbers, and/or a false narrative. When put into the light and facts are presented, then this whole movement, to quote a very wise man is built on the sand.

 

I have said during the past few years we live in a time where it seems truth and facts are optional.

[LIPTON BASH]

Using just one example if 10% of all commercial flights crashed, how often do you think you'd ever fly, supposing that on occasion you do?

 

If not you, then do you think people would be a little nervous about flying if the statistics were that 10% of flights crashed?

 

While knowing that on occasion there are accidents, we indeed hold airlines to a 100% standard.

 

You can apply this same thinking to so very many of the the other examples that I used.

 

The more honest conversation would start with you are disrespecting the flag and then justify why. People like Michael Che on SNL admitted it. Why is it so hard for the rest of you? The protest is disrespect to the flag now justify it.

[halfback20]

Am I?

 

We hold everything I mentioned to a certain standard that otherwise we'd take objection to if those standards weren't aimed to be met 100% of the time.

 

Why then do we not hold police officers to the same standard to perform their job professionally 100% of the time?

 

If the statistics presented here are correct why then is it OK that 1 in 10 people shot by a police officer is done so unnecessarily?

 

If a police officer does this he should be held accountable, and not get off easy just because he is a police officer.

 

And where was I specifically referring to cops shooting blacks?

 

They shouldn't be unnecessarily shooting anyone of any race.

 

Where did you get 1 in 10? Because thats not accurate.

[halfback20]

From an earlier post.

 

"If an African-American man is not armed, the chance that he will be killed by the police in any recent year is 0.00006 percent. If a black man is carrying a weapon, the chance is 0.00075."

[B-Ball-fan]

Where did you get 1 in 10? Because thats not accurate.

 

Pioneer Pride posted this in post #51

 

"Even the Post itself has noted the relevant data in the past. “In 74 percent of all fatal police shootings, the individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands,” the paper reported in 2015. “Another 16 percent of the shootings came after incidents that did not involve firearms or active attacks but featured other potentially dangerous threats.”

 

If these statistics are correct and 74+16 = 90 then I'm assuming from his post that this leaves the remaining 10% to represent when police shootings are unnecessarily fatal.

[B-Ball-fan]

Again 10% is not an accurate analogy.

 

Pioneer Pride posted this in post #51

 

"Even the Post itself has noted the relevant data in the past. “In 74 percent of all fatal police shootings, the individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands,” the paper reported in 2015. “Another 16 percent of the shootings came after incidents that did not involve firearms or active attacks but featured other potentially dangerous threats.”

 

If these statistics are correct and 74+16 = 90 then I'm assuming from his post that this leaves the remaining 10% to represent when police shootings are unnecessarily fatal.

[halfback20]

Pioneer Pride posted this in post #51

 

"Even the Post itself has noted the relevant data in the past. “In 74 percent of all fatal police shootings, the individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands,” the paper reported in 2015. “Another 16 percent of the shootings came after incidents that did not involve firearms or active attacks but featured other potentially dangerous threats.”

 

If these statistics are correct and 74+16 = 90 then I'm assuming from his post that this leaves the remaining 10% to represent when police shootings are unnecessarily fatal.

 

You are assuming wrong. Do some research instead of assuming.

[B-Ball-fan]

The more honest conversation would start with you are disrespecting the flag and then justify why. People like Michael Che on SNL admitted it. Why is it so hard for the rest of you? The protest is disrespect to the flag now justify it.

 

We're still thinking that this was the intent, do we?

[B-Ball-fan]

You are assuming wrong. Do some research instead of assuming.

 

So if the statistics that Pioneer Pride posted accounts for 90% what are we to make of the remaining 10%?

 

I don't know I didn't post the statistics.

 

I'm referring to the statistics that all of you are in agreement with.

[halfback20]

So if the statistics that Pioneer Pride posted accounts for 90% what are we to make of the remaining 10%?

 

I don't know I didn't post the statistics.

 

I'm referring to the statistics that all of you are in agreement with.

 

Click the link he posted. Its not difficult.

 

Or just go on assuming, like a lot of people do.