Defund the Police?

[Onward Allusion]

^^^^
Two things...

I wasn't referring to George Floyd. I was referring to Rayshard Brooks which happened on Friday night in Atlanta.

Second, you are cherry picking. I'm pretty sure I can locate a study that says CBD oil is a cure for Covid-19.

BTW, anything following the "but" conjunction negates everything it preceded.

[JohnKSa]

Quoting a couple of studies that support a point of view could turn out to be cherry picking if it turns out that there are other, equally (or more) credible studies that support the opposite point of view.

But simply quoting a study that supports one's point of view is not Cherry Picking, in and of itself. To support an allegation that something is actually Cherry Picking, requires demonstrating that there is other equally credible, or more credible data that contradicts the evidence being quoted.

The Brooks incident is completely on video. It shows him fighting with two cops after they try to cuff him for a DUI. It shows him grabbing one cop's taser. It shows him breaking free and running away with one cop chasing him. It shows him reaching back over his shoulder and firing the taser at the cop chasing him at close range. It then shows him being shot by the cop.

The 'but' conjunction does not totally negate everything in front of it.

Here's an example:

It was really hot today--over 100 degrees, but not as hot as molten lead.

In that case, nothing following the 'but' negates the fact that it was hot today. It does point out that there are things hotter than the temperature today.

Another example:

Two plus two equals four, but Jimmy wrote down the answer as '5' on his homework.

In that case, the 'but' just demonstrates that the child didn't know that 2 plus 2 was four--it has no effect at all on the truth of the fact that two plus two equals four.

Another example:

Most murderers are male, but there are some female murderers.

It is certainly true that most murderers are male. It is also true that some murderers are female. The 'but' in the sentence doesn't call into question the veracity of the first part of the sentence, it only points out a second truth.

[Metal god]

Two plus two equals four, but Jimmy wrote down the answer as '5' on his homework.

In that case, the 'but' just demonstrates that the child didn't know that 2 plus 2 was four--it has no effect at all on the truth of the fact that two plus two equals four.

Well now you're just assuming that Jimmy is a child , old people can be dumb too .

[Aguila Blanca]

Quoting a couple of studies that support a point of view could turn out to be cherry picking if it turns out that there are other, equally (or more) credible studies that support the opposite point of view.

But simply quoting a study that supports one's point of view is not Cherry Picking, in and of itself. To support an allegation that something is actually Cherry Picking, requires demonstrating that there is other equally credible, or more credible data that contradicts the evidence being quoted.

More than that. To support an allegation that something is actually Cherry Picking requires demonstrating that there are other equally credible, or more credible, studies that contradict the evidence being quoted and that the person making the statement was aware of the conflicting studies and deliberately overlooked them.

[44 AMP]

Alright, let's say, for the sake of discussion that we have studies that accurately depict reality, and they say there is no racial component in the people the police shoot.

Why then, do we have so many people believing that black males are being intentionally killed by the police over and above everyone else??

Might it be that it is because someone(s) is telling us that, over and over??

And, just who would that be, that is reporting this??

Consider for a moment the possibility that what gets reported, and how might be used to shape a point of view that is at odds with a study that looks at every case, and is subject to scrutiny and review which the "free" press is not.

"Yellow Journalism" isn't dead, it's just not printed on yellow paper these days...

Consider, would we even have "defund the police" as a national issue, without the press making it one? IF the press treated the idea as the lunatic ravings of a few out of touch individuals, instead of an idea with some merit, would it even be a topic of discussion? I rather doubt it.

[Metal god]

I'm just going to use an example of general numbers that aren't 100% accurate .

Lets say for this argument whites , blacks , browns and yellows all get killed by the police the same amount ( numbers wise )

Whites are something like 60%+ of the population while backs are under 15% of the population . Meaning if both whites and blacks are killed 100 times a year respectively . Blacks would be far more likely to be killed then whites , something like 4 or 5 times more likely percentage wise . That's a stat that can't be ignored .

So lets take this "example" a step further . Those numbers would suggest that any reasonable person would conclude whites should be committing far more crimes therefore interacting with the police far more and yet they are far less likely to be killed by police percentage wise .

If those numbers are even close to accurate , why is that ?

[44 AMP]

Lets say for this argument whites , blacks , browns and yellows all get killed by the police the same amount ( numbers wise ) ….

Ok, now, here a key factor, the difference between actual numbers of incidents and the number of incidents, adjusted for population percentages.

One needs to know which of these the data is, in order to use it as an accurate comparator.

I saw this once in a debate over a tax proposal. One side talked only about $, (number of dollars) and the other side talked only about $ in terms of percentage of income.

Neither side "won" because they weren't talking about the same thing the same way and the public was just confused.

Here's another way to look at it, lets say the speed limit is 50mph. And it gets raised to 55mph. One side says it was raised a whopping 10%. The other side says, it was only raised a mere 5mph.

Both are technically correct. Which one sounds "worse" to you??

[Metal god]

Here's another way to look at it, lets say the speed limit is 50mph. And it gets raised to 55mph. One side says it was raised a whopping 10%. The other side says, it was only raised a mere 5mph.

I understand but my example is not the same stat being explained two different ways . There "is" an actual statistical difference in my example .

Whites = 100

Blacks = 10

What is 10% of each of those . Whites is 10 and blacks is 1 . Translate those to population and the whites should be killed 10x more then blacks if they both were being killed at the same rate per year and yet blacks get killed 4x more per there population .

[HiBC]

Quote:
Here's another way to look at it, lets say the speed limit is 50mph. And it gets raised to 55mph. One side says it was raised a whopping 10%. The other side says, it was only raised a mere 5mph.
I understand but my example is not the same stat being explained two different ways . There "is" an actual statistical difference in my example .

Whites = 100

Blacks = 10

What is 10% of each of those . Whites is 10 and blacks is 1 . Translate those to population and the whites should be killed 10x more then blacks if they both were being killed at the same rate per year and yet blacks get killed 4x more per there population

Here is a fly in the ointment.
It happens that a study is made using apparently one variable.

In the example you gave,the variable was skin color. It would be easy to jump to a conclusion about cops and skin color.

But your logic overlooks the fact that with skin color many other variables enter the equation.
Hypothetically:
It is possible the criteria of skin color might select a demographic of people who coincidentally live with poverty and high population density,and perhaps an education system that does not serve them well.
It also might be a hostile environment for police officers of any race.
Andy and Barney style may not be sustainable. Policing style might be different in Chicago vs Mayberry.
I do not intend to trash the very high percentage of courteous.professional LEO's.
But I can appreciate that police contacts and field interrogations for the 97Th time MIGHT build up an inner rage in a young man guilty of nothing more than "Walking while Black"
I understand why cops mght want to see ID, but unless the citizen is being investigated for an identifiable crime,the citizen is not required to produce or provide ID. The Citizen already has the presumption of innocense,and doed not have to prove his innocense The cop who says "How do I know you are not (fill in the blank) is wrong.
And not having,or refusing to provide ID will often send the cop on a fishing expedition to find something,anything, to charge the citizen with.

If the Black Citizen is subjected to four or five times the number of police contacts,the numbers will show more violence and fatalities.

At least some of the time,there was no crime. The Citizen just refuses to comply with the indignity of having his 4th Amendment Rights violated.
The point is not about how the Citizen should handle it. The point is,this may skew the stats.

It might be that more training on the Constitutional Rights of Citizens,with the clear message that "workarounds" will not be tolerated is in order.

Those factors may contribute to a higher per capita crime rate......iPerhaps poverty and population density are more significant than skin color,and,in fact, skin color itself may have little or nothing to do with it.

For whatever reason,(and I do not claim to know the answers) a population arbitrarily defined by skin color may (for whatever reason) have 10 times the violent crime where they live.
If we select the often quoted Chicago stats,how would they compare to Pocatello?
The hazards of being a young black male living in some parts of Chicago are real.
I don't think it would be correct to jump to conclusions from those numbers.

Its possible it would help if you applied control groups to your "study".

I really do not want to walk any farther into this minefield.

The same flawed logic shows itself in many other arguments.

Like 9mm vs 45. Right or wrong,some will argue "bigger is better" based purely on bullet diameter. But that does not cover all the variables that apply.

The 9mm will inherently have more mag capacity,and will be more controllable. So the arguement might be,which is more effective,three hits with 9mm vs two with 45.

And PLEASE...that was only a non-racial example of another arguement that gets lost in the weeds by oversimplification.
Lets NOT argue 9mm vs 45 here.

[Metal god]

You are 100% correct but agian without actually knowing the numbers . It does not seem reasonable to think with whites Being 60% of the population that there isn’t at least as many whites if not more actual number wise living in those same conditions . When there’s such a huge difference in population from one criteria to the other there’s no way in my humble opinion that the larger population does not at least represent with in its numbers what the lower percentage criteria has . Therefore there “should” at least be the same amount of deaths Per capita Regardless of race if race didn’t play a part .

