CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Some cops just killed a White woman with no visible weapon. Where's the race bating?
I see no Al Sharpton, Eric Holder or Obama on the media vowing to get to the bottom of this killing. I guess when Cops kill White people, there is no need for justice.
Can you see what is going on in the Democrat party? If a tragedy does not involve a means to garner votes, Democrats could care less about the people killed. I wonder if Obama will send people from his administrtion to the girl's funeral as he did the Black man shot by the Cop. Nah, there are no votes to be gained from this story. He can't fan the flames of how White Cops are racists so why waste the time. Kind of like going to Las Vegas to campaign a day after our Ambassador was murdered by terrorists.
I wonder if we will see riots in the streets if the Cops are not found guilty. Nah because Fox news will not race bate or stir up dissent against the Cops no matter the race of the victim. You will see no Republicans stirring up racial tension from these tragedies.
I just hope someday the kind of people who vote for these race baters will wake up. There is nothing more disgusting than politicians who stir up class and racial warfare between Americans, all to get elected. This type of hedious politics is what cost those two Police officers their lives in NYC.
Can you demonstrate a systemic trend of unnecessary violence against caucasians in this country? No. Can you demonstrate one against african americans? Yes.
Can you demonstrate a systemic trend of unnecessary violence against caucasians in this country? No. Can you demonstrate one against african americans? No.
Fixed that for you. I know I've harped on others for only focusing on the absolute vs the relative before, so I'm going to try and avoid this here.
From an absolute perspective, police kill roughly twice as many white people per year total than black. Can you demonstrate conclusively that the frequency of these being unnecessary is double amongst black as compared to whites? Because if not, then there are more total unnecessary killings of whites than blacks, which would demonstrate the opposite.
Why? Because even with the highest estimate of death rates, the overwhelming majority of people are NOT killed by cops, necessarily or unnecessarily. There is a HUGE crop of potential targets for 'unnecessary violence' that are not being targeted. Sure, white people outnumber black people in the US 5:1 or so, but the numbers are a LOT closer in Urban Areas. There are more than enough black people within urban police jurisdictions to dwarf the death toll amongst whites without significantly affecting the total population.
In other words, if blacks were specifically being targeted with unnecessary violence, I would expect the death toll to dwarf that of whites.
No. I say this is a problem of poverty. There is a strong link between poverty and crime, particularly in urban areas, and a strong link between race and financial status as well. Further, while whites outnumber blacks 5:1 in the nation, when we are looking at the populations of urban areas the numbers are significantly closer.
I'm not denying that there are cops that specifically target black people. I'm denying that there is some kind of systemic anti-black campaign of violence being conducted by our police and government, because the numbers just plain don't support it.
This line of thinking suggests some form of police-sanctioned ethnic cleansing is going on, but the numbers we have in the US don't even come close to the death tolls in actual ethnic cleansing events.
Compare all of this to, say, a poacher taking whatever game he can get. Maybe there are a few hundred fowl, several dozen rabbits, and a handful of deer. He makes off with 2 of each; there are more fowl and rabbits but they don't make themselves as visible as targets. These represent a tiny portion of the fowl and rabbit population, but a significantly higher portion of the deer population. Did the poacher specifically target deer over fowl and rabbits just because the percentage was higher?
Setting the fact that the numbers don't support this aside for the moment, there are some other problems with your position that I'll respond to with questions.
unnecessary violence
The total deaths aren't particularly important here, so much as the deaths that we classify as "unnecessary." If a cop is in a firefight, for example, any perpetrators killed in the exchange are done so by necessity, regardless of the race involved. So we need to examine the criteria for unnecessary violence.
1) What constitutes unnecessary violence?
2) Are we looking at these events with 20/20 hindsight, or from the perspective at the time the killings were committed? I believe the latter is the only appropriate one if trying to establish that police are intentionally targeting black people specifically when such is not necessary.
caucasians... [vs] ...african americans
Once we've established criteria for how much violence is and is not necessary, we then need to establish a disparity between white people and black people re: unnecessary police killings.
3) Of the violence deemed unnecessary, are there more instances targeting caucasians or african americans?
4) Same question, but controlling for the local population's racial makeup around each accused police district.
5) Same question, but further controlling for economic class.
systemic trend
This assumes that the answers to 1 and 2 are reasonable, and that the answers to 3-5 all suggest that african americans are overly targeted.
6) Can a violent police-sanctioned anti-black trend, by the criteria noted in these questions, be established throughout the majority of the US?
I appreciate your argument, but it would be a good deal more credible if you even once cited the original statistical basis for your claims regarding demographics and police violence (general and lethal).
Lacking access to your source materials, I can still identify some flaws in your rationale itself. You argue that urban racial demographics are roughly equitable between whites and blacks, but given that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population is urban dwelling (source) it hardly follows that the white:black ratio would change so drastically as you claim.
Even were your claim accurate, the manner in which you present it falsely homogenizes U.S. urban areas by relying on a national urban average rather than examining individual urban areas. Similarly, relying upon national rates of urban police violence fails to hold localized rates relative to their corresponding urban areas. So, even if it held true that nationally whites have 2X the lethal police violence rate than blacks with a nationally equitable urban racial distribution it may very well be the case that both those rates change dependent upon the urban area in question. By generalizing the data and abstracting it from the original context of occurrence, you render the data incapable of speaking to this issue at either a localized or national level.
