I replied to the post, but you have no way of knowing that. :smack:
You still appear to think that I believe that “suspect” and “criminal” are the same thing, which is one of the reasons I previously told you that you were wrong. You’re still wrong. You have earned a gold star for consistency, though. non sequitur -
noun
› a statement that does not relate in a clear, reasonable way to the previous statement
I responded in a reasonable manner, clearly stating that I believe Rice was a suspect. I’m not responsible for your inability to comprehend that simple fact.
I have done. Thing is, if I post saying I agree that a cop was wrong, it’s one post that doesn’t get disagreed with, and is far less likely to be noticed in a thread like this.
Thing is, they can be right about one thing and wrong about another. Such as, being right about shooting in self defence but wrong about planting drugs. Or right about it being illegal to drive away from a cop who’s trying to get you to stop, but wrong that it’s in the public interest to charge someone for doing so. And so on.
But people here have an incredibly black and white view of it, if a cop isn’t perfect then they are evil and we’d be better off without them. Which is nonsense.
You replied to a post asking why he was a criminal. Did you notice that part?
Now normally, when someone replies to a question, they actually reply to that particular question. If you were to ask for directions to Las Vegas, a normal person wouldn’t respond with a recipe for a nice casserole.
So, was your reply explaining why he was a criminal, or was it a complete non sequitur advising why he was something else. Obviously either way you’re an idiot, but it’s helpful to know which particular breed of idiot I’m dealing with here.
No I haven’t. I’ve pointed out massive statistical disparities and said “look, this might be a problem – maybe this should be investigated to see if there’s some bad behavior that might explain it (or some other explanation)”.
This doesn’t give you pause? Do you think there’s at least a tiny chance that this utterly enormous disparity (14,000 to 13) might be explained by some greater likelihood of US cops using deadly force in cases in which they shouldn’t have? I’m not saying this is for certain the answer – I’m saying “this is a huge disparity, and is not at all explained by the difference in guns or gun violence, and I’d like to know the explanation”.
I’ll turn it back on you, if you like, and please correct me if I’m wrong: this isn’t the first time you’ve dismissed a massive statistical disparity on police shootings with utterly no concern or curiosity about its cause.
Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. I said Rice was a suspect. It’s inconsequential if you’re unable to grasp that simple statement. A lack of comprehension on your part does not place any burden on me to drag you kicking and screaming into the real world.
Rice was a suspect. That statement means that I believe Rice was a suspect. I believe Rice was a suspect because Rice was the suspect.
(Did you want a recipe for a nice casserole? You might find one in Cafe Society.)
Srsly? You believe this? Because from my point of view, she was the one firing her gun in self-defense, after the cops lied and conspired to enter her home unlawfully. The cops can’t have fired in self-defense, since they are the ones who unlawfully instigated the unlawful encounter. Prove me wrong, but I think your characterization of things ignores basic facts and the reality of the situation (but then, that’s no surprise, is it?).
OK lets break it down into simple words for doorhinge too.
As a given we all agree with you that Rice was a suspect.
You recognize that being a suspect does not automatically imply that one is a criminal
Therefor you do not appear to have stated a clear opinion as to whether Rice was a criminal.
4)The disagreement between Sampti and Happy Funball was whether Rice was or was not a criminal.
4a) If you think that he was a criminal than you agree with Sampti, in which case we would like to know what law he was actually breaking that made him a criminal.
4b)If you think that while he was a suspect he was not actually a criminal than you agree with Happy Funball, and we would like to know why you appear to be arguing against him.
Its like people are arguing whether a whale is a fish or a mammal and you come into the argument with your insight that a whale lives in the ocean. While this is true it is not actually relevant to the question.
Admirable effort Buck Godot. That’s just going to be too many words for doorhinge to wrangle with. He’ll be stymied. Plus holding his finger up to the monitor that long to read and sound out all those words is physically taxing.
You do that after dismissing reasonable explanations that others provide, and you dismiss them without saying why.
You’ve just done it again. You’ve assumed, without any cause, that the difference isn’t caused by differences in guns or gun violence.
I’m not dismissing anything, I’m saying that I believe the main cause is already known. That cause is that in the US, unlike the UK, people - cops and others - are routinely armed, and have a right use guns in self defence. It’s blindingly obvious that both of those things will lead to more shootings, some legal and some not.
I’ll use some different phrasing to try and better explain what I mean. I mean that this disparity is not sufficiently explained on the surface by the difference in guns or gun violence. If these were the causes, and they might be, there would need to be some very detailed investigation and research to show why a ~13-fold difference in guns causes a 14,000-fold difference in shootings. I don’t accept “difference in guns” as the cause without such a very detailed and well-researched explanation. (this might look something like "it’s not the 13-fold difference in guns, but the xx-fold difference in guns in cities combined with the yy-fold difference in poverty and the zz-difference in the contact that police officers have with those in poverty and additional factors aa, bb, and cc)
Do you really accept that without anything further? How does it make any sense without any further facts or investigation that a 13-fold difference in the amount of guns per-capita causes a 14,000-fold difference in police shootings?
Of course these will lead to more shootings. I’m not denying they will. I’m denying that this is a sufficient or reasonable explanation (without a lot more research and data) for the massive disparity that exists.
When I add this to my assertion that the opinions of black people, as a group, are generally trustworthy and accurate with regards to the treatment of black people, then I suspect that there is a significant, non-zero chance that some part of this disparity may possibly be caused by differing, unfair, and unequal treatment of black people (and possibly other minorities) by police. I’m not at all certain, but I think there is a possibility that this is the case, and I don’t think it’s any less reasonable to suspect this than to suspect that the explanation has nothing to do with any mistreatment or maltreatment by police, police culture, or police procedures.
That’s all I’m saying – this may be a problem, and the numbers offered about differences in crime or gun statistics don’t appear to come close to fully explaining it without a lot more data that, if it even exists, we don’t have at this time.
:eek: