Triumph of Trump: NFL kneeling

[Cow Poke]

A young black male is far more likely to be killed by another black male than by a police officer.

[Roy]

It's really quite simple, Roy

Then you have no excuse for getting it wrong.

: Statistically, blacks are more likely to have an encounter with the police, yet it's whites who are more likely to be shot.

Bollocks. Whites who have an encounter with the police might be more likely to get shot than blacks who have an encounter with the police, but you not only didn't make that distinction, you effectively negated it by contrasting whites to all blacks, not a subset. Statistically, whites are less likely to be shot than blacks.

It's common to misunderstand the implications of what some-one else writes. It's much rare to misunderstand the implication of your own statements, but you manage it.

For example, there's my follow-up post showing stats from New York City where 56% of armed suspects are black versus 15% who are white, yet 21% of suspects struck by police are white while only 43% are black (in other words, police are more likely to shoot an unarmed white suspect then they are an unarmed black suspect).

Bollocks. There is insufficient data to reach that conclusion. Your numbers don't even rule out the possibility that no unarmed suspects were shot.

Furthermore, 67% of suspects who shoot at police are black versus 0% who are white, yet a staggering 46% of suspects killed by police are white(!) while only 22% are black.

Bollocks. You are citing a report that covers one year in one area - a statistically insignificant amount of data - and completely ignoring not only the rest of the country but even the data for other years in the same area - which show that in the following year the same police force had 12.5% of suspects killed by police are white while 66% are black(!). A review of the table in the 2013 report finds that not only have you picked the year in which the highest proportion of police shootings were white, but you've ignored two years in which they shot no whites at all!

Yet you accuse me of cherry-picking.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

[Mountain Man]

Whites who have an encounter with the police might be more likely to get shot than blacks who have an encounter with the police, but you not only didn't make that distinction, you effectively negated it by contrasting whites to all blacks, not a subset.

Yeah, OK, so you're just going to ignore the fact that the article I referenced, and my follow-up post both explicitly referred to police encounters of blacks versus whites.

Seriously, man, I don't know why you're so desperate to catch me in an error, but I would think you would be smart enough to give it up after being repeatedly made to look like a fool. Whatever, man, it's your reputation.

[Mountain Man]

But since you bring up the 2012 report...

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.24.52 PM.jpg

So things are a little more even than 2011, but it still shows white suspects are statistically more likely to be shot at or killed by police, if only slightly. For example, only 5% of suspects who fired at police were white, but whites made up 12.5% of suspects killed by police. Alternatively, 79% that fired on police were black but were only 69% of those killed by police.

The 2013 report is a little harder to follow than the nice pie charts of earlier reports, but it tells a similar story:

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.34.20 PM.jpg

The 2014 report doesn't appear to have a racial breakdown.

But anyway, you get the idea: There is nothing to suggest that blacks are disproportionately more likely to be the targets of police violence than whites, at least in this one instance.

You're right, New York City is just one area. Unfortunately, police shooting statistics are woefully incomplete:

Source: Daily News

...literally only a couple hundred police departments (217 in 2012, just 1.2% of all the departments in the country) report these numbers.

Even worse, the very few police departments that do report are predominantly urban areas, which tend to have much higher concentrations of blacks. This skews the numbers to over-represent black deaths.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/j...icle-1.2030545

© Copyright Original Source

But even a city like New York City with its large black population, it turns out that depending on the year, whites are anywhere from slightly more likely to disproportionately more likely to be shot at or killed by police. Furthermore, other studies show that police in general are more hesitant to use deadly force against a black suspect than a white suspect.

[JimL]

Dear Jimmy,

Why can't you realize that every time you call somebody stupid, or an idiot, or dumb, it's like Pee-Wee Herman calling Hulk Hogan a sissyboy.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24454[/ATTACH]

You can call others names, but with nearly every post you prove it's really YOU who's the dummy.

You can call others names, but we all know that it's really you who's the fraud Pastor.

[Cow Poke]

You can call others names, but we all know that it's really you who's the fraud Pastor.

When you say "we all", that's..... you and your imaginary admirers? Jimmy, there's not a single poster on here who thinks you're intelligent! Not ONE!

[JimL]

When you say "we all", that's..... you and your imaginary admirers? Jimmy, there's not a single poster on here who thinks you're intelligent! Not ONE!

And I should care what a fraud like you Pastor, and your ignorant friends think, why?

[Tassman]

Yup, they are.

Nope! They're engaging in freedom of speech, which is their right.

He was successful.

MLK was ultimately successful but it took a while and in the meantime he was labelled a Communist...just as you label the NFL "kneelers" as rebels "disrespecting the flag". They are not. They're are protesting police brutality and discrimination as was MLK.