I would further suggest that you cannot actually find the data to support your conclusions quite simply because it does not exist. Transparency and accountability are abysmal, with reporting being inconsistent, misrepresentative, and voluntary.
I appreciate your argument, but it would be a good deal more credible if you even once cited the original statistical basis for your claims regarding demographics and police violence (general and lethal).
I didn't bother to because of whos debate this was, honestly. I should probably be more mindful of others in the future, I suppose.
You argue that urban racial demographics are roughly equitable between whites and blacks, but given that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population is urban dwelling (source) it hardly follows that the white:black ratio would change so drastically as you claim.
I was probably a little unclear here- I wasn't going for urban areas in general, so much as police districts known for violence. The police districts with the highest rates of violence do reflect areas where the white:black ratio is significantly closer than the nationwide 5:1. If I suggested it was actually equal, my apologies.
Even were your claim accurate, the manner in which you present it falsely homogenizes U.S. urban areas by relying on a national urban average rather than examining individual urban areas.
Generalization is necessary when trying to prove or disprove a systemic trend. I believe I did note that there are certainly cases of individual police and even police departments with racist tendencies, but this is insufficient to demonstrate the systemic trend suggested.
I would further suggest that you cannot actually find the data to support your conclusions quite simply because it does not exist.
I actually agree here, except for the bit about it being my conclusion. I was not drawing conclusions here, simply dissenting from the conclusions drawn by the debate creator. The lack of data, particularly regarding which deaths are 'unnecessary' is a big part of this that I'm certain I touched on.
While there are reliable sources that demonstrate an average of twice as many white people killed by police as black, there is, as you said, very little unbiased information available to determine which ones were necessary or not.
I didn't bother to because of whos debate this was, honestly. I should probably be more mindful of others in the future, I suppose.
I can appreciate that, but really given that variable why bother at all?
I was probably a little unclear here- I wasn't going for urban areas in general, so much as police districts known for violence. The police districts with the highest rates of violence do reflect areas where the white:black ratio is significantly closer than the nationwide 5:1. If I suggested it was actually equal, my apologies.
That does clarify your intent, however my skepticism stands in light of not having seen the data upon which you are basing your claims. My impression is that police violence is a broadly systemic issue across the country in most if not all major cities. I also doubt that any ranking system based upon the rate of overall violence would be a reliable way to establish which cities we are looking at, given the voluntary nature of most reporting, lack of transparency, and definitional manipulations of existing data.
Generalization is necessary when trying to prove or disprove a systemic trend. I believe I did note that there are certainly cases of individual police and even police departments with racist tendencies, but this is insufficient to demonstrate the systemic trend suggested.
Generalization is not necessary to that end, and is actually counterproductive towards it. This is especially true where we are holding multiple variables relative to one another (e.g. race and police violence), because context is actually very important in understanding how those data interrelate. On a certain level, I suspect you must know this or you would not have begun by invalidating the equally simplistic 5:1 ratio frequently presented in these discussions.
I recognize that pointing to a few jurisdictions for which the data has been analyzed within its original context is similarly inadequate, and that is why I never advocated it. In order to actually determine this matter, we need reliable data for demographics and police violence that are notably lacking as well as a jurisdiction by jurisdiction evaluation of the variables held relative to one another and controlled for other influencing factors that may explain higher rates of overall police violence or racial victimology.
Further, even were systemic racism problematic only in some jurisdictions (not yet proven in your arguments or others' that I have seen) that does not necessarily mean that the issue is not still systemic on a national level if those cases can be attributed to practices at large. It may very well be that not all jurisdictions demonstrate systemic racism (and that those that do demonstrate it to varrying degrees) due to other mitigating variables - less punitive, expansive criminal laws; more diverse law enforcement personnel; smaller police forces relative to population; etc. - rather than to a lack of equitable racism. Even if it is simply that the overall law enforcement system lends itself towards pro-racist implementation more readily than other alternatives, this would be an adequate basis from which to claim a systemic problem.
I actually agree here, except for the bit about it being my conclusion. I was not drawing conclusions here, simply dissenting from the conclusions drawn by the debate creator. The lack of data, particularly regarding which deaths are 'unnecessary' is a big part of this that I'm certain I touched on.
I concede that was a misunderstanding on my part. Your critical deconstruction of those assumptions was well merited.
While there are reliable sources that demonstrate an average of twice as many white people killed by police as black, there is, as you said, very little unbiased information available to determine which ones were necessary or not.
I disagree that even that data is ultimately reliable. The national reporting system is incredibly flawed, so that a number of police related fatalities are recorded as generic homicides (justifiable or otherwise) if they are even reported at all. We actually have a very limited and inaccurate understanding of the general rate of police related fatalities and other violence, let alone what those numbers look like broken down by race or other variables. That is before we even get into discussing what is "necessary".
Sorry for the delay in my response here- personal matters, and then some time verifying a couple of sources for further clarification.
I can appreciate that, but really given that variable why bother at all?
This one actually strikes me as funny coming from you- not meant to be in an insulting way, of course. You're a nihilist, yes? While I'm not one myself, surely you can appreciate that I'm fairly whimsical. Why does there need to be any intrinsic meaning or intent? One of my flaws is certainly the internet equivalent of liking to hear myself speak.
That does clarify your intent, however my skepticism stands in light of not having seen the data upon which you are basing your claims. My impression is that police violence is a broadly systemic issue across the country in most if not all major cities.