[44 AMP]

The 9mm will inherantly have more mag capacity,and will be more controllable.

I don't find the 9mm to be more controllable than the .45.

So, for me, that argument is shot in the butt from the get go.

What is 10% of each of those . Whites is 10 and blacks is 1 . Translate those to population and the whites should be killed 10x more then blacks if they both were being killed at the same rate per year and yet blacks get killed 4x more per there population

And where does that 4x number come from? The news?? Or someone with an agenda being in the news??

We simply don't know the truth, and I have serious trust issues with media reporting, on nearly every subject. Nor do I have complete faith in "studies", simply because you can get a study to say nearly anything you want, by "adjusting" the study parameters.

Consider, especially now, a black guy shot by the cops becomes national news (because it SELLS news) while a white guy, in the same situation is "only" local news...

I find it a plausible idea that it is possible the number of non-black people shot by the cops is in line with general population numbers and simply not being reported the same as black shootings.

I also find it equally possible that, since our nation is NOT a homogenous mixture and that there are areas with both high crime (and high numbers of police shootings), and also having the local population being the reverse of the national averages, statistics from those areas will not be in line with national averages.

Comparing an inner city area where there are a dozen police shootings a year, to a rural area that has had 3 police shootings in the last 2 decades and then adding in the racial population factors for both and reaching a conclusion that blacks are shot more often, everywhere doesn't seem right to me.

Always keep in mind that correlation is not causation.

[HiBC]

I don't have the stats and I'm not going to research them. I've heard them.
IIRC,Candace Owen touched on them in a recent vlog.

Might it be interesting to include a comparison of per capita violent crime rates,citizen to citizen?

I'm not claiming any stats.

If a population of Artesians has 5X the per capita violent crime rate versus the population of Lilliputucians,

Might the stats show the cops who police the Artesians have more violent encounters?

I'm not trying to generalize about any population.

I'm reminding us there are lies,damned lies,and statistics.

You can collect data to support any preconcieved notion

In many cases,it is the agenda being driven that is the motivation to produce the stats Truth has no agenda.

[Metal god]

I don't have the stats and I'm not going to research them.

Just to clarify , when I said

You are 100% correct but again without actually knowing the numbers . It does not seem reasonable to think...

I was saying "I" did not have stats/numbers to back up what I was about to say . I did not mean it to sound like I was asking you to prove anything you were saying with numbers/stats .

I don't even know if what I said even made sense to others . I know what I mean but often have a real hard time putting it into written form . That's why almost all my post are edited , the more I read through them I think of better ways to say something . I try to never change what I said just make it more clear , well that's what I think I'm doing anyways haha

And where does that 4x number come from? The news?? Or someone with an agenda being in the news

No it came from my previous post and those numbers were general that I pulled from the census website . I don't generally quote the news and often check multiple sources when writing about this stuff . I literally don't trust any one source anymore . Everything I've been saying has been from me with some quick research to make sure my thinking is not way off .

I knew whites far out number any other race from hearing people say things like "in ten years whites will be a minority in the US" . Which made no sense to me so I researched it years ago . That's right up there with "defund the police" as dumb things said . I don't know but I'm not sure that will ever be true .

Anyways I'm in no way trying to point out stats that support my position . I just thought that was an interesting statistic and hoped it helped in the discussion . I don't even have a fully formed position on all this . I don't in most complex debates because I often have strong feeling for parts of both sides . I've never been a all or nothing person except for gun control . If you want my vote it starts with , Can we all keep our guns and continue buying more ? if yes then I'll listen to what else you have to say . Which is a tough position to have living in CA

[HiBC]

I didn't mean to be personal about it.MG.

I've dealt with a number of people who earn their living convincing others,sometimes the Government,to buy into an idea.

Its perfectly reasonable,even required,to back up the proposal with study and data. As it should be.

Its not about you.MG, I've just seen it happen that the starting point is the desired conclusion.The research and data is a marketing program for whatever agenda is being sold.

Its not supposed to be that way,but it often is.

When I hear sensational claims and numbers,its sometimes good to look deeper.

Some news networks,some politicians,the anti-gun orgs,make some pretty incredible claims and call it "data"

Another great source of skepticism is the fellow who can't really support an arguement so he pulls out his phone and drops Snopes.

[44 AMP]

The problem is that while facts are facts, the conclusions drawn from an interpretation of facts can be nothing more than opinion.

