Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

How many dead people before it’s no longer a small sample size?

We have aggregate stats on the subject that are worth analyzing. But people prefer to draw conclusions based on their emotional reaction to individual events. I think that is counter-productive, but it's human nature.

Jacob Blake, or even George Floyd situation are tragic but, strictly speaking, they aren't particularly informative in and of themselves to our interpretation of the bigger picture.

[Mr.Coffee]

If you can post links to aggregate stats that’d be great. But there is a chance you’re missing the big picture. Sometimes stats and data aren’t needed for events and cultural movements that are unfolding in a very obvious manner right before our eyes.

Cultural movements such as this one are not court cases or lab experiments. Your expectations may be incongruent with what really matters and what’s really going on or at stake. It’s interesting you talk about the big picture because I actually think your insistence that none of us are looking at the “data” (subjective, and what exactly are you talking about), then in fact you end looking like the person who can’t see the forest for the trees in such instance and maybe that’s why you’re getting the responses you are on here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ignite09

would love to know what this post actually was, lol.

Cliff believes calling out racism when he doesn’t believe it’s racism should be a bannable offence, similar to calling someone a pedophile when they are not a pedophile.

This article probably covers both his opinion on calling out racism (the insulting nuclear option) and my opinion on calling out racism (that avoiding it serves no good purpose): https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/us/po...ism/index.html

[dammage79]

So if the justice system is above the Institutional/Systemic Racism, why have the murderers of Breonna Taylor not been arrested yet? Are we taking bets on the sentences haded put to George Floyds Murderers? Im betting on the under. Much like the Rodney King cops, I doubt real justice will be served.

So while these so called police are off killing black people with no real cause we also have to remember that the system just isn't cops, its lawyers, unions, judges and lawmakers that also play a major role in all of this.

For all the crowing at the top of the mountain from politicians, what have they actually done .... like really done to stop this?

Nothing, because a militant police force is good for their lobbies (gun makers, military equipment manufacturers). Its also why gun laws aren't enacted when there's an insane amount of mass shootings.

Everyone's on the payroll.

Tired of seeing this shoot em up crap in the U.S and with no real recourse for the victims other than they get to live another day in fear that it could be them next, maybe while they're sleeping, or just looking for something in Walmart or just doing anything normal.

Id be long dead if the authorities target my skin color like they do black people. How is this any way to live. How is this a point of argument for anybody to counter? None of what's going on is okay.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If you can post links to aggregate stats that’d be great. But there is a chance you’re missing the big picture. Sometimes stats and data aren’t needed for events and cultural movements that are unfolding in a very obvious manner right before our eyes.

Cultural movements such as this one are not court cases or lab experiments. Your expectations may be incongruent with what really matters and what’s really going on or at stake. It’s interesting you talk about the big picture because I actually think your insistence that none of us are looking at the “data” (subjective, and what exactly are you talking about), then in fact you end looking like the person who can’t see the forest for the trees in such instance and maybe that’s why you’re getting the responses you are on here.

Most claims of systemic racism rely on outcome data, do they not? (And anecdotes, I suppose).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by dammage79

So if the justice system is above the Institutional/Systemic Racism, why have the murderers of Breonna Taylor not been arrested yet?

Police were allowed to execute a no-knock warrant.
Her boyfriend is allowed to shoot at a home invader.
Police are allowed to shoot back.

All of those things that resulted in her death were legal. And that's way more screwed up than if the cops were simply evil men.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

he wasn't wanted for rape by the way, his ex accused him of going over to her house, taking her car keys and touching her without her consent, that's 3rd degree sexual assault, it covers slapping her arse on the way on the door or actions like that, 2nd degree would include penetration but we aint talking about that here, we are talking about an ex complaining he took the cat and touched her, prior to the ex's accusations Blake had no prior arrests or convictions, clearly death is the only answer

He’d be fine today if he’d just grabbed her by the #####.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

How do you know they weren't certain their life was at risk?

You don't know everything about the case, and until you do, you are simply making uninformed conclusions.

Reading through this steaming pile of turd, I’ve made what I consider to be a reasonably well informed conclusion about you.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Reading through this steaming pile of turd, I’ve made what I consider to be a reasonably well informed conclusion about you.

Does it include a sheet?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ignite09

Blacks are disproportionately shot by cops because of a society that simply doesn't look at a black life with the same value as a white one. It's a system that thrives on self, over others. Blacks are an annoyance to certain people, and power over them helps certain Americans bottom line. Equality is the goal of some, and a nuisance to others. A few posters on this site find the conversation itself more annoying than relavent.