Well as you can imagine, actually collecting sources for all of this is a bit of an undertaking; I hope you wouldn't mind taking a small sample of sources that discredit the methodology and numbers used by those trying to 'prove' systemic racism as sufficient to do a little looking into that angle yourself.
Neighborhood scouts ranks the top 100 most dangerous US cities in terms of the per-capita rate of being the victim of a violent crime. An FAQ explains the methodology used and you can further drill down into the cities to eventually get to the sources they use for the data; it's pretty solid as near as I can see.
From here, we can look up the racial demographics of the city in question as compared to the state overall or the nation.
And so on, if you feel like looking into any others you'll see the pattern continues with barely any interruption.
I also doubt that any ranking system based upon the rate of overall violence would be a reliable way to establish which cities we are looking at, given the voluntary nature of most reporting, lack of transparency, and definitional manipulations of existing data.
I'm not claiming that it proves anything- merely that the claims by the opposition are not supported by the data, and that the nationwide ratio of caucasians to whites is being misused as it does not accurately reflect the demographics of the jurisdictions where the most violent crimes and the most frequent shootings by police occur in.
And that nationwide disparity is the lynchpin of the oppositions arguments. Without that ~5:1 ratio, the numbers simply aren't there to establish their argument.
Generalization is not necessary to that end, and is actually counterproductive towards it.
I'll counter that a statistically significant systemic problem is almost certain to be reflected at a general level, unless there is an equally significant systemic trend in the opposite direction encompassing an equal amount of the population. If it is not significant enough to be observed at a general level, there may well be a problem, but certainly not a systemic one.
This is of course hampered by problems with the data, as you've mentioned (and I agree!).
I recognize that pointing to a few jurisdictions for which the data has been analyzed within its original context is similarly inadequate, and that is why I never advocated it. In order to actually determine this matter, we need reliable data for demographics and police violence that are notably lacking as well as a jurisdiction by jurisdiction evaluation of the variables held relative to one another and controlled for other influencing factors that may explain higher rates of overall police violence or racial victimology.
I agree here. My real stance is that we need much more information. Like I said, I'm not presenting a "No systemic racism" position, I'm criticizing the "Yes systemic racism" position. From what I can see, the data that we do have does not support the systemic racism position, and even if we can't claim it refutes it do to problems with the data, there is no reason I am aware of to believe something that isn't supported by any data.
Further, even were systemic racism problematic only in some jurisdictions (not yet proven in your arguments or others' that I have seen) that does not necessarily mean that the issue is not still systemic on a national level if those cases can be attributed to practices at large. It may very well be that not all jurisdictions demonstrate systemic racism (and that those that do demonstrate it to varrying degrees) due to other mitigating variables - less punitive, expansive criminal laws; more diverse law enforcement personnel; smaller police forces relative to population; etc. - rather than to a lack of equitable racism. Even if it is simply that the overall law enforcement system lends itself towards pro-racist implementation more readily than other alternatives, this would be an adequate basis from which to claim a systemic problem.
Are we operating under different definitions of systemic? As I understand it, if we're talking about systemic racism, we're not talking about 'some jurisdictions' but rather the overwhelming majority of them. Individual jurisdictions with a racism problem is localized, not systemic, as I understand it.
I concede that was a misunderstanding on my part. Your critical deconstruction of those assumptions was well merited.
Thank you.
I disagree that even that data is ultimately reliable. The national reporting system is incredibly flawed, so that a number of police related fatalities are recorded as generic homicides (justifiable or otherwise) if they are even reported at all. We actually have a very limited and inaccurate understanding of the general rate of police related fatalities and other violence, let alone what those numbers look like broken down by race or other variables. That is before we even get into discussing what is "necessary".
Fair enough. But even so, it's one thing to draw conclusions from flawed data, another thing entirely to draw conclusions that are only loosely backed by flawed data if such is significantly misrepresented. As I said, my aim here is to critique the latter, not assert the former.
Apologies for my delay as well, for similar reasons actually.
This one actually strikes me as funny coming from you [...] the internet equivalent of liking to hear myself speak.
Touche, and well called. I was being a bit facetious I suppose. Clearly, I am similarly afflicted. ;)
Well as you can imagine [...] you'll see the pattern continues with barely any interruption.
Thank you for finding and sharing the resource; I always appreciate a good geospatial data collection and his appears to be one (transparency is generally a good sign and they seem to have it). The demographic and crime correlations are certainly interesting to note.
I'm not claiming that it proves anything- merely that the claims by the opposition are not supported by the data, and that the nationwide ratio of caucasians to whites is being misused as it does not accurately reflect the demographics of the jurisdictions where the most violent crimes and the most frequent shootings by police occur in.
I appreciate that, but I do not think the above data can actually serve to discredit that claim since they do not speak to general police activity let alone to police violence specifically (some of which is not even reported as crime).
And that nationwide disparity is the lynchpin of the oppositions arguments. Without that ~5:1 ratio, the numbers simply aren't there to establish their argument.
Actually, I do not think that is an inherent lynchpin and I do think the data (however limited) may be strong enough to at least lend some credibility to the systemic racism argument. Notably, I found this; I have not yet had the time to dig through the original databases to verify that their analysis is accurate but at least a couple of them seem legitimate enough to draw some tentative conclusions from. I think the particular citation to fatal police shootings is most notable in this context; the 21:1 risk ratio would remain disproportionate even holding a majority black population in some cities I believe. The localized particulars for Ferguson are also interesting I think.