Lets say this is a fact:
"98%+ of all convicted murderers in the US ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days prior to committing murder".

This could be a fact.

However using this "fact" to say "Banning bread will reduce murder" isn't a fact, its an opinion.

(and a stupid one, at that )

I think "defunding the police" is pretty close to that level...

[Metal god]

I think you guys might be missing the point of my last few posts . They were not to point out stats and or facts but rather bring up numbers/stats that I’ve seen . In order to discuss their validity . I Believe I asked questions after bringing them up . The question/s we’re not to suggest my numbers are correct and not disputable but rather legitimate questions if they were accurate

Originally Posted by Me

It does not seem reasonable to think with whites Being 60% of the population that there isn’t at least as many whites if not more actual number wise living in those same conditions . When there’s such a huge difference in population from one criteria to the other there’s no way in my humble opinion that the larger population does not at least represent with in its numbers what the lower percentage criteria has

Originally Posted by You

If the Black Citizen is subjected to four or five times the number of police contacts,the numbers will show more violence and fatalities.

My point is simple , the numbers should not make that possible if things are applied equally . Lets look at it a different way . If there is a part that fails consistently 1 out of every 10 made and I have 60 of them and you have 15 of them . Who is more likely to have more parts fail ? My numbers are so much more then yours that even if your parts failed at double the amount they normally do you should still have less failed parts then I . So how would you explain you having the same amount of failed parts as me ( you at almost a 50% rate of failure and me at only 10% . The statistics don't seem to support that as being a reasonable outcome with out something else contributing to the results .

I'm looking for those other contributing factors as it relates to blacks being killed by police the same amount as whites when they are a fraction ( 4 times less the population ) as whites ?

[JN01]

African Americans are 13% of the population, but commit 44% of homicides and over 50% of violent crimes overall. This means that a disproportionate number of African Americans will come into contact with police.

There is also a difference in cultures. Many urban African Americans are taught, from childhood, to distrust police, fail to cooperate with police, and run from police, which ironically, results in force being used against them more frequently.

You can't really judge it by statistics alone. Every deadly force encounter has its own circumstances which must be looked at as a whole.

[HiBC]

(MG)
I understand what you are trying to say. Random distribution "should" level things out,or perhaps something else is going on.

The statistics don't seem to support that as being a reasonable outcome with out something else contributing to the results .

Perhaps the assumption "all other things being equal" is an inaccurate assumption.
44AMP's example was good.
Maybe it would be good to look at something else besides the bread.

I'm just not the right person to provide the answers,and I don't think TFL is the best place to discuss the elephant in the living room.

In case you have not noticed,commenting on current events these days has a lot in common with explosive ordnance disposal.

A good place to start might be to openly acknowledge that some,(an unspecified number greater than one) LEOs act inappropriately.even criminally,and some LEO's have killed or murdered Black (or other race,including white) Human Beings without justifiable cause.

To deny that destroys credibility and adds to the rage.

If we imagine a community in a state of having reached the last straw,we are there.

Some folks deal with anger better than others.Some folks become assertive and communicate their boundaries and expectations.

Some folks carry pent up anger over a lifetime of percieved and felt abuse.

They have had it. Did you ever watch the movie " Falling Down" ?

Michael Douglas leaves his car in the middle of a freeway traffic jam,and walks to a MacDonalds. He wants breakfast.Its 10:30. They say "Breakfast is over"
Michael Douglas expresses pent up rage.

There is a backlog of rage. Its not politically correct to have a dialogue about it.
A TV personality lost his career for saying "All lives matter"

The rage will not diminish.

But its also an undeniable fact that sometimes a Human Being loses their life in a confrontation with law enforcement.Sometimes its justified,sometimes its not.
Tomorrow,or next week,another Black Man will be killed by police.

This isn't going away just because the news cycle has chewed the flavor out of it.

Its also true there are agitators who want chaos

And its also true that in some comunities,the body count is what? 50 per weekend?
And its well over 90% black people killing black people. Those don't make the news. Nobody protests. No glass is broke. No fires burn.

But the pain in the community who lost a young man bleeds.

And these human beings might be students,working folks,just regular people who don't want to have anything to do with crime.

They just live in a place as dangerous as Beirut. Thats where the "All other things being equal" is not real.

If there are no cops,that 50 per weekend body count will go up.

And there will be no cops to blame. Then what?

That might be what it will take.

I dont know.

[5whiskey]

I'm just not the right person to provide the answers,and I don't think TFL is the best place to discuss the elephant in the living room.

