1- Why is that a “given”? I say Rice was a suspect. Other people identify Rice as a criminal. Others believe that Rice didn’t do anything wrong. That fact that you presume to speak for everyone by claiming, “We all agree…” is demonstrably false. Better luck next time.
2- I never said that a suspect is the same thing as a criminal, but thanks for publically recognizing that a suspect is not automatically a criminal.
3- I have not said that Rice was a criminal. However, threatening random passersby with a gun, regardless of whether the gun is real or not, is certainly criminal behavior. Many criminals have robbed, and attempted to rob banks, and random strangers with a toy gun. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
4a- Sampti has made it clear that Rice’s threatening of random people makes Rice a criminal.
4b- Happy Fun Ball doesn’t believe that Rice had done anything criminal, and shouldn’t be considered a criminal. (However, if Rice had lived, I believe he might have been charged for threatening people with a weapon. The victims would not have know that Rice’s gun was a toy.)
Sampti and Happy Fun Ball are both entitled to their opinions. I chose to post my opinion that Rice was a suspect. As you state in point 1, “WE” all agree with me.
Considering that my post is clearly related to the Tamir Rice incident, it doesn’t qualify as a non sequitur (per the dictionary definition of “non sequitur”), and is only used to appease the uber word-police.
Steophan, if I understand you properly, you’d be perfectly content and uncurious about any possible disparity. Even if US police shot 1 white person a year and 1 million black people per year, you’d accept that as a reasonable consequence of the greater statistical correlation between black people and crime. And even if UK police shot 1 person per century and US police killed 100 million people per century, you’d accept that as a reasonable consequence of the greater amounts of guns and gun violence in the US.
That just seems ludicrously uncurious to me, to not be concerned at all with the actual values of the disparities. Is there any statistical disparity at which you might perk up and say “hey, maybe there’s a slight chance of the possibility that perhaps there is the teeny-tiniest likelihood of a problem with the way police are acting”?
To follow up: if there exists some disparity (maybe 1 million-to-1, or 10 trillion-to-1, or some absurd universe in which police killed all black people on sight and never killed white people) that would give you the slightest pause, Steophan, that maybe possibly there is a large-scale problem with police shootings, then the only point of our disagreement on these numbers is the value upon which we ‘perk up’ and start to suspect the possibility of a problem.
If there’s no statistical disparity that you might find troubling, then our disagreement is far, far bigger. But I doubt that – I can’t imagine that someone wouldn’t be troubled by a large enough disparity (unless, of course, they just don’t care if police shoot lots of black people, or lots of Americans).
It’s not that I don’t think the disparities need explaining, it’s that the explanations are already there. And the idea that a 13x change in one variable could cause a 14,000x change in another is not absurd at all. What’s absurd is claiming that the change should obviously be of equal magnitude, or be linear. It’s far more realistic for it to be an upward curve.
The cause, or problem as you put it - which automatically loads the question and makes proper discussion difficult - is clearly the difference between UK and US gun culture, and the belief in asserting one’s rights rather than helping the police. No need for racism, no need for there to be a higher percentage of arseholes in the police in the US, and no need for you to assume that cops are more trigger-happy than other Americans.
There are actual, observable differences in play here, that are seemingly sufficient to explain the issue. Why are you so intent on claiming that these don’t matter, but instead your hypothetical, unproven differences must be the cause?
If there was an actual statistical disparity, then I would. The most obvious one would be if, for example, middle aged Chinese women were less violent than any other group, but the police were shooting far more of them. Or if another group were slightly more likely to be violent, say 1.2 times, enough that it can be noted statistically but it wouldn’t be reasonable to consider them more dangerous on an everyday basis, and the police were killing more of them, it would probably be bigotry.
But when the difference is 6-10 (to use your figures) more than any other group? I’d struggle to have a problem with most increases. If a car were that much more dangerous than any other model, you’d take it off the road and scrap it. If an area of town was that much more dangerous, you’d never go there. Obviously, those aren’t options, but neither is pretending that the danger to cops isn’t real, and neither is saying that they can’t defend against it.