NSFW!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Elkyiv

The problem with this thinking is that waiting until a gun is pointed at you can be too late. In a nation where there are nearly 400 million firearms, I can see why they're impatient.

I would agree with you if cops were not the staunchest of supporters of "second amendment rights" like they understand them in any shape or form. If they were really concerned about guns on the streets they would take action to remove guns from society, or at worst make it more difficult to purchase one. The reality is they support more guns being out there, and do so aggressively, so this argument is bull####.

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Or you can watch that video and see how quickly someone simply “reaching into their car” can take a cops life. Is that not obvious to you? You don’t think every police officer in America has been shown this during a training session?

I would agree of the situation were a lone officer handling a situation by himself, but in almost every instance being discussed there are multiple cops involved. They have all poorly controlled the situation and allowed engagement to quickly escalate out of control. This is ridiculous when there are multiple officers involved. They have force advantage in every shape or form. The situation should then be nothing but a discussion instead of an altercation. Therein lays the problem. Officers are trained to use lethal force and not appropriate deescalation tactics. They are their own worse enemy.

A secondary problem is the distrust of police. It used to be that cops were viewed as a positive fixture in communities, but now they are viewed as a rival gang. This reputation has been earned. They show no respect to the communities they work in, so they don't get the respect they deserve. The only respect they get is from the barrel of the gun. This is prevalent in black and brown communities around the nation, and sadly is leaking into the suburbs as well. The police are viewed now as something to fear instead of something to trust and rely on for help. The actions of the police have sadly earned this reputation and there are more that enforce this reputation than those who counter it.

Originally Posted by ignite09

Yes, I think every police officer has been shown this in their training. How a cop failing to secure a suspect ends up in a death of a cop. It's why so many shoot first, and ask questions later. Poorly trained cops trained to be afraid of black males before they hit the streets is why there is such a problem down there.

That's the problem. Cops are taught to use excessive force as a survival mechanism. They are taught a "warrior mentality" - a term used by multiple training bodies around North America - and how to use lethal force almost exclusively. A new recruit will receive around eight hours of conflict management tactics, but close to 110 hours of training in weapons and submission tactics.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ah, I see now that it’s been revealed that the reports of him having a gun were false, we’ve moved on to “well they should still act as though he has a gun!”

Perhaps if they treated alleged criminal Jacob Blake as he walked away from cops without a gun the same as they treated actual killer Kyle Rittenhouse while he walked towards them with a gun, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. I mean maybe it ends up the same, I guess, but probably not.

It’s just interesting that the usual suspects are out, again, justifying the shooting of a Black man any way they can. Unfortunately for then, we’re also seeing a White killer who got the complete opposite treatment, and none of them have a problem with it, so it becomes pretty clear what this is actually all about for some people. They’re just a bit afraid to say it.

Originally Posted by Yoho

It’s much easier if you just come out with a blanket statement that “anyone who disagrees with me in this thread is a racist.”

It's kind of hard to argue with what's on video. When officers clearly treat black people differently than they treat white people, and there is video proof to support that, then maybe its time to reconsider your position? We have multiple videos of black men being shot and killed in this thread just under the suspicion of "possibly reaching for a weapon" and another well documented video of a white kid with an AR-15 slung around his neck being allowed to freely approach and walk by officers. Does that contrast not hit you in the face with the force of a Louisville Slugger? For Christ's sake, the cops gave the white kid a bottle of water and sent him on his way. Does that not resonate with you? Can you not see the immediate difference in treatment and the reason why? Race is a major part of this and we have moved well beyond "blind spots."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Elkyiv

The problem with this thinking is that waiting until a gun is pointed at you can be too late. In a nation where there are nearly 400 million firearms, I can see why they're impatient.

There still needs to be a gun, though. You can't just guess that there might be one, and start killing people, obviously. That would be an unreasonably low standard.

When the video came out, I was prepared to wait to pass judgment on the officer until we found out if there was a gun within arm's reach that he could see - if a you're pointing a weapon at someone and he ignores your instructions and makes a beeline for his car, opens the door and reaches for a gun, I can understand why you might shoot him. But there was no gun, so this is just... murder.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If you can post links to aggregate stats that’d be great.

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/states

That is a very useful site. You can sort by victim race, by whether they were armed or not, by state, etc. from 2013 through 2019.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Cliff believes calling out racism when he doesn’t believe it’s racism should be a bannable offence.

