Oldbear83 said:

---

D.C. "Blacks likely account for something more than about twice what one would expect if race wasn't somehow statistically related to being shot or killed."

You presume Race is the salient factor. I suspect other factors, such as criminal history of the individuals involved, are more direct in causality.

---

I don't presume anything in that statement. It is a statement about math.

There is this from the National Academy of Sciences:


"We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."





https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877.short

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D.C. "Blacks likely account for something more than about twice what one would expect if race wasn't somehow statistically related to being shot or killed."

You presume Race is the salient factor. I suspect other factors, such as criminal history of the individuals involved, are more direct in causality.

---

I don't presume anything in that statement. It is a statement about math.

---

Don't pretend you did not post what is plainly there on the page, DC.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D.C. "Blacks likely account for something more than about twice what one would expect if race wasn't somehow statistically related to being shot or killed."

You presume Race is the salient factor. I suspect other factors, such as criminal history of the individuals involved, are more direct in causality.

---

I don't presume anything in that statement. It is a statement about math.

---

Don't pretend you did not post what is plainly there on the page, DC.

---

Don't read in something that is not there. It is not an argument, it is a data point.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D.C. "Blacks likely account for something more than about twice what one would expect if race wasn't somehow statistically related to being shot or killed."

You presume Race is the salient factor. I suspect other factors, such as criminal history of the individuals involved, are more direct in causality.

---

I don't presume anything in that statement. It is a statement about math.

---

Don't pretend you did not post what is plainly there on the page, DC.

---

Don't read in something that is not there. It is not an argument, it is a data point.

---

You made it about race, and used that phrase in your own argument.

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is this from the National Academy of Sciences:


"We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877.short

---

#science

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D.C. "Blacks likely account for something more than about twice what one would expect if race wasn't somehow statistically related to being shot or killed."

You presume Race is the salient factor. I suspect other factors, such as criminal history of the individuals involved, are more direct in causality.

---

I don't presume anything in that statement. It is a statement about math.

---

Don't pretend you did not post what is plainly there on the page, DC.

---

Don't read in something that is not there. It is not an argument, it is a data point.

---

You made it about race, and used that phrase in your own argument.

---

The original post on this thread "Do more unarmed whites or blacks die by police each year?" made the topic about race.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D.C. "Blacks likely account for something more than about twice what one would expect if race wasn't somehow statistically related to being shot or killed."

You presume Race is the salient factor. I suspect other factors, such as criminal history of the individuals involved, are more direct in causality.

---

I don't presume anything in that statement. It is a statement about math.

---

Don't pretend you did not post what is plainly there on the page, DC.

---

Don't read in something that is not there. It is not an argument, it is a data point.

---

You made it about race, and used that phrase in your own argument.

---

The original post on this thread "Do more unarmed whites or blacks die by police each year?" made the topic about race.

---

And you carried that contention in your post.

Your argument, own it.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is this from the National Academy of Sciences:


"We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877.short

---

#science

---

#morescience
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1263

#andmorescience

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1264

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is this from the National Academy of Sciences:


"We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877.short

---

#science

---

#morescience
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1263

#andmorescience

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1264

---

Well at least you can admit you are race-obsessed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D.C. "Blacks likely account for something more than about twice what one would expect if race wasn't somehow statistically related to being shot or killed."

You presume Race is the salient factor. I suspect other factors, such as criminal history of the individuals involved, are more direct in causality.

---

I don't presume anything in that statement. It is a statement about math.

---

Don't pretend you did not post what is plainly there on the page, DC.

---

Don't read in something that is not there. It is not an argument, it is a data point.

---

You made it about race, and used that phrase in your own argument.

---

The original post on this thread "Do more unarmed whites or blacks die by police each year?" made the topic about race.

---

And you carried that contention in your post.

Your argument, own it.

---

I will own my argument. In this case, my argument, and it is indisputable, is that raw numbers don't tell the whole story. About twice as many unarmed African Americans were shot as one would expect if those shootings were randomly distributed by race.

