Man doesn't follow police commands, gets popped after reaching into car in Tulsa

Ah so it was a one year sample you were quoting in an effort to refute a 28 year study, good job.

Anyway kid, I've told you several times that people's actions is what gets them shot, not their race. You can't seem to figure that out and I'm not going to speculate as to why. Someone being offered the benefit of the doubt, or not offered the benefit of the doubt doesn't change that it's their actions that ultimately lead to people being shot. I don't expect you to understand at this point, you haven't thus far, but it is what it is.

 

One year study? You honestly think it 50% every year? When you said that black people kill 52% you know how you wanted it to sound, as if it was recent. Do you have the recent numbers or no? If not then don't pull out that number without saying that your most recent numbers are 2008.

As for your other point, that's just dumb. If the officer doesn't have the same benefit of the doubt then they are not going to shoot quicker. That we know, if i'm white and reach into my pocket I may get that benefit of the doubt that a black person doesn't.

Even so, this all flies in the face of MLKs dream of being judged by the content of character and not the color of skin. According to Bobby though this is acceptable.

 

By the way, here are your trends...year by year...from the study that you championed as proving your point that blacks deserved to be stereotyped. As you will see unless YOU have evidence to the contrary I'm going to believe that it is still on a downward trend.

 

I quoted a 28 year study that came up with the 52% number, you countered that with a number for just one year that was lower. Did you not realize that's what you did?

Anyway, at this point it's clear that you just aren't gonna get it and that's fine. Feel free to continue your life confused and upset about the way the world works. I've done my best with you.

 

Nice try.

There is a downward trend but you are acting like those numbers are the numbers of the present.

Looks like you should have fixed that language and added a few past participles in there, because 52% does not represent today and you stated that 52% of the total murders are done by black people TODAY. The graph below shows that it's been on a downward trend. If we want to talk about old stats then maybe we should throw in the stats from the 1960s too, why not!



You seem very confused, maybe this graph will help you.

 

SMH, picking nits. Look at your own charts, they still show disproportionate violence so I'm not sure what you think you were proving. My point still stands. Those who kill are killed. Those who kill cops are killed by cops at similar rates.

You waste so much energy doing nothing at all.

 

Actually not nitpicking at all. Your claims were wrong, that's not nitpicking.

As for this whole "Those who kill are killed" nonsense, it's a stupid point to make unless you really think that all black people should be associated with murder stats. Which it sounds like you do, since you spent so much time defending the 39% stat that even when NOT attacking black people get killed at a much higher rate than whites. I mean to defend that stat to the lengths you did seems to imply you think that.

Basically your point is "If Black Person A kills a cop in Florida than Black Person B should get less benefit of the doubt in Texas." you really believe that?

 

No, my claims were not wrong. I just cited a 28 year study and you prefer a smaller sample that is a bit friendlier yet shows basically the same thing I was pointing out.....and somehow you think it contradicts what I was saying. LOL It is what it is, you REALLY want to believe a false narrative (due to your ridiculous persecution complex most likely) and you'll do so no matter what. I get it. It's okay.

 

I can also cite stats from 1980, not sure what they have to do with 2016 but okay. You go with those 1980 stats.

 

The problem here is that you don't understand the larger point, and I highly doubt you ever will.

 

No, I won't. That's because your larger point is silly. So asking me to understand it is like asking me to understand Flat Earthers...

Sorry, it's a dumb point and I'll never understand how someone can come to that conclusion and call it logical.

 

And yet you seem to believe that if black person A gets killed by a cop in Florida, black person B should be afraid of cops in Texas.....

Logical consistency is not your friend. The EXACT same reason why black people feel like they are being targeted by police is the reason why cops (being a multi-racial group including black people) feel like they are being targeted by black people. The only difference? Cops have a more legitimate reason to think that given their much higher number (and percentage) of innocent victims affected.

 

It shouldn't matter if someone is scared of an officer or not. It's on the job of the officer to protect the civilian. Protecting a civilian isn't killing them when they are not attacking. Only in your mind though a civilian should be killed because they didn't follow orders.

What is interesting is that when the cops want to take someone alive, they very well do it.

No they do not. Less cops are killed in the line of duty than black people killed by cops. That's just a fact. I know you hate facts and rather argue about emotional stuff but there you go.

As for the race of the officer I'm not sure why you keep thinking that matters when I told you it doesn't.

