Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread

The BBQ Pit
4541

What makes it significant is the size of the disparity (and how much larger it is than the statistical crime disparity). What my belief is based on is many things, but chiefly the history of the mistreatment of black people in the US (and specifically the history of mistreatment by police), and the opinions of black people today.

Even these things together don’t mean that I’m absolutely certain that the 21 times is explained by racism, but I suspect that it is involved. Further, since many or most police departments have been reticent to keep or share relevant data, I suspect their unwillingness may be at least partially be based on their worries that there might be actual problems in the data. But I won’t conclude anything without having all the facts – so for now, I just suspect.

Historically, when there was some significant disparate treatment of black people in America, picking “racism” as one of the major causes was almost guaranteed to be correct.

There are other statistical disparities (besides that for shootings) that may show possible mistreatment/unfair treatment of black people (all black people, not just young men) by police.

No such reasons have been offered that specifically explain why 21 times is justified. It’s been offered that police may feel more fear (not that I believe this justifies shooting more people), but this doesn’t explain any particular value, and therefore doesn’t help us here.

Further, there are many types of bigotry – someone (or some institution) can be bigoted or racist against, for example, young black men, while not being bigoted (or racist) against black women or older black people. Considering that most of the historical racist tropes in America have been directed against adult (and usually young-ish) black men (that they were a danger to white women, that they were aggressive, violent, animalistic, and unable to control themselves, among many other racist tropes), this may not even be particularly surprising.

4542

Show it’s significant. You can’t just assume that because the numbers are different, you need to actually analyse them and take into account things like the sample size, the accuracy of the data, and many other things. You are assuming it’s significant based on quite literally nothing.

And as the rest of your argument is based on that unsupported assumption, it can be dismissed.

Although this

needs addressing.

The fear felt is precisely what justifies killing in self defence, as long as that fear is reasonable. If someone is 6 times more likely to be violently attacked in one situation than another, it is indisputably reasonable to feel more fear.

You want to stop people being afraid that young black men are going to be violent? Stop them being violent at a vastly higher rate than anybody else.

4543

I’m all for such analysis, when it can be done. And I know some journalists and researchers are investigating these very numbers – I look forward to seeing their findings. But there are numbers about everything all over the world – we have to pick the ones we think are “significant” enough to investigate further. In my mind, this one is, and I’m glad others agree and are doing the hard work to investigate it.

I guess you didn’t read the rest of my argument, then, including all the stuff about historical racism in the US, and the amazing track record of the majority of black people with regard to mistreatment of black people, which is highly relevant.

I care about how people treat others – nothing, not even fear, justifies unfairly treating people. If black people are being treated unfairly, that is entirely the fault of those mistreating them, and no one else. Unfair treatment, which would include any potential greater likelihood of drawing one’s gun, aiming it, and pulling the trigger for identical behaviors from different races, is never justified. The vast majority of black people are peaceful and have done nothing wrong, and therefore any mistreatment or unfair treatment of them would be entirely wrong and not their fault at all.

Cops being ‘jumpier’ around young black men than others helps no one, and hurts everyone, including cops, in the long run. If cops are doing this, they are hurting America, hurting black people, and hurting the police.

In any case, some nebulous “greater fear” obviously doesn’t justify or explain the specific disparity of 21 times for the difference in police shootings of young black men, any more than it would were it 100 times, 1000 times, or 10,000 times with current crime rates.

4544

But you’re not saying that it’s possibly significant, or that it’s worth investigating - you are saying, without having anything to support it, that it is significant. And you still don’t understand that you’re doing this.

4545

I gather the end result of this line of argument is that when cops arrive on scene, they should self-defensively shoot any young black males, and anyone who looks like they might be young, black and/or male. Suggesting any other course means you hate cops and want them all to die in screaming agony.

4546

LOL. There’s no useful distinction between these terms as I am intending them – by “significant” I mean “possibly suspicious and worthy of further investigation”. If this is the game you want to play then I’ll happily concede defeat on the words, and I’ll try and say “possibly significant” in the future.

4547

So, you’re using words wrongly, and expecting people to get that. We’re talking about statistics, and “significant” has a specific meaning, and you can’t infer from raw data whether something is significant or not.

4548

No, obviously not. What it means is that when cops shoot young black men in justified self defence, people should stop complaining about it. What matters is whether it was justified, not the colour of anybody’s skin.