Again, my point in the original post is this: raw numbers do not tell the whole story. I am describing a statistical relationship: "So Blacks likely account for something more than about twice what one would expect if race wasn't somehow statistically related to being shot or killed..."

Jack and DP said:

---

---

It's not the deaths of violent offenders that are causing outage. It's those of non-violent offenders or, in some cases, plain old non offenders.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is this from the National Academy of Sciences:


"We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877.short

---

#science

---

#morescience
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1263

#andmorescience

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1264

---

Well at least you can admit you are race-obsessed.

---

Those are a follow up letter and a response from the original article's authors. You can find them by clicking on the link to the original article. Providing that information does not make me "race-obsessed."

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is this from the National Academy of Sciences:


"We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877.short

---

#science

---

#morescience
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1263

#andmorescience

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1264

---

Well at least you can admit you are race-obsessed.

---

Those are a follow up letter and a response from the original article's authors. You can find them by clicking on the link to the original article. Providing that information does not make me "race-obsessed."

---

Of course it does. You chose to ignore the primary conclusion of the study, in order to dig up details which you could use to support a different conclusion.

Since you continue to obsess on race in a report where race was eliminated as the main cause of the violence, you are by definition obsessing on race in defiance of the facts.

bear2be2 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

It's not the deaths of violent offenders that are causing outage. It's those of non-violent offenders or, in some cases, plain old non offenders.

---

There is also this study from 2016


James, Lois, James, Stephen, Vila, Bryan
2016/01/14
"The Reverse Racism Effect: Are Cops More Hesitant to Shoot Black Than White Suspects?"


"we conducted the first series of experimental research studies that tested police officers and civilians in strikingly realistic deadly force simulators. Policy Implications This article reports the results of our most recent experiment, which tested 80 police patrol officers by applying this leading edge method. We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12187/abstract


But go ahead and believe Cops=Racists, facts be damned

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is this from the National Academy of Sciences:


"We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877.short

---

#science

---

#morescience
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1263

#andmorescience

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1264

---

Well at least you can admit you are race-obsessed.

---

Those are a follow up letter and a response from the original article's authors. You can find them by clicking on the link to the original article. Providing that information does not make me "race-obsessed."

---

Of course it does. You chose to ignore the primary conclusion of the study, in order to dig up details which you could use to support a different conclusion.

Since you continue to obsess on race in a report where race was eliminated as the main cause of the violence, you are by definition obsessing on race in defiance of the facts.

---

They adjusted the study to more realistic parameters. Nothing more, and it did show that young unarmed black males are much more likely to be the victim of deadly police force.

We do the same thing with Covid to show how weak it is compared to original models and predictions. Don't be unnecessarily argumentative.

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is also this study from 2016


James, Lois, James, Stephen, Vila, Bryan
2016/01/14
"The Reverse Racism Effect: Are Cops More Hesitant to Shoot Black Than White Suspects?"


"we conducted the first series of experimental research studies that tested police officers and civilians in strikingly realistic deadly force simulators. Policy Implications This article reports the results of our most recent experiment, which tested 80 police patrol officers by applying this leading edge method. We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12187/abstract


But go ahead and believe Cops=Racists, facts be damned

---

Lab simulation experiment. Real world stats are real world stats unfortunately.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is this from the National Academy of Sciences:


"We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877.short

---

#science

---

#morescience
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1263

#andmorescience

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1264

---

Well at least you can admit you are race-obsessed.

---

Those are a follow up letter and a response from the original article's authors. You can find them by clicking on the link to the original article. Providing that information does not make me "race-obsessed."

---

Of course it does. You chose to ignore the primary conclusion of the study, in order to dig up details which you could use to support a different conclusion.

Since you continue to obsess on race in a report where race was eliminated as the main cause of the violence, you are by definition obsessing on race in defiance of the facts.