When they haven't actually said anything racist, and you're simply accusing them of being racist because you think that's their motivation for saying things you don't agree with, it really should be.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

When they haven't actually said anything racist, and you're simply accusing them of being racist because you think that's their motivation for saying things you don't agree with, it really should be.

The semantics argument again. It is obvious what they are saying based on the language and dog whistle terms they use. While we may be playing golf, when I mention how well you work the shaft while aggressively playing with the balls, I'm likely not referring to your skill with the golf club. When we're talk about white cops killing unarmed black people, and you are searching for every excuse imaginable, your motivations become pretty transparent very quickly. There is right and there is wrong, and when you are continually making excuses for those in the wrong based on their in-group membership, that is displaying a conscious bias with very clear lines of delineation.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

When they haven't actually said anything racist, and you're simply accusing them of being racist because you think that's their motivation for saying things you don't agree with, it really should be.

This is taking the ol' Ben Shapiro "racism is explicitly about hating other races" reductionist chestnut and using it as a copout to ignore both conscious and unconscious biases held by the poster, and deflect from attitudes that prop up systemic and institutionalized racism.

Your (the royal "your") posts/behavior can be racist without actually saying the quiet part loud, either through implied approval of systemic racism or by acting as though these things don't exist.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You're not capable of assessing bias, conscious or otherwise, in another poster over the internet. You just want to be able to call people racist because you don't like what they have to say and have suspicions about the poster. You shouldn't be able to, unless it's just going to be the wild west and anyone can say anything they like.

Also, I don't know or care what Ben Shapiro has to say about the topic, but if you're suggesting that you can correctly accuse someone of being racist because they can't score a clean 100 on an unconscious bias test, that's laughable.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Cliff believes calling out racism when he doesn’t believe it’s racism should be a bannable offence, similar to calling someone a pedophile when they are not a pedophile.

This article probably covers both his opinion on calling out racism (the insulting nuclear option) and my opinion on calling out racism (that avoiding it serves no good purpose): https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/us/po...ism/index.html

I think forums operate best when all personal attacks result in moderation.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think forums operate best when all personal attacks result in moderation.

I actually think the exact opposite is true, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You're not capable of assessing bias, conscious or otherwise, in another poster over the internet.

Yes, you can. It is actually quite easy because people leave a trove of data behind that can be studied. Data collected off the Internet about people is routinely used to develop very accurate psychographic models that determine values and behaviors which are then coupled with predictive analytics and used by many industries (including governments) to determine individual and group biases/preferences. It happens every day, 24x7, and some of the biggest and most prestigious companies in the world are party to the practice. While the average Joe doesn't have access to some of the tools being used to do collection and conduct analysis, the average person can quickly determine consistencies or inconsistencies in positions to recognize specific patterns and preferences. The human brain is very good at this type of processing, and while our own biases do come into play, our brains are still excellent at picking out other people's biases as well. It's part and parcel to our survival mechanisms and part of the most primitive brain structure.

[PsYcNeT]

That's a hell of a galaxy-brained take to assume that you can't assess someone's post history/contextual interactions and glean what kind of biases they hold.

Really?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That's a hell of a galaxy-brained take to assume that you can't assess someone's post history/contextual interactions and glean what kind of biases they hold.

Really?

You certainly can't. You don't have a slate of analytical tools to bring to bear, nor do you have any data outside of what's been posted on a vbulletin board. There are a thousand reasons why someone might take a position on any given subject. Let's be perfectly honest, you're not about to undertake a project of researching, categorizing and analyzing the history of the poster you want to call a racist to ensure that your hypothesis about him is free from motivated reasoning (after all, you're only engaging in this project because you don't like what he has to say and suspect he might be a bad person). That's not what's going on here.

Hell, I'll throw you a bone... If, each time you want to accuse someone of being a racist, you review their posting history and provide evidence to support your contention - not by simply mining for things you can spin to support your side, but honestly assessing those statements in context, and looking for contrary evidence that could disconfirm your hypothesis, and you then post the steps that led you to that conclusion, you might have a point. If memory serves, someone did at least a half-assed version of that with regard to one poster's use of the word "thug" in here - noting that they only ever used it with regard to black athletes. If you want to point out something like that, go nuts. But don't point to a position someone might have taken for any of a dozen reasons and accuse them of taking it because they're just a bad person. That's irrational and unfair.