How? And does this exist for any disparity? Would you say the explanations are “already there” if the disparity was 1 million to 1?
Possibly, but why would I just accept it without further investigation or further data?
Very possibly, but how much “upward”? Is 1 million to 1 “realistic”? A trillion to one? Why would you or I just accept that 14,000 to 13 is “realistic”?
Possibly, but this is not necessarily sufficient explanation for 14,000 to 13 disparity. I’d need to see numbers to understand why this explains this disparity. If it was 1 million to 1, you’d agree that this would not be enough explanation on it’s own, right?
But how can you be sure? Would they be “seemingly sufficient” if the disparity was 1 million to 1, or 1 trillion to 1? Why are they “seemingly sufficient” for this value of the disparity?
They might matter, and I’m not intent on anything but finding a good explanation. A good explanation would explain specific values – the difference in gun culture, differences in poverty, and some similar causes are almost certainly at least part of the explanation for the 14,000 to 13 disparity. But the same would have been true for any disparity that may have existed 100 years ago, at a time in which racism was almost certainly also responsible for part of the disparity. I’m saying that while those first factors (gun culture, crime, poverty) are part of the cause, I’m not willing to accept that they are the entire explanation for the 14,000 to 13 disparity without further research and data.
You say “most” here, so I’d assume that there are disparities in which you’d actually suspect a problem. Let’s say that next year, Los Angeles PD shoots and kills 200,000 black people (about 50% of all the black people in LA), and just 1 white person. I assume that would register as possibly a problem for you, right?
So if that disparity registers, then what is the smallest value that wouldn’t register as possibly a problem that should be investigated for you?
Since I think we can both agree that this value exists, then the only difference in our opinions is what value of a disparity we think should be investigated and researched further.
Clearly. Unfortunately, you are also unwilling to explain why not, and why you believe that changing one variable should necessarily change another one by the same amount. If you had any understanding of, well, any system at all really, then you’d know it would be extraordinary for it to do so.
Please explain why a 6-10x change in the amount of violent crime from a group, or a 13x increase in the amount of guns, isn’t sufficient to explain a 21x, or a 13,000x, change in killings. Something other than “it just don’t seem right” please.
Yes, there would certainly be a problem. Your assumption that it would necessarily be a problem with the police is unwarranted.
They have been investigated, and significant causes have been found. Causes that you, for some reason, continue to dismiss and instead claim it must be other causes, ones that have not been found. Again, why?
What would be the point in investigating further when you’ve shown that you’re unwilling to accept the results of current investigations?
Say your hypothetical happened. Say the police did, in fact shoot 200,000 black people next year. All we know from that is that something has changed from this year, we don’t know what has changed, or why it’s changed, or who (if anyone) is responsible.
And yet you would automatically blame the police despite it being literally impossible to know it’s their fault from that bare statistic.
No, you’re not getting it. I’m not saying they should change by the same amount – maybe they should, maybe they shouldn’t. I’m saying that I’m not just going to accept that the numbers work out just because. I’m saying that without an explanation as to specifically why the disparity is this large I suspect that there’s a possibility that maybe possibly could-be there’s a problem.
Please explain why it is sufficient. I’m not saying it’s not necessarily sufficient – why are you saying that it is? Something other than “it seems right”?
You’ll notice that I’m not saying anything definitive for certain, or even close. Are you? If so, why?
I haven’t made that assumption. I’ve said that maybe possibly could-be there’s-a-non-zero-chance that there might possibly maybe a problem with the police.
What causes have been found? I haven’t seen anything that explains the math of the specific value of the disparity this large.
If you have some numbers that explain with no further data why the disparity is value X, I’d love to see them.
If you have further data that explains the exact disparity, I’d love to see it. What explanation have I been “unwilling to accept”? Is there an explanation that you accept as definitely, absolutely, certainly the final explanation with no possibility of any other causes and no additional data needed?
I totally agree. Something has changed, and we should try to find out what. There might be a problem here – maybe, just maybe, 200,000 black people getting shot in one year could be a problem. This possibility exists, and it could be due to a number of causes.
