Cop Not Indicted

[biscuit]

Well, this is interesting............going from a discussion of the incident in Ferguson, Mo., and what role race may have played into it, to a critique of Michael Jackson songs? And Three Dog Night?

...........uh...........ok..........

"just a break for humility during a storm"

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

If I can't change the direction of the wind, I can still adjust my sails to reach the destination.

"just a break for humility during a storm"

 

[Mem]

Psalm 60:2 Thou hast made the earth to tremble; thou hast broken it: heal the breaches thereof; for it shaketh.

 

[PennEd]

Says it all:

 

[kennethcadwell]

Now you're just making a false assertion and engaging in ad hominem... the latter we've managed to avoid so far in this discussion.

I don't see things as "one-sided." You can have two wrong sides and no right sides. In such an event, which side is the right side?

I see things clearly which means I see the wrong and right side of things. The reason why I can assert this, and it be true, is because unlike yourself: I see things from the perspective of the empirical literature.

I don't base my statements on my feelings, heresy, personal experiences, etc...

Michael Brown was not killed by a police officer in the line of duty because six Kansas judges had to be replaced. He was killed because he punched a police officer in the face and attempted to disarm him after committing a strong arm robbery after not being raised to be a moral godly man.

Obviously, a holistic solution involves addressing a wide range of issues with judicial/law enforcement reform among them (a point I've already made in this thread).

If you want to talk about myopic one-sidedness, look at your own argument. No offense, it's just the truth.

This is not a false assertion.
Every time I have been in a thread or blog that you have been in to. The reason we have not seen eye to eye in those threads was because you kept posting things that were one sided, or group all individuals in one category which is also wrong to do. Like for instance about immigration issue, you wanted to always lump and classify all illegal immigrants as criminals or drug dealers. That is not right to do, nor is it right to take and say that just because the crime rate is higher in black communities then to go off and kill an unarmed suspect when it can be avoided is acceptable just because the crime rate is higher.
I was not saying Brown being shot was because of those Kansas judges. The point that was being talked about at that point was if the system is corrupt or not, so I used them as an example of the corruption that goes on.

If you believe police forces, and lawyers do not fabricate evidence or withhold evidence so that their cases can be won, or their misuse of force can be justified then you are blind to the truth.

 

[Human]

The "norm," with respect to police shootings is that the deceased's behavior warranted it. There are exceptions but neither of these two cases qualify.

As for race, though black Americans only represent 13.2% of the U.S. population the US Department of Justice reports that blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008."

When all of the statistics are considered, the asserted anomaly of disproportion resolves.

Black people don't account for the most shootings because they are black; be careful not to insinuate that. If we take into account all underprivileged people (which, coincidentally there are more of whom who are black than white) we see a consistent trend that shows that violence is correlative to income. The less income a person makes, the more likely they are to engage in violence. Black people are more likely to be underprivileged than white people. There are about half as many whites in poverty as blacks.

It should be noted that blacks are not in fact the majority race in prison - whites are, nor are blacks responsible for a higher percentage of rape, aggravated assault, burglary, arson or overall violent crime. Again, whites commit, in regards to the majority of offenses, roughly double what blacks commit.

The population of the USA is only 12 - 14% black (depending on the particular source), as you say, so by simple calculation, black people are more than twice as likely as whites to commit crime, which is to be expected, given that blacks are more than twice as likely to be in poverty.

The correlation, of course, between poverty and the likelihood of a drugs offence, in particular, is well documented. Drugs offences account for a staggering percentage of incarcerations and a majority of those are black offenders. Black people, given their socioeconomic status relative to whites, are more likely to be involved in drugs for several reasons; unavailability of alternative methods of income, gang-culture, lack of access to education, violent upbringing, etc etc.

So, it's not really as simple as 'black people are more violent'. If white people were to wear the shoe on the other foot, in all likelihood white people would face similar crime rates.

 

[Human]

Interestingly, if we take likelihood to commit violence against frequency of shootings, we should see white people shot far more often by cops than blacks. But they aren't.

