Let's Start A Riot?!?!

The numbers in eiryl's link show that police kill a lot more whites than blacks every year, despite the fact that blacks commit an egregiously larger amount of violent crime compared to their relative population than whites.

I'll wait while you try to figure out how to spin this.

Look, I get it. Statistics isn't your strong suit.

Eiryl's links use massaged data to make it sound worse than it really is. For example:

Infograhic states that "Black People are 3x more likely to be killed by police than white people". But instead of showing the actual data, it massages the information by listing a "Police Killings per 1 million population." Never mind that most police killings happen in high-urban areas (such as NYC and LA) and the population of black people are much greater in those areas than the rest of the nation. And also crime is much greater in those areas. And civilian/criminal shootings towards police officers are much, much, much greater in those high-urban areas than the rest of the nation.

It also includes any civilian deaths. But it glosses over the fact that greater than 99% of those civilian deaths were a justified incident (aka the officers were being shot at, and the officers returned fire).

Now, give me data that shows the proportion of unjustified events and the rate of deaths against people based on race. You might find out that the narrative being portrayed is much different than what you are being told to believe.

And believe me, you will hear every single incident where a white officer killed a black civilian/criminal, but you will rarely hear of any incidents where a black officer killed a white civilian/criminal, a black officer killed a black civilian/criminal, or a white officer killed a white civilian/criminal.

I was more referring to any tax payer will be helping to payback the deficit it's causing, over the next upteen years, wether you received the check or not.

Aweful convenient those bricks being so accessible when needed, agendas are being played out, rioters are *** stupid sheep. (Not talking about legitimate protesters)

Good luck finding anyone willing to help pay off the national debt.

Legitimate protesters will just ignore those pallets, those bricks are clearly for those who want to cause destruction (aka Anitfa).

Riot tonight! EVERYBODY LET'S GO!
gonna start a fight but with who I don't fkin' know !!

OMG TY FOR THIS I FORGOT HOW GREAT THE MURPHYS ARE

Tsk tsk....

Reminder that today is the 99th anniversary of the Tulsa Massacre. America has a long, dirty history of racism, no wonder people are rioting in the streets.


Justified deaths? Unjustified deaths? You DO realize there's no uniform use-of-force reporting, right? How do you propose we sort out the stats beyond what Eiryl already gave?

Whole post is just reactionary nonsense.

If only there were a law on the books codifying "use of force" by police officers and requires somebody to gather this information for research purposes....

...oh wai...

Now if there was only some way for the public to get this information...

...oh wai...

Now if there was some report that breaks out incidents based on race...

...oh wai...

Anything else you want to know? Or are you going to continue to plant your head in the ground?

yeah one last thing @Kingnobody- how you gonna get people to ACTUALLY ENFORCE THAT STUFF?

i havnt heard much of there stuff after there first 3 or so albums. Gotta say, i do like this one for sure tho!

That still doesn't address my point. That data attempts to be representative. At this time it is an incomplete survey of a slice of the population. What we actually need is a national database of police use-of-force, reported as uniformly as possible, like UCR or NIBRS for crime, but all law enforcement agencies should be mandated to participate, and the data available to the public.

Also, from your own link:


Shows a clear racial disparity.

Do I need to actually point out why this is? It's not racism.

First thing I thought of when I saw this picture after playing the Division was, this guy probably drops some great loot.

Personally, I think a separate, independent national agency that "police the police" should be setup for this. Technically the FBI is supposed to be the national independent agency that is supposed to check the police, but honestly, we need something that police the FBI too.

Something that the independent investigation councils in each police force has, but on a national scale.

But that's just me.

Not really, since that same Table 18 also shows a 17% increase of "force perceived to be excessive" discrepancy between blacks and everyone else. Or that anyone who's 65+ experienced "force perceived to be excessive" of greater than 99.9%. Remember: These are people who were in contact of police, so perceptions will be skewed towards the negative.

Also remember: The data you quoted are from people who perceived force. One person who was stopped for a traffic violation may perceive "force" differently.