Also noteworthy if somewhat roundabout is the more reliable data the causally connects poverty with crime rates and incarceration taken concurrently with data regarding the correlation between race and poverty. It seems it would follow somewhat reliably from there that race and crime are disproportionately linked, even accounting for the demographic point you raise. Although, that becomes a broader systemic issue and less one specific to law enforcement itself.
I'll counter that a statistically significant systemic problem is almost certain to be reflected at a general level, unless there is an equally significant systemic trend in the opposite direction encompassing an equal amount of the population. If it is not significant enough to be observed at a general level, there may well be a problem, but certainly not a systemic one.
A valid point, except that I think that even neutral jurisdictions could distort the data... for reasons I will explain below since they are more responsive there.
Are we operating under different definitions of systemic? [...]
No, but I believe you misunderstand my overall analysis. My point is that even if racism is only problematic in some jurisdictions that racism may be expressly possible due to general systems (economic, political, legal) that at most promote such practices and at the very least permit them. For instance, a non-mandatory reporting process that masks police activity and violence is a systemic issue that arguably permits problematic jurisdictions to engage in racist activity which they otherwise would not be able to get away with. If larger national structures are complicit in the racism of individual jurisdictions then I think one could contend that racism is still systemic. Does that clarify?
Fair enough. But even so, it's one thing to draw conclusions from flawed data, another thing entirely to draw conclusions that are only loosely backed by flawed data if such is significantly misrepresented. As I said, my aim here is to critique the latter, not assert the former.
A valid critique, particularly as most systemic racism claimants typically do not have much if any familiarity with the data themselves (in my experience at least). I think, however, that based upon what I have found the admittedly limited and flawed data at least inclines the argument in favor of the systemic racism claim more than its counter view. What I find troubling is how vehemently people claim definitive knowledge on a matter for which evidence is rather inconclusive in many regards.
I think at this point we are largely in agreement. You raised a very interesting and valid critique that is not commonly levied against what is frequently just asserted as truth. My counter was to press the challenge a bit, but while I may think there is slightly more evidence favoring the systemic racism stance than you do my ultimate opinion is that the data is so flawed as to render a conclusive determination premature. I am willing to continue swapping ideas back and forth, since it is prompting me to look new places and consider additional perspectives on the matter but see little basis for any particular disagreement by and large. Your thoughts?
Apologies for my delay as well, for similar reasons actually.
No worries. Neither of us were long enough for it to be a necropost so.
Touche, and well called. I was being a bit facetious I suppose. Clearly, I am similarly afflicted. ;)
It's a good thing. Not always, but often interest tends to lead towards proficiency, as it certainly motivates one to do it well. Always room for improvement too.
Thank you for finding and sharing the resource; I always appreciate a good geospatial data collection and his appears to be one (transparency is generally a good sign and they seem to have it). The demographic and crime correlations are certainly interesting to note.
Of course. It takes me time to trace back sources all the time because I'm reading constantly and not often specifically researching something for debate purposes, so I have to retrace steps a bit at times. I'm guilty of misremembering things initially in some of these debates at times too.
I appreciate that, but I do not think the above data can actually serve to discredit that claim since they do not speak to general police activity let alone to police violence specifically (some of which is not even reported as crime).
This is a very good point, and is generally based on the not necessarily valid assumption that most shootings would occur in higher crime areas. I believe that most in fact do, but certainly a significant portion do not, I must concede. The lack of accurate source material is problematic to either side or even a neutral position, really.
Actually, I do not think that is an inherent lynchpin and I do think the data (however limited) may be strong enough to at least lend some credibility to the systemic racism argument. ... It seems it would follow somewhat reliably from there that race and crime are disproportionately linked, even accounting for the demographic point you raise. Although, that becomes a broader systemic issue and less one specific to law enforcement itself.
Hard data escapes me at the moment, and I will try to swing back with some accurate sourcing, but I believe the 5:1 ratio was an inherent lynchpin because otherwise when the biggest factors influencing crime rate (poverty and population density) are controlled for, the disparity largely disappears. I could be wrong there, and I could be recalling from some biased or otherwise unreliable sources; I'll edit or clarify later after I find them again.
My point is that even if racism is only problematic in some jurisdictions that racism may be expressly possible due to general systems (economic, political, legal) that at most promote such practices and at the very least permit them.
I will freely concede that we have a systemic lack of accountability and oversight that acts as a passive enabler for localized racism, but I don't believe that it is fair to call that systemic racism; that's all. And I have a problem with the 'blue shield' phenomenon in general, to be honest- but I don't believe I can condemn the 'neutral' jurisdictions, given the relative inability of, say, Austin police or Dallas police to control one another, or Maryland and Delaware state police to control one another. The system that allows bad jurisdictions and bad individuals to operate with impunity is the problem, and it's one of negligence rather than malice, as opposed to what the term systemic racism implies.
I think at this point we are largely in agreement. You raised a very interesting and valid critique that is not commonly levied against what is frequently just asserted as truth. My counter was to press the challenge a bit, but while I may think there is slightly more evidence favoring the systemic racism stance than you do my ultimate opinion is that the data is so flawed as to render a conclusive determination premature. I am willing to continue swapping ideas back and forth, since it is prompting me to look new places and consider additional perspectives on the matter but see little basis for any particular disagreement by and large. Your thoughts?
