Like all those people rioting at soccer games or in Seattle when the WTO was in town?
**
There are plenty of riots that don’t involve African-Americans. In fact when I hear of a riot I don’t automatically assume it has anything to do with race. Ok, if it is in LA I assume it has something to do with racial issues.
**
Uh huh. I remember all those violent protest led by MLK during the 50’s and 60’s.
**
Isn’t most of the population centered in urban areas? Seems to me that they’ve got plenty of political clout.
**
No political recourse. Maybe if you’re a Native American but the Democratic Party counts on the African American vote to win elections.
If you’re destroying your own neighborhood then you’re just as much a part of the problem.
An article in a right-wing e-zine gives some statistical background, including:
“The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 1998, fully 62 percent of the 367 suspects killed by police officers nationwide were white, and 35 percent were black. In fact, police killings of white suspects have outnumbered those of black suspects in every single year since 1978. Moreover, black officers are far likelier to shoot black suspects than are white officers.”
IMHO, when discussing bad things done by some policemen, competence (or the lack thereof) is far more significant than racism. See full article:
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms -RAH
Violence settles many things, maybe not the way some would have it, but it does get settled, if followed through with.
Moderate, or limited violence is a recipe for more down the line.
Example: the end of WW2. Had the atom bomb not been dropped, we would have almost certainly been involved in a much longer and bloodier(than it already was) conflict with Japan. Most likely bouncing island to island for years to come.
I’d venture to say that violence resolved that issue.
I think you have to ask what are the goals the movement is trying to accomplish. If the goals are to get your leaders on TV and to get politicians to come to your neighborhoods mouthing platitudes rioting is a great way to accomplish this and have a little fun at the same time. However, if your goal is to ameliorate conditions in your neighborhood, rioting is counterproductive. Rioting harms businesses located in the neighborhoods and discourages new businesses from starting. This results in higher unemployment. Rioting also brings heat on the police who are most likely to respond by policing less aggressively. This results in higher crime rates. So if you are willing to trade press coverage and hand wringing politicians for higher unemployment and crime rioting is a good idea.
to add to BigGirl’s point, and to add some facts to the debate as well, here’s some numbers about how many police are killed ILOD annually. here
Aside: by the way the statement from december "In fact, police killings of white suspects have outnumbered those of black suspects in every single year since 1978. " is particularly scarey for a number of reasons. In the first place, of course, since whites are still the overwhelming majority, it would be a very surprising stat if the number vs. percentage weren’t higher. But, of course, according to the quote, the implication exists that prior to 1978, the absolute number of minority suspects killed exceeded the absolute number of white suspects. (another possable interpretation of that statement is that such stats weren’t kept prior to then)
Considering that police tend to deal with the criminal elements in our society and that blacks make up about 40% of the criminals in ouur society the percentage seems about right.
Do you see where there can be a problem here between cause and effect? If police regard blacks as “perps” and whites as guilty until proven innocent, this would account for the larger number of blacks accused of crimes.
Do you really believe 12% of the population is responsible for 40% of the crime? We blacks have been quite busy, haven’t we?
I do see the cause and effect. The cause is that 40 percent of violent crime is committed by blacks and police officers are trying to arrest them. Since criminals do not want to be arrested there is a conflict. This conflict turns violent leading to the effect. 35 percent of police shooting victims are black and 42 percent of people who shoot police are black. Since you seem to believe that criminality is the same amoung races that must mean that there is a huge amount of violent crime committed by whites that is being ignored or that huge numbers of blacks are being convicted of crimes that never took place.
some issues re: statistics. First of all Puddlegum states “42% of people who shoot police are black”. A. would really like to know where you obtained that number, and B. would like to point out that, if we’re talking about police deaths by gunshots, according to the link that I provided before, for example the most recent year listed less than 60 policemen were killed with a firearm in that year. (now that I’m saying that gee, that’s a good number, yes, it’s a tragedy etc etc.) The raw number is very small statistically, so any ‘evidence’ would be suspect.
I’ve been attempting to locate any specific data re: criminal behavior vs. stated race of the perpetrator. And I’m having a tough time locating it.
However, what is easy to locate is data re: prison and jail populations. I suspect that what you may be using as your data came from prison/jail populations (and frankly that number seems to be accurate to me). However, you cannot make the extrapolation that the prison/jail population data = crimes committed data.
prison/jail does not include those on probation or those who got away with it. Also it doesn’t field for the number of offenses piece. So, if you had a situation where there were 100 crimes, 80 of which were committed by a single white guy, the other 20 committed by 20 different blacks, you could make the mistaken leap of faith that the blacks were responsible for more crime than whites. See?
From [ur=“http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm”]The US Dept of Justice Lifetime chance of a black person going to prison is 16%. If you are using prison populations to back up this claim of 40% of all violent crimes are commited by blacks, then that appx .13% (my math sucks) of the black population must be on some really intense crime spree.
Of course if you take the view that this .13% of the population has a death rate in the hands of the police of 32%, it can look scary --if you’re black. {Playing with stats is fun!
I got my statistics from the 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report.
Here is the report on officers killed: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/97leokap.pdf
on page 36 it says that of 950 officers killed in the previous decade 402 were killed by black assailants. That works out to slightly over 42%.