---

I did not ignore the primary conclusion of the study. I provided a link to a follow up letter and a response from the original authors discussing the findings. Does your background allow you to understand the statistics and methods that are discussed in the original article, the follow up letter and the response to it? (This is not an insult, it is a question. If you don't have that background, those links may not be of interest).

This thread topic is about racial disparities in shooting of unarmed civilians by police. It comes at a time when race and law enforcement are significant news stories, to say the least. Accusing me of being obsessed with race because I provided a couple of links to more information a previously linked article, both questioning and supporting the original study, is absurd.

#science

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf

This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force officer involved shootings we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is also this study from 2016


James, Lois, James, Stephen, Vila, Bryan
2016/01/14
"The Reverse Racism Effect: Are Cops More Hesitant to Shoot Black Than White Suspects?"


"we conducted the first series of experimental research studies that tested police officers and civilians in strikingly realistic deadly force simulators. Policy Implications This article reports the results of our most recent experiment, which tested 80 police patrol officers by applying this leading edge method. We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12187/abstract


But go ahead and believe Cops=Racists, facts be damned

---

Lab simulation experiment. Real world stats are real world stats unfortunately.

---

Facts are facts, bigotry exists when someone cherry-picks them to sell a lie.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

#science

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf

This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force officer involved shootings we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings

---

Interesting that the first stat leads to a higher likelihood for the second. Elevated number of force use actions for certain groups, yet equivalent outcomes during heavy force interactions. I think the key stat is why would you have similar level of heavy force interaction between disparate population size groups.

Listen, we can bend these things however we think, but the data is the data. On a proportionate basis, young black males are the most likely group to be killed by deadly police force. Now that stat has a lot of complicated factors within it. And it is not a binary "racist police force/officer" or "high criminality group". There are many factors that play into it. For resolution, all sides will need to own up to their contributions and dig deep into other mitigating factors.

Maybe you didn't see my post from earlier:

Ok, DC Bear, here is my reply to your last post. For some reason, it won't let me post by replying.

It is a known fact that expectations can influence outcomes? That's not being very specific. Let's keep it relevant to our discussion- is it a known fact that police expectations influence outcomes, and if so, in what way? And if you have evidence, please share.

Yes, I know you said "believe". That's exactly my point- you don't really know whether or not race was involved. No one does for sure at this point. Yet it's a major part of the narrative and the impetus for all these protests, even the violent riots.

I would, however, like to hear your deductive reasoning behind your belief that race was involved.

Instead of asking a broad question like your last one, let's again concentrate on being specific. Why don't we do this- why don't you tell me what problem YOU think exists with law enforcement as it relates to race, and I'll tell you if I agree or not, and we'll go from there. Let's streamline this discussion a bit by zeroing in on what you obviously have in mind.

ATL Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

#science

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf

This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force officer involved shootings we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings

---

Interesting that the first stat leads to a higher likelihood for the second. Elevated number of force use actions for certain groups, yet equivalent outcomes during heavy force interactions. I think the key stat is why would you have similar level of heavy force interaction between disparate population size groups.

Listen, we can bend these things however we think, but the data is the data. On a proportionate basis, young black males are the most likely group to be killed by deadly police force. Now that stat has a lot of complicated factors within it. And it is not a binary "racist police force/officer" or "high criminality group". There are many factors that play into it. For resolution, all sides will need to own up to their contributions and dig deep into other mitigating factors.

---

What is the contribution of the "racist police force/officer" side, and what is the data, but more importantly as it relates to what's going on right now - do you think it was a contribution to the killing of George Floyd? Why or why not?

ATL Bear said:

---

Listen, we can bend these things however we think, but the data is the data. On a proportionate basis, young black males are the most likely group to be killed by deadly police force. Now that stat has a lot of complicated factors within it. And it is not a binary "racist police force/officer" or "high criminality group". There are many factors that play into it. For resolution, all sides will need to own up to their contributions and dig deep into other mitigating factors.