 

[RememberTheSabbathDay]

PennEd,


What do u really know about statistic? The majority of statistics is bias or fact u call it..This country has been bias against blacks from the beginning when blacks first sat foot on American soil and it has not changed in the Caucasian persuasion mindset. According to most whites, blacks can't do anything right. Not just in the media. America has been unfair in education, jobs, and housing. Grant it if u do the crime, yes they should do the time. Eventually the majority will become the minority due to the immigrant population. They too r profiled because of their color. What u haven't mentioned is the white collar crimes that rarely make news..oh but they have money to buy off the police, lawyers and judges who also r criminals or rapist, wife beaters, child molesters, and thieves. U may want to recalculate ur facts.

 

[p_rehbein]

Interestingly, if we take likelihood to commit violence against frequency of shootings, we should see white people shot far more often by cops than blacks. But they aren't.

According to the DOJ statistics, more whites are killed by cops each year than blacks..........now, you can say they are lying.....but that doesn't make any sense.........there are enough real data statistics to prove their report or disprove.......

Pretty sure I posted that data here, but it's somewhere in the nether pages of the thread........

 

[PennEd]

You know, many, many years ago, well before I knew anything about politics, I asked a black friend and co-worker why almost all blacks vote for democrats. His answer astonished me.He said "They (democrats) give us (blacks) more stuff".
We went to the same school, we worked at the same plant, we lamented together how much they (gov.) took out of our paycheck. His answer did not compute. Years of self-education later I found out why my friend thought this way and prayed that blacks would discover how they are being used and manipulated by these people, so they can keep and gain power.

Read the quote from democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson:

Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those n-words voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.
THIS was the goal of his welfare programs called "the Great Society".

Democrats instituted programs that penalized women who married the father of their children by lowering ewlfare payments if they did, effectively destroying the black family unit. Almost 3 out of every 4 black children is illegitimate today. BUT BLACKS KEEP PULLING THAT DEMOCRAT LEVER.

Virtually every major city has been completely ruled by Democrats, for decade upon decade, and most are dead or dying, in deplorable condition. BUT BLACKS KEEP PULLING THAT DEMOCRAT LEVER.

Democrats refuse to allow school choice thereby consigning generation after generation to miserable, failing schools. BUT BLACKS KEEP PULLING THAT DEMOCRAT LEVER.

Democrats then came up with "affirmative action" programs. Which gives blacks a permanent inferiority complex. BUT BLACKS...well you get the point

Add in the constant drumbeat of hate fed to blacks by the race baiters and media, stir in a dollop of drugs and WALLAH!!!

You get Ferguson, and looting and riots...

Are Republicans as pure as the wind driven snow? NO!! But they are the only legitimate political hope to turn this mess around.

 

[p_rehbein]

F.Y.I.......................(again)

Also, I said DOJ.........but the Stats are from the F.B.I. (to clarify/correct)

Article found here:

[h=3]Cop in the Hood: Police kill white people, too[/h]

Excerpt from Article:

Police kill white people, too

But you usually don't hear about it. I call this the Al Sharpton effect. There is no white version of Al Sharpton.

As the trial of the officers involved in the Sean Bell killing begins, I've been thinking more about police-involved shootings and race. Given media reports, it certainly seems like police only kill black people. But I know this isn't true.

I did a little research. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports from 2000 to 2004, police-involved “justifiable homicides” kill about 350 people a year, 99 percent by shooting. [Update: see below for 2014 links.] Virtually all police-involved killings, most for good reason, are categorized as justifiable. Of those killed by police, 32 percent are black and 64 percent are white. While the percentage of blacks killed is high compared with the black percentage in America (13%), it is low compared with other indicators of violence, such as the percentage of homicide victims and offenders believed to be African American (both 48%).

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

And you be careful not to ignore what I've already said and then warn me about something I actually already said the opposite of. If you take the time to read my posts, the number of times you make this mistake will diminish.

What I said in post #208 was:

"The problem is primarily explained in the socio-religious literature with socio-economics playing a contributing role. Science asserts that genetic differences between races in the human genome are minor and certainly not the cause of the inordinate level of black criminality that we observe today (an important point as it didn't exist mere decades ago)."

^ That IS spot on friend.

Your analysis is partially correct; however, you materially overemphasize socio-economics practically to the exclusion of everything else. This is probably because you've never been exposed to a good Christian sociology class nor studied black history from a statistical perspective. You appear to be unaware that black people in general were dirt poor, non-violent (e.g. low rate of violent crime), created and raised children in moral nuclear families that were usually Christian-oriented, and worked hard living moral lives up until just a few decades ago as a general rule statistically speaking.