Even the question used for the data shown in your quoted idea asks "...did the police use or threaten to use force against you?" Who is to say that the person answered honestly, since these were done by people who had police contact (aka stopped by police for some reason) and already have a negative instance towards them?

The data also stats "Significant difference from comparison group at the 95% confidence interval." which means that there's something funny about the way these answers were done. Which also means, in plain English, that the data may be skewed and it is impossible to obtain honest data for this set.

The data is just reported. It is up to the user to negate their precognitive biases in how they translate the data into facts. Which, frankly, your biases are showing.

Long story short: All studies have biased questions, you just have to filter the biases out yourself if you want an honest answer.

fair acceptable answer to my question Kingnobody- thanks for approaching it as a discussion not an insult, we all grow a lot more that way.

But to get back to the topic at hand.

Rioters going to riot.

I fully agree and support the protesters in this one instance. The evidence presented to the public clearly shows reason for this protest.

I won't join, mainly because I'm lazy, and partly because I hate crowds, but I do support them in this.

But the rioters mixed in only see this as another opportunity to destroy infrastructure. They are the ones who ruin this message and they are the very reason why we still need a police force in our society.

I try not to insult at all. Just pointing out the facts.

In order for a "police police force" to occur, we would need to write laws for governing such agency. Mainly, doubling our criminal law or making an addendum for each criminal law to differentiate civilian law and police law. Or just add a blanket "if a peace officer is convicted to a crime, bump the category up 1 degree" to the punishment phase of the law (aka Misdemeanor class A would be bumped up to Felony class C, and so on).

Yup. And beyond that, statistics can’t prove anything anyway without a high level of control over the variables, which is something that is highly difficult to do when trying to show disparities in responses to real-worlds situations.

I'm still waiting on the most important study of them all:

The taste value of pineapples on pizza.

The Holy Grail of science!

No I legit thought it was corona-riots, but something has to build the tension first.

I like how "a bad apple ruins the bunch" applies to a relatively insignificant number of rioters compared to the legitimate protesters and "ruins the message".

But somehow it doesn't apply to the police's overt use of excessive force.

Says who?

Police already have Internal Affairs supposedly policing them. You could make an argument that it's ineffective/corrupt/whatever, but any agency dedicated to policing police could just as easily end up the same way.

It's virtually impossible to balance policing the police with not tying their hands with excessive rules of engagement to the point that no one of any quality wants to do the job.

What's really being missed in the conversation is that police don't exist to protect anyone. It's in their motto, but they don't have any legal requirement to do so (one of the strongest arguments for being allowed to own and protect yourself with guns). They're mostly there to clean up after the fact. Likewise with IA, the FBI, etc. So we can have a debate on creating yet another oversight body, but it won't prevent anything bad from happening. Bad ***will still happen from time-to-time as long as humans are involved.

Wow I'm shocked at all the opinions here, over at BG everyone is literally in a hivemind where they want to overthrow the police and let the looters control the government. You can't put an opinion without personal attacks. The looting is wrong and those people don't give a ***about the cause, they just want to watch the world burn and get a free phone or TV. It's appalling and honestly fills me with disgust. I feel bad for the peaceful protesters who want to make a difference.

Also, not every police officer is a bad person contrary to the radical "ACAB" that people are spouting around. I personally know police that work in NYC that would put their lives on the line to help people. While there are always bad people in every place in the world, it doesn't mean they are all bad. If people are using that bad apple analogy then they should also apply it to the looters/protesters if they really believe that ONE person makes them all bad.

The cops here are started out in the worst neighborhoods in the Bronx where they see, literally every day, the worst humanity has to offer. They tell me little kids come up to them and throw stones and yell swears. That isn't fair, and I doubt any of these looters would run into a burning building or go into a building where a domestic terrorist is, to take them down.

It should at least exceed our own military's rules, since you know: the populace isn't the enemy.

Also holy bootlicking, batman (thread).