---

But that is NOT what is happening within the discourse in this country right now, is it? Only one side is being blamed by the leftist media, democrats, celebrities, athletes, and career race-baiters. And it's proving to be disastrous.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Maybe you didn't see my post from earlier:

Ok, DC Bear, here is my reply to your last post. For some reason, it won't let me post by replying.

It is a known fact that expectations can influence outcomes? That's not being very specific. Let's keep it relevant to our discussion- is it a known fact that police expectations influence outcomes, and if so, in what way? And if you have evidence, please share.

Yes, I know you said "believe". That's exactly my point- you don't really know whether or not race was involved. No one does for sure at this point. Yet it's a major part of the narrative and the impetus for all these protests, even the violent riots.

I would, however, like to hear your deductive reasoning behind your belief that race was involved.

Instead of asking a broad question like your last one, let's again concentrate on being specific. Why don't we do this- why don't you tell me what problem YOU think exists with law enforcement as it relates to race, and I'll tell you if I agree or not, and we'll go from there. Let's streamline this discussion a bit by zeroing in on what you obviously have in mind.

---

On expectations influencing outcomes, it is not just police expectations, but the expectations of civilians as well. Communication is not a one way street. This isn't just about police and public interactions, but applies in a vast array of situations. Robert Rosenthal's work provides a good theoretical explanation. In short, you can end up with a self fulfilling prophecy, the outcomes can be good or bad. Note that I am not looking here for who is to blame, but trying to figure out what is actually happening. It is more complex than the various public narratives about it, and finding solutions requires going beyond those public narratives.

What level of confidence do you want me to have to move from "believe" to "know?" Is it 95 percent? 90 percent?I believe that race played a role because of the history of that particular city and police department. Let's say your point is correct and we don't "know" that this was related to race. What are the implications? We can't say with any degree of certainty that race didn't play a role that particular case.

I don't think a problem exists with law enforcement as I relates to race. I think a wide range of very complex problems exist with law enforcement as it relates to race. It may not be subject to streamlining.

I would note again your example that one can have these discussions without the petty vitriol that often becomes dominant.

I believe "race" is a red herring.

The real problem, from my personal experience with dozens of LEO friends, is a combination of city-level politics, police unions, and the difficulty managing any group with thousands of members.

Consider the military as an analogy. The US military, in a historical and global context, is very stable and law-abiding, but there are still a lot of bad actors, criminals who should never have been able to get into the military, who sometimes give their unit or military branch a bad name. The same problem exists for cops, who sometimes don't get the support, scheduling and resources they need to do their job as well as they would like. Add to it the problem of small groups within local police departments who may go rogue and get away with crap for some time before they are removed. Add to that the problem of unions which exist to protect the integrity of the force, but which also protect bad cops from firing while trying to protect the whole department.

I agree that the problem is complex, and often depends on the specifics of individual events, but overall the problem is one of bureaucracy and logistics far more than race.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

How many unarmed black people were killed by police last year?

---

9 out of 41 total were black

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Maybe you didn't see my post from earlier:

Ok, DC Bear, here is my reply to your last post. For some reason, it won't let me post by replying.

It is a known fact that expectations can influence outcomes? That's not being very specific. Let's keep it relevant to our discussion- is it a known fact that police expectations influence outcomes, and if so, in what way? And if you have evidence, please share.

Yes, I know you said "believe". That's exactly my point- you don't really know whether or not race was involved. No one does for sure at this point. Yet it's a major part of the narrative and the impetus for all these protests, even the violent riots.

I would, however, like to hear your deductive reasoning behind your belief that race was involved.

Instead of asking a broad question like your last one, let's again concentrate on being specific. Why don't we do this- why don't you tell me what problem YOU think exists with law enforcement as it relates to race, and I'll tell you if I agree or not, and we'll go from there. Let's streamline this discussion a bit by zeroing in on what you obviously have in mind.