In case you have not noticed,commenting on current events these days has a lot in common with explosive ordnance disposal.

A good place to start might be to openly acknowledge that some,(an unspecified number greater than one) LEOs act inappropriately.even criminally,and some LEO's have killed or murdered Black (or other race,including white) Human Beings without justifiable cause.

To deny that destroys credibility and adds to the rage.

If we imagine a community in a state of having reached the last straw,we are there.

Some folks deal with anger better than others.Some folks become assertive and communicate their boundaries and expectations.

Some folks carry pent up anger over a lifetime of percieved and felt abuse.

They have had it. Did you ever watch the movie " Falling Down" ?

Michael Douglas leaves his car in the middle of a freeway traffic jam,and walks to a MacDonalds. He wants breakfast.Its 10:30. They say "Breakfast is over"
Michael Douglas expresses pent up rage.

There is a backlog of rage. Its not politically correct to have a dialogue about it.
A TV personality lost his career for saying "All lives matter"

The rage will not diminish.

But its also an undeniable fact that sometimes a Human Being loses their life in a confrontation with law enforcement.Sometimes its justified,sometimes its not.
Tomorrow,or next week,another Black Man will be killed by police.

This isn't going away just because the news cycle has chewed the flavor out of it.

Its also true there are agitators who want chaos

And its also true that in some comunities,the body count is what? 50 per weekend?
And its well over 90% black people killing black people. Those don't make the news. Nobody protests. No glass is broke. No fires burn.

But the pain in the community who lost a young man bleeds.

And these human beings might be students,working folks,just regular people who don't want to have anything to do with crime.

They just live in a place as dangerous as Beirut. Thats where the "All other things being equal" is not real.

If there are no cops,that 50 per weekend body count will go up.

And there will be no cops to blame. Then what?

That might be what it will take.

I dont know.

You have successfully put into words my feelings on the subject where I couldn’t. Very well written. Do you mind if a share that among a group of friends privately? If you do mind I completely understand and respect that.

[HiBC]

5Whiskey...Feel free to share,but I'd just as soon remain unknown.

[JN01]

Originally Posted by HiBC

(MG)

If we imagine a community in a state of having reached the last straw,we are there.

Some folks deal with anger better than others.Some folks become assertive and communicate their boundaries and expectations.

Some folks carry pent up anger over a lifetime of percieved and felt abuse.

They have had it. Did you ever watch the movie " Falling Down" ?

Michael Douglas leaves his car in the middle of a freeway traffic jam,and walks to a MacDonalds. He wants breakfast.Its 10:30. They say "Breakfast is over"
Michael Douglas expresses pent up rage.

There is a backlog of rage. Its not politically correct to have a dialogue about it.
A TV personality lost his career for saying "All lives matter"

The rage will not diminish.

By not being held accountable for their actions, pushing unchallenged false narratives, expecting those they disagree with to be subjugated and to bow down and ask for forgiveness (and even worse, having our "leaders" and nearly all corporate entities going along with it) the mob is actually creating rage on the other side. I fear it will not end well.

[TRX]

> what do they mean by defund

Being a cynical and suspicious type, my first thought was "self-supporting via civil forfeiture and expanded/increased fines."

My second thought was, "places that operate like that, usually have 'don't go there' tourist advisories..."

[Jeff #111]

Twenty years I've been a LEO. The young officer who joined TFL July 25, 2001 is long gone. I'm worn out from it all. Five more years and I'm hanging it up. Five more years. Hope they go as fast as the last five years because I'm ready to roll. I'd turn in my papers this Monday, but I can't afford to do that yet. It's not bad in Idaho for police officers (actually it's pretty darn good), but don't think the constant national coverage doesn't have an effect. Five more years.

[gaseousclay]

The Mpls City Council has yet to propose an actual solution to defunding the police. You would actually need to increase funding for law enforcement to provide better training. Those that are calling for the abolishment of the police are living in a fantasy world. Just read a news article this morning that said someone went on a shooting spree in Mpls the other day close to where I live. 1 person killed and 11 wounded. If it hasn’t happened yet I fully expect crime to jump significantly.

[Sharkbite]

2 people were shot Early Sat morning in the CHOP/CHAZ zone. Mtpl 911 calls made, ut when police tried to enter the area to help, angry crowds prevented their responding.

One dead, one seriously injured. No suspects at this time.

Hmmm. Not sure this social experiment to “Defund the Police” is working out well.