 

Every single cop killed in the line of duty is a victim and every single instance is one of a wrongful death. In total you might get one or two wrongful deaths when it comes to cops killing people in the line of duty per year then it's a coin toss as to what race that person is. You can't equate (well YOU do anyway, but you shouldn't) cops being murdered to cops justifiably shooting criminals in the line of duty.

I know you foolishly believe that there are dozens or even hundreds of wrongful police shootings a year, but that's simply not what the facts show. Hell, you were sure that the 2 cases in the news right now were wrongful shootings, you might even still think that....and that's why you'll just never get it. You don't seem to even know what a wrongful shooting is. You are guided by ignorance and emotion, which is what makes it so difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you.

 

Source? Or did you just pull that out of your behind and make up your own facts again?

I don't believe that, the DOJ and FBI believes that. By the way, Betty Shelby was charged with manslaughter and will have her day in court. I said nothing about the other case by the way, I just found it curious how with little facts you came out and pretended to know everything about it. You sure jump to conclusions that you've imagined in your mind.

Bobby I'm afraid you are guided by ignorance and emotion, that makes it so difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you.

 

Yes. Not arguing that she shouldn't be charged, just that she (or other police) aren't necessarily lying or covering up, either.

 

No, we apply the exact same standard, so it works...just like it always works. You are jumping to the conclusion (not surprising, it's what you do) that she was in fact lying. Meaning you are claiming to have the clairvoyance to be inside her head, and know what her perceptions were. Please provide evidence that you have this clairvoyance, or any other evidence that you know, for a fact, that she was lying. Have you even seen the police report? Do you even know exactly what she said? If it turns out that it says something different, or that she indeed did perceive something (whether other evidence corroborates it or not)...does that mean YOU are lying? Hmmmm....??

 

Look it up, you might learn something. I feel like if you do the research for you then you will just dismiss it as you have when I've done it in the past. Do some work yourself and you'll find that there are VERY few non justifiable shootings by police in the line of duty. The numbers I've found is that 97% of police shootings are unquestionably justifiable and of the remaining 3% most end up being deemed justifiable after the full story comes out although that does include some accidents.

No, the DOJ really doesn't believe that. Like I've said, look the numbers up, educate yourself.

As to the officer being charged, that just puts it in the 3% of police shootings that require further scrutiny. When the facts come out, it'll very likely be deemed a justifiable shooting given that the man was on PCP and not following police instructions and trying to get into his car. That's enough to present a threat that makes the shooting justifiable.

LOL, perhaps you think that, it wouldn't really surprise me. After all, fools often see wisdom as folly. What matters is that the numbers support what I'm saying and they directly contradict your emotional BS narrative. Do the research and educate yourself, it won't only make you a better poster, but it might actually make you a better person.

 

That may indeed be the solution, if other options don't suffice. This is applied in combat, when our armed forces are 'policing' civilian zones. So, it isn't all that outrageous a policy, given the other alternatives.

At that point, for you know, he isn't. Is ignoring instructions, and walking back to your vehicle suitable reason to shoot someone? If I were to tell you to do something, and you ignored me, and walked to your car, would I be justified in shooting you?

The standards for police should be higher. You shouldn't just be in fear of your life...as a police officer, given your job, that could apply to too many situations. You would have reason to fear for your life simply walking up to someone for a routine traffic stop....for all they know, that person is armed, and cops DO get shot performing such routine stops. So, that isn't sufficient. Maybe something at least more like 'clear and present danger' needs to be the standard.

The video I believe you posted showing the shooting of the white male (Noble?) shows a MUCH higher level of restraint, although that person also turned out to be unarmed. The shooting in Charlotte also seems to have shown a higher level of restraint, assuming there were indeed a gun.

If doing drugs were sufficient reason to kill people, it would be open season on lots of people.

 

You don't ever supply your sources. Also, 97% where are you getting that from? Is that hard to copy and paste a link? I've done it several times and you still ignore the facts. Just like the previous thread where you ignored all but one and never addressed the others, instead you shot out a snarky insult as you like to do and ran away as fast as you could. As for your number, I've seen police counties REPORT that number themselves. Not sure it's a good idea to have police policing police. I guess you think it is though, according to you, Police are angels and not actual humans. Meanwhile maybe we should have corporations police themselves too? Bobby logic.

I've looked the numbers up and I've presented them, you've been ignoring them. As always.

You made the mistake of thinking you are wise. Like I said, fools usually see themselves as intelligent and put that label onto themselves. As for your wisdom, I don't know. I think MLK was a wise man. I think he had it right that we shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. You are arguing against that though so I do find that interesting.