They're wrong. They are "all about me", pretending to be for a cause. It's not working. It's bringing attention to THEMSELVES, not any cause. You even have some of your less intelligent colleagues claiming they're "saving lives".

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b053a9c2f5f14a

You guys are deranged.

This from someone who supports a sociopath as president.

Jimmy, there's not a single poster on here who thinks you're intelligent! Not ONE!

That's just not true. More to the point you're hardly in a position to talk.

[Cow Poke]

This from someone who supports a sociopath as president.

Ya know, this is a good example of the fact that you are often a total stranger to the truth. You're either ignorant, or an outright liar.

That's just not true. More to the point you're hardly in a position to talk.

So, go ahead and say it, Tazzy. I double dog dare you. Say that you believe Jimmy is intelligent! In fact, admit that he's as smart as you are!

[Mountain Man]

Over 57,000 police officers assaulted in 2016.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ulted-in-2016/

When is the NFL going to protest violence against police officers?

And speaking of the NFL protests.. ratings are down 17% compared to last year, and CBS is losing millions.

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017...-17-last-year/

[Cow Poke]

MLK was ultimately successful but it took a while and in the meantime he was labelled a Communist...just as you label the NFL "kneelers" as rebels "disrespecting the flag". They are not. They're are protesting police brutality and discrimination as was MLK.

There are HUGE differences.

A) MLK didn't advance false narratives to deal with issues. The "hands up don't shoot" thing is a total fraud.
2) MLK fully accepted, and challenged his followers to accept, the fact that the blame was not only on one side.

You are incapable of grasping any of these concepts.

[Cow Poke]

Over 57,000 police officers assaulted in 2016.

Another glaring difference between the NFL rebels and MLK - MLK would have never advocated or condoned violence against the police.

[Roy]

So things are a little more even than 2011, but it still shows white suspects are statistically more likely to be shot at or killed by police, if only slightly. For example, only 5% of suspects who fired at police were white, but whites made up 12.5% of suspects killed by police. Alternatively, 79% that fired on police were black but were only 69% of those killed by police.

The 2013 report is a little harder to follow than the nice pie charts of earlier reports, but it tells a similar story:

It shows that no whites were killed by the NY police that year. Why you think this shows whites are statistically more likely to be killed is a mystery.

The 2014 report doesn't appear to have a racial breakdown.

Appendix E, pages 63-64, figures 47-49, under the heading "Subject Injury and Race". It took mere seconds to find. Either you are utterly incompetent, or you didn't like the data therein.

But anyway, you get the idea: There is nothing to suggest that blacks are disproportionately more likely to be the targets of police violence than whites, at least in this one instance.

Yeah, I get the idea. Your claim that "a staggering 46% of suspects killed by police are white(!) while only 22% are black" was a distortion based not only on cherry-picking data from a single year and ignoring the longer-term statistics of suspects being killed by police being 16% white vs 52% black, but also fudging the actual percentage from 44% to 46%!

But even a city like New York City with its large black population, it turns out that depending on the year, whites are anywhere from slightly more likely to disproportionately more likely to be shot at or killed by police.

False. Your own source shows that in 2009 (and 2002) no whites were wounded or killed by the NY police. Again, how you think this shows whites are more likely to be killed by the police is a mystery.

[seer]

Your claim that "a staggering 46% of suspects killed by police are white(!) while only 22% are black" was a distortion based not only on cherry-picking data from a single year and ignoring the longer-term statistics of suspects being killed by police being 16% white vs 52% black, but also fudging the actual percentage from 44% to 46%!False. Your own source shows that in 2009 (and 2002) no whites were wounded or killed by the NY police. Again, how you think this shows whites are more likely to be killed by the police is a mystery.

But why would that be unusual or racial. What percentage of the violent crimes are committed by blacks? For instance:

According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of African Americans victims were killed by African Americans.[42][43][44]

In 2013, number and percentage of murder arrests by race were:

Black or African Americans 4,379 = 52.2%
White Americans (including Hispanic Americans) 3,799 = 45.3%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.06%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.2%[45][46]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_a..._United_States

[Roy]

You're usually much better than this, Roy.

I will try to exceed your expectations.

And that goes back to -- should cops just stay out of black neighborhoods?

How bout, let's have blacks commit less crime, and therefore, have fewer encounters with police?

Yeah, that'd work. But you'd have to address the reasons why they commit more crimes, which is likely to be a complex issue involving some or all of poverty, discrimination, lack of opportunity, lack of parental control, gang culture, lack of role models, unemployment, drug abuse, exploitation, segregation, lack of education and probably others.

The statistics I've seen show that blacks are disproportionately more likely than members of other races to engage in criminal activity, to be armed, to take encounter police, to shoot at police and to be shot by police. Your MLKJ quote suggests this has been the case for more than 50 years, so it can't just be the fault of the current generation.

How will the cycle be broken?