Perhaps we could brainstorm a hypothetical system to help control the problem? That would be a more interesting and in-depth problem than it might appear on the surface, given the problems inherent in granting them too much authority and privacy (rendering them just another avenue for corruption) vs too little authority and too much transparency (rendering them impotent either via lack of authority or being too easily outmaneuvered).
[...] when the biggest factors influencing crime rate (poverty and population density) are controlled for, the disparity largely disappears. [...]
The hard data escapes me as well, but I have suspected for some time that race is generally incidental to the more influential variables of poverty especially, but also population density.
I will freely concede [...] as opposed to what the term systemic racism implies.
If the systemic lack of accountability and oversight enables racialized abuses of authority, then I find myself hard pressed to see that as anything other than systemic in nature. I fail to see why the means we would be faulting non-abusive jurisdictions for the overt failings of their abusive counterparts. I appreciate that there may be a distinction to be had between systemic issues generally and systemic issues of racism specifically, however I think that if the general systemic issues expressly lend themselves towards racism in a manner that is evident then it is not a great stretch to consider them systemically racist as well (though they may also be systemically classist, etc. at the same time).
Perhaps we could brainstorm a hypothetical system to help control the problem? That would be a more interesting and in-depth problem than it might appear on the surface, given the problems inherent in granting them too much authority and privacy (rendering them just another avenue for corruption) vs too little authority and too much transparency (rendering them impotent either via lack of authority or being too easily outmaneuvered).
There is an inherent grey area in the tradeoff between transparency and efficiency, yet at the same time I think there are quite a few straightforward and non-complicated practices that can be implemented that hardly begin to broach that realm of confusion. A mandatory, uniform reporting system would be one; the information is aggregated and non-case specific rendering the tradeoff itself rather moot. The establishment of independent, external review agencies would be another I should think. The introduction of community based police training in place of more traditional training programs. The introduction of mandatory cultural, identity, and language trainings for law enforcement officers (particularly where there is reason to consider them likely to encounter those demographics). And so forth. Which is a rather long way of saying that I agree that this would be a more interesting trajectory of engagement, not to mention an ultimately more effective one than the rather stagnant racial exchanges.
Off-topic question: Given your views on a lack of accountability and oversight enabling racist conduct, and how that extends to consideration of systematic racism- Do you feel that all police, even the 'good' ones, are at least partially culpable for the wrongdoings of the 'dirty' cops, due to the concerted effort amongst police and police administration to cover up the wrongdoing, protect the 'dirty' cop, and overall enable the behavior (the phenomenon frequently referred to as the Blue Shield or the Blue Wall)?
No wrong answer here and I'm not going to contest you on it, I'm just curious about your opinion.
I think that all law enforcement personnel are complicit in the systemic problems endemic to their profession, though I would argue that they are neither uniformly complicit nor categorically at fault as a consequence. Law enforcement has a very hierarchical power distribution, and personnel in the lower ranks arguably have a very limited capacity to effect any substantive change (and where they do it would be at considerable risk to their own careers and well-being). I think it is important to consider that at least some personnel are in a rather real sense victims of systemic issues within law enforcement themselves; this does not necessarily excuse their consequent behavior but it does complicate the issue.
Hogwash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is a far higher percentage of crime from African Americans so therefore there will be more deaths. Spew your Left wing rhetoric to the low end voters. They will eat it right up.
You actually made quite a good point here. Shame it is so well hidden behind the insults and angry-granddad-style ranting that no one will appreciate it.
You are claiming that there is a systemic flaw in our law enforcement organizations, that causes African Americans to be the victims of unnecessary violence. You go on to say that you can demonstrate that this is fact. If this systemic flaw existed, it should be apparent in crime statistics. Can you point them out
Classic case of missing the point entirely. No one is claiming police only kill non-white people. They are claiming they disproportionately kill non-white people.
The only one's claiming the lie of Racism running rampant are race bating Democrats! Reprehensible!
Should a African-American vote Republican? Your plight is a lie. The democrats just make it up. Racism? What racism?
A democrat recognizes the struggles that you face in today's society and we are ready to fight for as long and as hard as it takes until African-Americans are truly equal in our society. Vote Democrats.
As you see my friends: he has no answer. I have caught him and like all brutes all he can do is fly a rage. "We may ignore racism but you are corrupt". Hardly the answer the African-American community need. Vote Democrat.
It's hard to debate arrogant eletes who think they have the right to race bate, creating an environment of riots, executions of innocent Cop's, all to garner the Black vote. IT'S SICK!
Who doesn't know there are some racists in every walk of life, in every job classification out there. Yes there are some racist cops just as there are racist Politicians including Rev. Al Sharpton as well as Obama's Reverend of 20 years Rev. Write. These people are racists and the Democrats cozy right up to them. Just because we will ALWAYS have some racists does not mean the Police force is racist and does not make any cop who kills a Black man racist. Only fools would suggest such mindless propaganda.
Just as with school shootings, the Democrat party will use any tragedy to push their Gun control, their racism rhetoric all for reasons of politics and pushing their extreme Left agendas.
First off, liberals are not socialists, they are liberals. Democrats are liberals. Therefore, they are not socialists. You do not know what socialism is.
Second, Republicans are just as corrupt as Democrats. Both parties are completely and utterly rotten in terms of corruption.
Oh, please. Republicans are playing the race game just as much right now, albeit from the other side. Neither party can generally be bothered with the actual facts.