In the late 1900s, a typical African American family lived and worked on a farm in the South, were too poor to own a home, and were unlikely to even have children in a public school. Yet they worked hard, created nuclear families, were usually Christians, and lived moral lives in comparison to the present.

Though the poverty rate among African Americans is currently running about 28%, historical poverty indexes reveal that African Americans are exponentially wealthier today than they were throughout the American experience.

Certainly socio-economics plays a role but you should by now be perceiving that the situation is far more complex than just $.

And Kenneth, I'm ignoring your rambling unsubstantiated opinionated post. You'll have to do better than that if you want me to take you seriously.

Black people don't account for the most shootings because they are black; be careful not to insinuate that.

 

[pastac]

Now this is really getting interesting. I respect a lot of the posters but do you really want me to accept percentages from the FBI? Are you serious the secret not secret police of white America. That is what they are. The socio economic inference is partially true to a degree but how did the problems occur in the first place.
If you want change real change the playing field has to be level or more level than it is. How do you expect representation for black Americans to get better when white America is our voice. Let me explain if you don't go to term limits in offices of politics to get the entrenched ideas out of office we will continue down the same vein. This has been proven for over the 200 or so years white America has spoken for blacks and non blacks in America.Socio economics wont tell you that. If you have old white men in office, some longer, did I say old outdated thinking non progressive stuck in their way thinking old white men for 10 to 30 years representing the people where is my voice?
And don't you dare say to me Al or Jesse they speak but not necessarily for me. In some instances they have it correct and others they are radical and way off base. How many black congressmen are there? This is about race equality, crime and inequality and at no time will I ever advocate or except burning a building or looting to prove that cause. I don't even think marching helps. I think media and high visibility are the tools to use. But hey as a black man what do I know? Right! Many want us killing each other hence drugs in the community, many want us in fighting it takes the focus off the real issues. I still say sin is the culprit when we attack sin it attacks back.
pastac

 

[Human]

And you be careful not to ignore what I've already said and then warn me about something I actually already said the opposite of. If you take the time to read my posts, the number of times you make this mistake will diminish.

What I said in post #208 was:

"The problem is primarily explained in the socio-religious literature with socio-economics playing a contributing role. Science asserts that genetic differences between races in the human genome are minor and certainly not the cause of the inordinate level of black criminality that we observe today (an important point as it didn't exist mere decades ago)."

^ That IS spot on friend.

Your analysis is partially correct; however, you materially overemphasize socio-economics practically to the exclusion of everything else. This is probably because you've never been exposed to a good Christian sociology class nor studied black history from a statistical perspective. You appear to be unaware that black people in general were dirt poor, non-violent (e.g. low rate of violent crime), created and raised children in moral nuclear families that were usually Christian-oriented, and worked hard living moral lives up until just a few decades ago as a general rule statistically speaking.

In the late 1900s, a typical African American family lived and worked on a farm in the South, were too poor to own a home, and were unlikely to even have children in a public school. Yet they worked hard, created nuclear families, were usually Christians, and lived moral lives in comparison to the present.

Though the poverty rate among African Americans is currently running about 28%, historical poverty indexes reveal that African Americans are exponentially wealthier today than they were throughout the American experience.

Certainly socio-economics plays a role but you should by now be perceiving that the situation is far more complex than just $.

And Kenneth, I'm ignoring your rambling unsubstantiated opinionated post. You'll have to do better than that if you want me to take you seriously.

The reason blacks were 'dirt poor and non-violent' in the South before a few decades ago was primarily because most of those people were employees of former slave farms in communities that still heavily oppressed black people. They, to put it very bluntly, were second-class citizens with less rights, facing harsh prejudices, particularly in criminal courts. If a black man assaulted a white man, he could expect to be treated very harshly by both the community and the criminal justice system.

One result of such oppression was, indeed, a curbing of black crime, but the end doesn't justify the means in my eyes.

 

[AnnaBou]

Saw the riots on the news. We had some here a few years ago the same sort of issue. I don't really get it. If they think someone has done something wrong why do they think that means it is ok to burn buildings and steal things from shops?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

True; however, narratives from that time reveal they felt they had less to lose, black on black violence was a fraction of what it is today, and long after they had migrated from the South to major urban cities their violence index remained a fraction of what it is today.