I suspect you, like several others, are struggling with the word “imminent”. If only there was some easy resource at everyone’s fingertips to find out what words mean…

4549

Oh, I missed this bit. No, it’s not obvious, and your continued assumption that it is proves that you are uninterested in looking at the facts, but only in supporting your preconceived views.

4550

You’re right, I should have said “Suggesting any other course means you hate cops and want them all to die in screaming agony while making their children watch.”

My bad.

4551

No, I’m just using words differently (in common parlance, and not in a specific statistical sense) than you might use them. If you want to claim victory on this, feel free. I think we’ve gotten to the bottom of this one.

4552

It’s obvious that the “fear” explanation isn’t an actual explanation or justification of the 21 times, specifically, any more than it would be an explanation or justification if the disparity was 1 million times. “Fear” doesn’t tell us anything at all about statistics or numbers, so it’s not useful in determining the cause of the specific 21 times disparity. Saying “fear” is the cause of the 21 times disparity isn’t enough – and I’m not sure how that’s not obvious… do you seriously accept that “fear” is an adequate final conclusion as an explanation and justification for the 21 times disparity, with no more investigation warranted at all?

If the disparity in 1920 was 1000 times, would “increased fear” of young black men have been an adequate final explanation and justification? If not, why not?

4553

You are using words incorrectly, and by doing so failing to communicate well, and failing to understand what’s actually being said. Significance is objective and measurable, and you still seem to fail to understand that.

If you want to say the statistics are interesting, or worrying, or merit further investigation say so, but don’t presume the conclusion.

4554

No. No, it isn’t obvious. Cops have good reason to be more scared of young black men than others, why is it “obvious” that this cannot be an explanation for acting differently in a situation where the exact criterion for how one should behave is “reasonable fear”?

No. I believe that it’s a reasonable explanation, and more reasonable than racism, due to the fact that the only people affected are those that are more violent. If you want to combat that view, please show that older black men, and black women, and if possible other races, are being disproportionately shot by the police.

Otherwise, the best explanation will be that which applies only to the group of young black men. Which is being at minimum 6 times more likely to commit violent crime than any other group.

No. Racism. We know that the police were killing people due to their race, and allowing others to do the same, at that point in time. We emphatically do not know that’s happening now, despite having far more information.

If I’m wrong about that last point, please show some evidence that a cop has killed anyone in the last few years because they were black. Ideally, to say the difference is due in any part due to racism, you’d need to show that a significant amount were because of it, but we already know that sort of thinking is beyond you.

4555

God what a silly etymological argument. My use of “significant” was an acceptable use of the word, but to avoid such silly arguments I’ll switch to things like “possibly significant”.

4556

Because it tells us nothing (and can’t tell us anything) about the numbers and provides no indication that 21 times is an appropriate disparity based on fear.

Most young black men are not violent, so in fact many non-violent people are affected by a policy/practice of greater likelihood of using force for the same behavior for young black men vice others.

And yet the vast majority of young black men are not violent, and any greater response to peaceful young black men makes the problem worse and in the long run makes cops less safe. Every time a peaceful young black man is hassled or assaulted (or killed) by cops because a more fearful cop misconstrues mundane behavior for a threat, young black men have more rational justification to believe that the police are their enemy.

We know that some cops are shooting non-violent black men (see Sean Groubert or the guy who shot the fleeing man then altered the evidence and lied about it, among others), and we know that this continues a trend of police killing non-violent black men that has continued for all of American history. I don’t believe that we just happened to catch on video the only two instances in the last year or two of a cop shooting a non-violent black man.

<snipping the juvenile insults>

4557

It doesn’t matter whether the person shot was violent, it matters whether the cop’s fear of imminent violence was reasonable. Do you understand that?

4558

Both matter as societal problems – police should extend every effort to not shoot non-violent people, and I don’t believe they are extending enough effort in many cases. As to legal culpability, I understand that whether or not any fear of imminent violence was reasonable matters. For the Tamir Rice case, I agree with Judge Adrine that there is enough evidence to suggest that any possible fear was not reasonable that the shooter should be charged.

4559

So cops live in fear of young black males, and any movement or perceived movement signals a reasonable fear of an imminent threat.

And not agreeing demonstrates an eagerness to see all police burned at the stake.

4560

It is a very nuanced stance, yes.