The media have a lot to be responsible for in generating public feeling and opinion.
We should expect unbiased reporting of events without bias however we are fed sensationalistic, exaggerated and opinionated information that may or may not be valid so there is little wonder there is dissension in society.
I read recently that a Russian agency decided to only report good news stories and they lost two thirds of their listeners within a very short period of time.
The public plays a significant role in what we subscribe to and accept and we get what we pay for.
There is nothing wrong with reporting bad news as well as good news. It's all about simply reporting the news without an agenda of garnering votes for either party. Simply report both the news of when a white police officer kills a black man, and when a black officer kills a white man. I will do one better. How about not mentioning the race of those involved. Why should it matter the race of the Cop or the race of the person killed. I wish our media and Politicians stopped playing politics and started bringing people together instead of using race for political purposes.
Well in this particular debate one must look at both sides of the races. If you look at the events occurring in Ferguson you will find a mixture of hypocrisy. When I heard the news on this issue I immediately put down my playboy magazine and went onto foxnews.com to read more about the issue. I believe we all need to become grey so that way we can get along. I suggest we all jump in a pool of melted down grey crayons and join hand while singing lorde. Thank You.
I could care less what cheery picked evidence you could provide. Both sides can make their side look correct with so called evidence or facts. I live in this nation every day. I see what is happening every day. I need no biased Liberal spewing his so called statistics and facts. I have a simple brain used to see reality.
No, you just want to go to FOX so you can have a biased Conservative spew their so called statistics and facts.
Do you really think your extremely limited experiences are sufficient to contradict statistical trends? Or do you just not want to accept them because they contradict your preconceptions?
Statistical trends? Are you telling me we have more incidences of racial acts today than we had 70 years ago? Things have been improving decade after decade but the Democrat Party will not allow America to become color blind. That garners them no votes!
I constantly give examples explaining my positions. I'm sick of those on the Left spewing out how the GOP is no better but they never give any examples. PLEASE DO give me any examples of Fox stirring up racial tensions to garner votes for the GOP and creating riots in the streets. If you mean them reacting to the Democrat's race bating, spare me.
Can you read? I told you not to waste my time with any Fox reporting that is addressing the race bating from the Left. When the Left wing media and Democrat party pick and choose what stories to sensationalize all for purposes of keeping the Black vote, those on the Right will fight back and stop the brainwashing.
Were it not for the Left wing media, Fox would not even have a show. The Trevan Marten case would never have even made to the news. Fox is the highest rated cable news show for almost 20 years and you know why? Because the majority of Americans hate the Liberal bias on network news and will watch Fox to actually get the other side of the story. Network news get more viewers because of the millions of people who only have antenna tv.
Can YOU read? Did you even bother reading more than 2 sentences of any single one of those links I gave you? The MediaMatters link alone documents race baiting from every major player in FOX news for YEARS. But you let them tell you what to think, so you will defend them to the end.
Oh, and by the way: FOX gets about .9% of the US as viewership. The "liberal media" gets SUBSTANTIALLY more if you combine them, which you must, since you are the one who lumps them all together. So if more people watch the "liberal media" outlets, then how can you claim that a majority of people clearly hate liberal media? And I'm not even counting network news, though there are millions of people who have cable but still watch network news. If you want to add THEM to the count as well, then FOX falls so far behind the "liberal media" that it becomes completely laughable to hear you and them call it things like "America's News".
Were the cops charged with a crime? Is there enough evidence for a trial? The white homeless man in New Mexico generated a trial. This case will probably also have charges filed and an actual trial. The problem is dead black guys have not caused actual trials to take place. A video of a New York police officer using an illegal tactic was not enough evidence to go to trial.
A person is charged with a crime when there is proof of a crime. The next time some criminal assaults you on the street, tries to take your gun, and then runs at you once again, and you defend yourself, tell me what crimes you want to be charged with ok?
If your job is to protect the public from criminals, and a large man is resisting arrest, you must make quick decisions to get control of the situation. You could tazer him if you had a tazer and some people die from being tazered. You could put him in a choke hold momentarily which 99.9% of the time will not harm him(do you watch cage fighting). This man had a medical condition which is what killed him after resisting arrest. Why on EARTH would any type of hold be against the law if it gives you control of a situation without needing to shoot him. Obviously accidents happen in life where it is no one's fault other than the person breaking the law putting himself in harms way.
Put yourself in their shoes before you judge someone.
Choke holds are illegal in New York. They are illegal because people die from them. Cutting off the oxygen to someone's brain is dangerous. Regardless of whether you think it's cool to choke people, the state of New York says it is not ok and if a cop does it he is breaking the rules.
In cage fighting the ref will stop the fighter when he has choked the opponent enough. There are no refs for cops.
The cop stopped choking him when he was down. He died because of a health problem brought on by the physical exertion. Do you ever Jay walk? It's against the law! If I were a cop and a person was resisting arrest, I could care less what some idiot Liberal law maker said about a choke hold. That idiot's life in not on the line every day. A choke hold kills no one when you let go before they stop breathing. Whatever the penalties are for a choke hold, they can reprimand the Cop. It was not the hold that killed the man!
Do you realize it was an accident because of his health problems. I'm sure if there is a cage fighter with similar health problems, he might also die in a choke hold. The other cage fighter would be charged with NOTHING! The Cop could be reprimanded for using a choke hold against regulation. THAT'S IT!