The figure of the 40 percent of violent crime is also from the 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report but the link was down last time I tried to access it. I have seen this cited other places in the media so I assume it is accurate.
and the numbers for total deaths are these :1987 175 1988 194
1989 191 1990 152
1991 147 1992 158
1993 154 1994 171
1995 174 1996 134
1997 164 1998 161
1999 134
So, again, we’ve got significantly conflicting data. (ie, these numbers, wouldn’t indicate 900 deaths necessarily caused by another individual. Also, your original quote was “% of people who shoot cops are black”. The data that I’m presenting indicate at most about 500 police officers shot over the course of 10 years. So, original interpretation of the data you present seems to be inaccurate.
Statistical data can be an interesting tool. But when it’s used improperly, the results can be skewed. For example, using a stat re: violent crime to extrapolate any reasonable information about crime in general.
To be clearer the number of police feloniously killed between 1988 and 1997 was 688. In these cases 950 perpetrators were identified because sometimes more than one person was involved in the death.
My point was that black people get shot by police in similar percentages to what their proportion is among criminals. This is to be expected and is not at all scary.
Crime statistics are availabe at the fbi.gov website by clicking on the Uniform Crime Report section.
(sorry for misspelling your name previously)
Yes, I know about the fbi.gov website etc. you need adobe acrobat in order to read it. I’m trying to down load that now. we shall see (in about 3 hours) if I’ve been successful. with all due respect, your figures have changed each time so far (first it was “42% of those who shoot police are black”, then “950 officers were killed, with 402 by black assailants” and now “688 feloniously killed with 950 perpetrators (without racial identifying numbers posted)”, so will appreciate being able to see the data first hand.
Over and above the varying data you’re presenting, your statement “black people get shot by police in similar percentages to what their proportion is among criminals” again is a problem - the data upon which you seem to be relying, seems to be the folks who are incarcerated. Again, as I pointed out before, to examine only the demographics of those who are incarcerated doesn’t necessarily paint an accurate picture of the demographics of criminals in general. Admittedly, those that get away are an unknownable quantity, however, a brief scan of available research (none of whice seems to be available on the web presently) shows that studies are being done to determine if the suspicion is real that there is a racial bias who gets incarcerated.
As an example of racial bias in sentencing, read up on the crack “epidemic” which resulted in special laws relative to the form of the drug (and since crack was an urban phenomenon originally, it impacted the urban dweller demographics more).
Some ideas- average income for minorities is less than that for whites. which would mean more minorities would end up with court appointed attorneys (some of whom are excellent, however…).
The report you provided shows that, of the 950 persons identified in the felonious killing of a law officer from 1988 to 1997, 402 were black. Which does not explain why 100% of the people shot and killed by the Cincinatti police were black.
I am not endorsing riots. They are mindless and stupid and only serve to hurt whatever community the occur in. But to brush off the legitimate anger of the black community in Cincinatti by intimating that they somehow deserve being singled out is insensitve to say the least.
Since Febuary of 1995 a black police detective, 2 mentally disturbed people, one man who was doing nothing at all but driving late at night, and a 12 year old with baggy pants were killed by the Cincinatti police. It’s not hard to believe that had they been white they would be alive today.
Biggirl’s request for sensitivity is the common, PC reaction. The media sure aren’t mentioning the large number of policemen killed by blacks. But, does it really help black people to brush their crimes under the rug and focus on crimes committed against them?
The policeman who shot the 12-year did so while in the process of being dragged to his death by the car that the 12-year old was illegally driving? Biggirl, did you choose to omit this crucial fact? Or were you misled by some media organ that reported this horrible incident incompletely? Are you aware that the number of blacks killed by police is a tiny fraction of the number murdered by other blacks? Not to mention crimes other than murder.
Black on black crime is the greatest threat to law-abiding black citizens. This is a much bigger problem than the treatment of blacks by the police. Inner city blacks are particularly in need of aggressive police protection. (They will also be safer if they they are legally permitted to carry affordable hand-guns, but that’s another issue.) Any action that reduces police effectiveness will hurt black citizens the most. I don’t like this situation. It feels like the Wild West. But it’s reality. IMHO ignoring reality doesn’t help anyonae – black or white.
I never said that blacks should “brush their crimes under a rug”. I said it was insensitive to say that blacks deserve being singled out by the police.
When people can toss around “statistics” that show blacks commit 40% of the violent crime in this country, show no proof of such and have many people accept this as true, it can be argued that black crimes are not only being highlighted and underlined, but exaggerated in an attempt to justify targeting blacks.
What is the percentage of crimes commited by blacks in contrast to crimes commited by whites in Cincinatti? Is it 100% to nothing? I am accused of being “PC” because I point out that blacks have a legitimate reason for being angry about being targeted.
I believe all those people I mentioned in my other post are dead, not because they were criminals, but because they were black. By the stats given here on this thread 60% of the people who killed police officers from 1988 to 1997 were not black. How these numbers prove that the 100% rate of black people killed by the Cincinatti police is justified and black people should not feel angry and fustrated about it is, well, fustrating.
Recent statistics showed that 74% students in the inner city scored did below “proficient”. Illiterate citizens are effectively excluded from much of modern society. How much of the crime and rioting was committed by illiterates?
Despite lots of spending and good intentions, inner city education is mostly not working. I think this is far more important than 5 unarmed black men in 6 years killed by police.