Nope. Will you please, just for a moment, consider that I mean what I post and not additional stuff? Where have I said that I’m certain about who is to blame? Where have I automatically blamed anyone, much less the police? Haven’t I used enough qualifiers like “maybe”, “possibly”, etc., to indicate that I’m not making a final and certain assertion about the cause/explanation?
Are you saying that you do? That you fully accept them with no additional information needed? I’ve made it clear why I don’t fully accept them as the certain, final, definitive, doubt-free, no-possibility-exists explanation – because I think there’s a slight, non-zero chance that the difference in guns and gun violence might not fully explain the difference in police shootings. It might explain it, but if so I’m not fully 100% certain and positive of how. If you are, could you please explain why you are so 100% certain and positive that there is definitely absolutely no other factor involved?
So I just turn around the question – why do you accept them? If you don’t fully accept them as the definite final explanation with no possibility of other factors being involved, then we’re in the same place, more or less. If you do fully accept them with zero doubt and no chance of anything else as part of the story, then I just want to know how.
I’m not denying them, I’m just asking more questions. Why do you find these explanations so convincing as definite, certain, and final answers for the specific numbers being discussed? How can you be so certain that the difference in the number of guns and gun violence fully explains the difference in police shootings? Isn’t it possible, just the tiniest non-zero chance, that other factors might possibly be involved?
I honestly want to know. We might actually be in the same place – I assume there exists some tiny shred of possibility in your mind that there is some non-zero chance that some other possibility of factors other than the difference in guns and gun violence might possibly be involved (even if these are the main factors). Just a tiny chance – does this tiny chance exist, in your mind, or are you 100% positive that these are the only factors involved?
I’m having trouble why my uncertainty and curiosity is so hard to understand. It seems pretty obvious to me that it’s totally reasonable for me to say that “guns and gun violence are certainly a factor, but there is a possibility that other factors might just be involved as well”.
I’ll try once more. What, specifically, is the reason that you consider the existing explanations inadequate? You keep just saying they might be inadequate, without any reason why you think that.
Of course I accept the possibility that other explanations for the differences are there. I’ve repeatedly asked (and got no answer) whether all black people, and not just young black men are killed at a disproportionate rate by the cops. If so, that would strongly suggest racism is an issue, and not the fact that young black men are vastly more violent than any other group.
If I’m not 100% positive that they’re the perfect final explanation with no other possible factors involved, then that means I think there’s a non-zero possibility that they might be inadequate. Since by the below paragraph you clearly are also not 100% positive, then we both agree that they “might be inadequate”.
Then we agree. The only disagreement seems to be the extent of our curiosity about the possibility of other factors’ involvement.
I don’t have an answer – I don’t know. I haven’t seen statistics that compared police shootings of all black people to police shootings of all white people.
Possibly, but it’s also possible that there might be some sort of bigotry (based on a combination of race, gender, and age) against young black men. The disparity in violent crime wouldn’t necessarily fully 100% perfectly finally definitely explain any increased amount of police shootings of young black men – there exists some non-zero possibility that some other factors are involved.
But I think we’ve gotten to the bottom of most of this – our major disagreement is just in how curious we are about the possibility that other factors (which may or may not include racism – in fact, if there are other factors for the US-UK disparity, I’m almost certain that there are some non-racist factors) beyond the difference in guns and gun violence might be involved in the huge disparity in US police shootings vs UK police shootings.
No, we haven’t gotten to the bottom of it, because you still won’t explain the problem you have with the existing explanations for these issues. It’s not that you’re curious if other factors are involved, it’s that you - for reasons you refuse to share - consider that the existing explanations are insufficient, and insist there must be others.
Now, I’m fine with saying there are other influences - any social issue will have a vast amount of interacting causes and effects - but I’m not fine with dismissing obvious, proven, and major causes in general, and especially doing so without reason.
It’s based on statistics that young black men commit at least 6 times as many violent crimes as any other group, and that’s not been disputed as far as I know.
And the reason discussion of how that’s come to be isn’t happening is that asking “what the fuck is wrong with black culture, that their young men are 6 times more violent than anybody else” is frowned on, and called racist…