The media reported a choke hold that was determined to be false. The take-down used a trained and approved move called the "seat-belt" hold, which was specifically used instead of the choke hold. No laws or rules were violated during the attempted arrest.
That's not supposed to be determined before a trial. The victim never gets a chance to be vindicated if we determine out of court what is supposed to be figured out in court.
An accident that would never have happened if he did not choose to break the law and resist arrest. Funny how you are so quick to blame the cop instead of holding the person responsible. You mist be a Democrat.
Breaking either of those laws did not require him to die.
Funny how you are so quick to ignore the rules that were broken because you think the person was such a great guy. You must be a Democrat.
Funny how you are so quick to blame the cop instead of holding the person responsible.
If we never ever attempt to hold the police responsible they will only continue to use excessive force. That's basic conservative logic. If we don't discipline cops they won't change. He doesn't have to see the inside of a jail cell, he just needs to actually be put on trial. It is a statistical anomaly when a regular citizen is not indicted. Why is it that when a cop kills a black person it is a statistical anomaly for them to actually be indicted?
I don't agree with idiot Liberals changing our laws to protect criminals. I believe a police officer should be able to apply choke holds. Can you grasp that? I'm sick of a couple judges legalizing the killing of millions of unborn Babies. I'm sick of a Judge over ruling entire states and forcing them to allow fringe groups to change our marriage laws. I'm sick of Democrats trying to change our gun laws and take our freedoms.
This is why I agree with any cop protecting their lives by using whatever hold it takes to subdue the criminal. When that law maker puts himself out on the street with criminals and still wants to change the law, I might listen.
I don't agree with idiot Liberals changing our laws to protect criminals. I believe a police officer should be able to apply choke holds. Can you grasp that? I'm sick of a couple judges legalizing the killing of millions of unborn Babies. I'm sick of a Judge over ruling entire states and forcing them to allow fringe groups to change our marriage laws. I'm sick of Democrats trying to change our gun laws and take our freedoms.
It is interesting that you have no valid counterpoint.
This is why I agree with any cop protecting their lives by using whatever hold it takes to subdue the criminal.
See, I have to disagree because I am against murder.
LOL, the pro abortion phony is against murder? LOL, yeh unless some judge makes it legal to kill. Then you are fine with it. You care more for the lives of criminals than innocent babies. LOOK AT YOURSELF!
LOL, the pro abortion phony is against murder? LOL, yeh unless some judge makes it legal to kill. Then you are fine with it. You care more for the lives of criminals than innocent babies. LOOK AT YOURSELF!
This is a Republican's way. No one has said anything about killing people if it were legal but he accuses anyway. If you are the sort of person that aborts you are the sort of person that would stab your neighbor in the chest with a rusty pick-axe. This is what Republicans think of you. If they identify you as the wrong "sort of person" you suddenly become evil scum that is capable of anything.
A democrat doesn't deal with "sorts of people". We deal with individuals. You don't deserve assumptions and accusing. You deserve respect and dignity. You deserve a Democrat in office. Vote Democrat.
You can't even grasp the position of an argument. If you can not get the point, then don't bother responding. The point ONCE AGAIN being that since some judge told you it was ok to kill Babies, how would you like it if a judge said it was ok to kill you? Would you vote for the party that agreed with the Judge and made laws for others to kill you for any reason at any age? The excuses of pro choice people is laughable. When you vote for Democrats, you are partly responsible for every late term abortion for any reason by keeping it legal.
To a Republican being pro-choice is laughable. Despite the fact that a majority of the population believe that abortion should be lawful. A republican is unable to evaluate views other than their own because they are too busy laughing in your face. His view isn't formed from looking carefully at the arguments. In fact he suggests that the only reason you believe abortion should be legal is because I judge has said it should be (and therefore you would also listen to a judge if they said murder was okay).
Vote Democrat. We take the time to listen and understand.
If you vote for the Democrat party you are a total phony without one ounce of true compassion for the most innocent of our children. To say you are personally against late term abortions on demand but agree with Democrats on other issues makes you some kind of dysfunctional person who can not discern simple humanity & priorities in life.
Our supreme court has become completely political on the Left. They no longer interpret the Constitution, they twist it to fit the corruption of politics. Can you imagine 5 justices explaining how ending an innocent baby's life is a privacy issue. TOTAL POLITICAL HOGWASH!
To say you are personally against late term abortions on demand but agree with Democrats on other issues makes you some kind of dysfunctional person who can not discern simple humanity & priorities in life.
Democrats are not for late term abortions. We are for allowing women to choose for themselves their own moral principle. We know that fetuses that are aborted do not feel. They are not conscious. Is it morally wrong to terminate it? This is not for a politician to decide. Keep government small. The people decide their own morals. Don't let the Republicans rule every aspect of your life.
You have the power. You have the choice. Vote Democrat.
"If you vote for the Democrat party you are a total phony without one ounce of true compassion for the most innocent of our children. " Nope.
"To say you are personally against late term abortions on demand but agree with Democrats on other issues makes you some kind of dysfunctional person who can not discern simple humanity & priorities in life." Nope.
"Our supreme court has become completely political on the Left. They no longer interpret the Constitution, they twist it to fit the corruption of politics." Nope.
Great rebuttal, NOT! Don't bother explaining why I am wrong about anyone voting for Democrats DO SUPPORT late term abortions for any reason. Just say nope.