---

On expectations influencing outcomes, it is not just police expectations, but the expectations of civilians as well. Communication is not a one way street. This isn't just about police and public interactions, but applies in a vast array of situations. Robert Rosenthal's work provides a good theoretical explanation. In short, you can end up with a self fulfilling prophecy, the outcomes can be good or bad. Note that I am not looking here for who is to blame, but trying to figure out what is actually happening. It is more complex than the various public narratives about it, and finding solutions requires going beyond those public narratives.

What level of confidence do you want me to have to move from "believe" to "know?" Is it 95 percent? 90 percent?I believe that race played a role because of the history of that particular city and police department. Let's say your point is correct and we don't "know" that this was related to race. What are the implications? We can't say with any degree of certainty that race didn't play a role that particular case.

I don't think a problem exists with law enforcement as I relates to race. I think a wide range of very complex problems exist with law enforcement as it relates to race. It may not be subject to streamlining.

I would note again your example that one can have these discussions without the petty vitriol that often becomes dominant.

---

I agree with above in bold completely. My complaint is, as I noted earlier, that the narrative seems to be so one-sided, especially from the media/democrats, and the result has been utterly disastrous, not just for the black community, but the entire country.

I admit I'm kind of surprised - your tone seemed to convey the opposite of what you just said. That's why I feel it necessary to first try and understand someone's position clearly first, before any "argument"/debate. I agree that many times that discussions here devolve into pissing contests.

I am asking about why you "believe" now, not how you "know". You said you deduced it. I am interested in your reasoning.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Listen, we can bend these things however we think, but the data is the data. On a proportionate basis, young black males are the most likely group to be killed by deadly police force. Now that stat has a lot of complicated factors within it. And it is not a binary "racist police force/officer" or "high criminality group". There are many factors that play into it. For resolution, all sides will need to own up to their contributions and dig deep into other mitigating factors.

---

But that is NOT what is happening within the discourse in this country right now, is it? Only one side is being blamed by the leftist media, democrats, celebrities, athletes, and career race-baiters. And it's proving to be disastrous.

---

In fairness, one side has gotten a lot of passes for previous transgressions, and I'm referring to police forces, not a particular race within the police force. Race, to me, is an independent component to the issue of the Foster killing. It's more about bad police policy, rogue officers, poor tactics and training, and the callous nature we create in police officers. There is a clear you vs me sentiment in many officers and police forces. And when you have that with the type of interaction that occurs in criminal areas which are in many cases high minority populations due to poverty, you're going to have outcomes that appear to be racially motivated whether race had anything to do with the officers reaction.

But something that isn't popular but needs to be said is that police work isn't even in the top 10 as far as most dangerous jobs in the US. We've built up a mystique of danger that isn't to the level whereby we militarize our police as if they're always in a combat zone. And there lies a major issue. The military deals with hostile situations completely different and has much different rules of engagement than police should.

ATL Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Listen, we can bend these things however we think, but the data is the data. On a proportionate basis, young black males are the most likely group to be killed by deadly police force. Now that stat has a lot of complicated factors within it. And it is not a binary "racist police force/officer" or "high criminality group". There are many factors that play into it. For resolution, all sides will need to own up to their contributions and dig deep into other mitigating factors.

---

But that is NOT what is happening within the discourse in this country right now, is it? Only one side is being blamed by the leftist media, democrats, celebrities, athletes, and career race-baiters. And it's proving to be disastrous.

---

In fairness, one side has gotten a lot of passes for previous transgressions, and I'm referring to police forces, not a particular race within the police force. Race, to me, is an independent component to the issue of the Foster killing. It's more about bad police policy, rogue officers, poor tactics and training, and the callous nature we create in police officers. There is a clear you vs me sentiment in many officers and police forces. And when you have that with the type of interaction that occurs in criminal areas which are in many cases high minority populations due to poverty, you're going to have outcomes that appear to be racially motivated whether race had anything to do with the officers reaction.