Your assertion that (as the 2006 Uniform Crime Reports reveals), blacks (who make up roughly 13 percent of the U.S. population) account for 39 percent of all arrests for violent crimes—including 41 percent of weapons violations, 34.5 percent of aggravated assaults, 56 percent of robberies, 32.5 percent of rapes, 51 percent of murders/manslaughters, 29 percent of all property crimes—including 29 percent of burglaries, 35 percent of motor vehicle thefts, 22 percent of arsons, 30 percent of fraud cases, and 32 percent of embezzlements engage in this level of criminality today because they are no longer live in 1800s Jim Crow South is false.

As I stated:

"The problem is primarily explained in the socio-religious literature with socio-economics playing a contributing role."

The reason why modern studies support my statement, and not your own, for the present rise in black criminality is because the situation you're describing no longer existed in the manner you describe it during the period preceding and accompanying the rapid rise in modern black criminality.

You should have read post #140: http://christianchat.com/christian-news-forum/103234-cop-not-indicted-7.html#post1783718

While you're at it read this: Black Americans As Victims of the Left - Discover the Networks

The reason blacks were 'dirt poor and non-violent' in the South before a few decades ago was primarily because most of those people were employees of former slave farms in communities that still heavily oppressed black people. They, to put it very bluntly, were second-class citizens with less rights, facing harsh prejudices, particularly in criminal courts. If a black man assaulted a white man, he could expect to be treated very harshly by both the community and the criminal justice system.

One result of such oppression was, indeed, a curbing of black crime, but the end doesn't justify the means in my eyes.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Aren't you reading Human's posts? It's because they're no longer living in the 1800 Jim Crow South where they knew they would get a licking by "whitey" if they engaged in such behavior. It has little to do with the actual reasons cited in the published scholarly studies in his liberal estimation. You know, things like a complete breakdown of the black nuclear family and a material discordance of the worldview they once held. It's all about "whitey" the oppressor who kept the savages in line in his ignorant opinion... lol.

That's why I don't feed at the liberal trough btw. I have a lot more respect for African Americans than that.

Saw the riots on the news. We had some here a few years ago the same sort of issue. I don't really get it. If they think someone has done something wrong why do they think that means it is ok to burn buildings and steal things from shops?

 

[pastac]

Good day Ageofknowledge I'm interested on you take on my post #253
pastac

 

[Human]

True; however, narratives from that time reveal they felt they had less to lose, black on black violence was a fraction of what it is today, and long after they had migrated from the South to major urban cities their violence index remained a fraction of what it is today.

Your assertion that (as the 2006 Uniform Crime Reports reveals), blacks (who make up roughly 13 percent of the U.S. population) account for 39 percent of all arrests for violent crimes—including 41 percent of weapons violations, 34.5 percent of aggravated assaults, 56 percent of robberies, 32.5 percent of rapes, 51 percent of murders/manslaughters, 29 percent of all property crimes—including 29 percent of burglaries, 35 percent of motor vehicle thefts, 22 percent of arsons, 30 percent of fraud cases, and 32 percent of embezzlements engage in this level of criminality today because they are no longer live in 1800s Jim Crow South is false.

As I stated:

"The problem is primarily explained in the socio-religious literature with socio-economics playing a contributing role."

The reason why modern studies support my statement, and not your own, for the present rise in black criminality is because the situation you're describing no longer existed in the manner you describe it during the period preceding and accompanying the rapid rise in modern black criminality.

You should have read post #140: http://christianchat.com/christian-news-forum/103234-cop-not-indicted-7.html#post1783718

While you're at it read this: Black Americans As Victims of the Left - Discover the Networks

You seem to forget that black people only got full civil rights in the late sixties.

 

[pastac]

You seem to forget that black people only got full civil rights in the late sixties.

Still not accurate still several civil rights laws on the books are outdated and have never had a full effect hence still fighting for civil rights, but now its just not blacks. Many forget civil rights are for all its just we were the face of such cruel injustices and inequity that the focus was us. Not necessarily true then the statement in post #259 some truth but not all true. Blacks still don't have full civil rights as don't many other races in America.
pastac