I'm still waiting to hear you explain why a German who was personally pro life for Jews, was still justified in supporting the Nazi party because he agreed with other issues in the party. That is your stance when it comes to late term abortions on demand. Until you clearly explain how I am wrong, I'm through debating you.
When I explain why you are wrong, you respond with insults, or lying about me. I have already told you that Democrats don't support late term abortions for any reason and only blocked the Republican bills because of poison pill riders, but you ignore it.
I already explained to you why comparing a living, breathing human to an aborted zygote or fetus (something that people have differing views on whether or not they are a living human) is wrong.
You don't know what my stance is on late term abortions (CLEARLY), despite me explaining it to you multiple times. So if you are so unwilling to read what I actually say, and respond to the content of my posts, why should I bother explaining myself yet again? It's not like you pay any attention when I do.
Thanks for nothing. I will not respond to you until you explain how it is ok for a German who is personally against killing Jews could support the Nazi party because of other issues.
I will respond when you come up with an analogy that isn't absurd. I have explained to you the problems with your analogy, and you have ignored them. That is not my fault.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, you total waste of time. So you again prove my point. The Democrat party would not vote to save the lives of late term babies because of other issues(poison pill riders) more important to them. What a bunch of inhuman losers.
Again your total ignorance got it wrong. THE POINT WAS that you would not support killing people who were born even if a Judge made it legal. So tell me why when a Judge says it is ok to kill unborn babies for any reason at any stage, WHY DOES THAT MAKE IT OK? Why is that an excuse to condone it? There is such a thing as humanity which knows when five political judges disregard the right to life, that that is no excuse to condone abortion.
The vast majority of Americans do not support late term abortions on demand! You are a liar! Oh that's right, you are a Democrat.
"The vast majority of Americans do not support late term abortions on demand! You are a liar! Oh that's right, you are a Democrat." Neither do Democrats, and you have been lying over and over on this topic.
So tell me why when a Judge says it is ok to kill unborn babies for any reason at any stage, WHY DOES THAT MAKE IT OK?
Again the Republican just doesn't get why the people believe abortion should be legal. "You only believe it should be legal because a judge says it is legal!!!". Incredible. People believe it should be legal despite what any judge has or ever will say.
The vast majority of Americans do not support late term abortions on demand!
Being pro-choice does not mean abortion for any reason at any stage. Again the Republican tells you what you think in order to argue against it.
I do not what you mean by "late term". When is early enough for you? If you answer that maybe I can address the question.
"For any reason" - the state should never rule on whether someones reasons for aborting are sufficient or not. Woman A with a fetus of x number of weeks may. Woman B with a fetus the same number of weeks may not. It is sick. A democrat government would never be the judge of whether a woman's reason are enough to abort a child. A Republican governent would. Vote Democrat. Fight against government invasion of privacy.
I've wasted enough time with your kind of inhumanity. You truly are dead inside if you can't see your inhumanity.
Wonderful. Here we have a real preacher of the Republican way! If he could address my questions he would have strengthened his arguments and built on them. However, he can't. There are no answers in Republican policy - only mindless rhetoric. They think if they scream Nazi and inhumane at you enough times then this validates their arguments. It doesn't.
I would say that his arguments are baseless and this is why he refuses to engage anyone at all in debate. This is not the case. His arguments are based on hatred and ignorance.
Voting Republican is NOT an alternative to Democrat. Vote Democrat. It is the only way.
What a shock, yet one more indoctrinated Liberal not worth the time debating. There is absolutely nothing that could ever be said to get them to admit simple obvious truth. IGNORE!
Ahh, the truth finally comes out as if I did not know it. To you that unborn Baby is just lump of cells but you sit there and claim you are personally pro life! This is why I should ban all liars.
I recognize the difference, and have an opinion on when life begins that differs from yours. I am against aborting a fetus, though I recognize that over half of all zygotes terminate naturally.
You don't know what lying is, you just refuse to listen.
has sex with a 19 year old, she goes to jail, lets say she's 25. But if an older man has sex with a younger 19 year old girl, it gets less scandal if he's only 25. Interesting right?
Interesting - what country are you from (not specified in your profile)? In the US this is not the case. There is a bit more social acceptance of older men dating younger women, but after the age of consent (generally 18, varies slightly by state) - no one would normally go to jail for consentual sex.
I live in the US but I've seen it on the news all of the time, i.e. the 25 year old hot man going out with a high school girl. I never see the vice versa on the news. It's also in articles but maybe its just me.
It's hard to debate arrogant eletes who think they have the right to race bate, creating an environment of riots, executions of innocent Cop's, all to garner the Black vote. IT'S SICK!
Who doesn't know there are some racists in every walk of life, in every job classification out there. Yes there are some racist cops just as there are racist Politicians including Rev. Al Sharpton as well as Obama's Reverend of 20 years Rev. Write. These people are racists and the Democrats cozy right up to them. Just because we will ALWAYS have some racists does not mean the Police force is racist and does not make any cop who kills a Black man racist. Only fools would suggest such mindless propaganda.
Just as with school shootings, the Democrat party will use any tragedy to push their Gun control, their racism rhetoric all for reasons of politics and pushing their extreme Left agendas.
Again you do what most Liberals do. You say Fox & Conservatives do it too. We've already been through your hogwash rhetoric. You have yet to give me an example of their race bating that stirred up riots.
I don't want to hear anything about Fox responding to sensationalized stories by the Liberal media. Were it not for the Left, none of these stories of supposed racism would have ever hit the news.