But something that isn't popular but needs to be said is that police work isn't even in the top 10 as far as most dangerous jobs in the US. We've built up a mystique of danger that isn't to the level whereby we militarize our police as if they're always in a combat zone. And there lies a major issue. The military deals with hostile situations completely different and has much different rules of engagement than police should.

---

I generally agree with you, but we need to move past the past and stop looking for 500-year-old grievances.

It is possible both to: 1) begrudge all police brutality, and 2) deny black men are in danger (from police) just for leaving their homes.

The reason African Americans are disproportionately impacted by police violence is because they commit a significant more percentage of crime, which is the right denominator. As an analogy ... if we are comparing vehicle fatalities by race, we could use population as the denominator. But, if for whatever reason, Native Americans drove at 2x the rate of all other races, that might explain why they had a disproportionate fatality rate.

I've said before - would 100% support less militarization and more on-foot, community policing. However, another unfortunate side effect of the mass rioting is reinforcing the need for militarized police in many circles.

"police work isn't even in the top 10 as far as most dangerous jobs in the US."

Depends on how you look at the job, and whether you consider stress and difficulty aside from physical peril.

I guarantee you most of the loudmouths on this board wouldn't last two weeks on the job as a cop, even if they were in physical shape.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Listen, we can bend these things however we think, but the data is the data. On a proportionate basis, young black males are the most likely group to be killed by deadly police force. Now that stat has a lot of complicated factors within it. And it is not a binary "racist police force/officer" or "high criminality group". There are many factors that play into it. For resolution, all sides will need to own up to their contributions and dig deep into other mitigating factors.

---

But that is NOT what is happening within the discourse in this country right now, is it? Only one side is being blamed by the leftist media, democrats, celebrities, athletes, and career race-baiters. And it's proving to be disastrous.

---

In fairness, one side has gotten a lot of passes for previous transgressions, and I'm referring to police forces, not a particular race within the police force. Race, to me, is an independent component to the issue of the Foster killing. It's more about bad police policy, rogue officers, poor tactics and training, and the callous nature we create in police officers. There is a clear you vs me sentiment in many officers and police forces. And when you have that with the type of interaction that occurs in criminal areas which are in many cases high minority populations due to poverty, you're going to have outcomes that appear to be racially motivated whether race had anything to do with the officers reaction.

But something that isn't popular but needs to be said is that police work isn't even in the top 10 as far as most dangerous jobs in the US. We've built up a mystique of danger that isn't to the level whereby we militarize our police as if they're always in a combat zone. And there lies a major issue. The military deals with hostile situations completely different and has much different rules of engagement than police should.

---

I generally agree with you, but we need to move past the past and stop looking for 500-year-old grievances.

It is possible both to: 1) begrudge all police brutality, and 2) deny black men are in danger (from police) just for leaving their homes.

The reason African Americans are disproportionately impacted by police violence is because they commit a significant more percentage of crime, which is the right denominator. As an analogy ... if we are comparing vehicle fatalities by race, we could use population as the denominator. But, if for whatever reason, Native Americans drove at 2x the rate of all other races, that might explain why they had a disproportionate fatality rate.

I've said before - would 100% support less militarization and more on-foot, community policing. However, another unfortunate side effect of the mass rioting is reinforcing the need for militarized police in many circles.

---

The guy who did nothing wrong, but gets pulled over six times a year for no reason other than the fact that he is a black male isn't "they." I've been pulled over once in my entire life as a driver and once as a passenger. Both times for a burned out headlight, and neither time was a ticket even issued, though it could have been.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"police work isn't even in the top 10 as far as most dangerous jobs in the US."

Depends on how you look at the job, and whether you consider stress and difficulty aside from physical peril.

I guarantee you most of the loudmouths on this board wouldn't last two weeks on the job as a cop, even if they were in physical shape.

---

Those stats are deceiving. They consider all law enforcement officers. When you consider police (1) actually in the field and (2) working in dangerous areas (cities), it is near the top of most dangerous jobs.