Dallas...

AnomanderRake wrote:

I don't think people take issue with the raw numbers, but rather the circumstances in which these black men are being shot and killed by police. I can't even remember the last time a white man was pinned on the ground and beaten/shot to death, yet it has happened to black men several times in recent memory.

You said you could end all police shootings tomorrow, both lethal and nonlethal and justified and unjustified, and it would have a negligible effect on the astronomical rate at which blacks die by shootings. And then there was this: The Justice Department under Obama came out with a report in March of 2015, a little over a year ago, that found that black and Hispanic officers were actually far more likely to shoot unarmed black suspects under what's known as threat misperception. That is the false belief that the suspect is armed. That happens much more than with white officers, who are less likely to engage in that type of threat misperception.

Then there was a study by the New York Police Department. Te former acting director of the National Institute of Justice found that black officers in the New York Police Department were 3.3 times more likely to use their guns at shooting scenes than white officers. So, A, officers are more hesitant about shooting armed black suspects than armed white suspects to the point where now there's a risk that officers are hesitating so long that they may put their own lives at risk. The Black Lives Matter, that is all about white officers attacking blacks, is simply not true. That's the bottom line here. Everything everybody believes isn't true. They think Ferguson, Missouri happens every day. And it does not.

MAC DONALD: Well, let's look at some of the numbers. I know numbers are sometimes tough over the radio, but a larger proportion of white and Hispanic homicide deaths are the results of police killings than black homicide deaths. That is, 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by police officers. Four percent of all blacks, homicide victims, are killed by police officers. So if we're going to have an Anti‑Cop Lives Matter movement it would make more sense to call it White and Hispanic Lives Matter.

The fact is that over 6,000 blacks die of homicide each year. That is more than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population. And the reason they are dying of homicide at a rate six times higher than whites and Hispanics combined is because they commit homicide at eight times the rate higher than whites and Hispanics combined. And that type of crime disparity means that when the police are trying to save lives, they are in minority neighborhoods confronting people engaged in drive‑by shootings, killing children.

LooseGoose wrote:Drudge had a link up to this interview which was interesting.....someone else would have to tell me how legit this author is.

Heather Mac Donald Talks About Her Essential Book: The War on Cops

You said you could end all police shootings tomorrow, both lethal and nonlethal and justified and unjustified, and it would have a negligible effect on the astronomical rate at which blacks die by shootings. And then there was this: The Justice Department under Obama came out with a report in March of 2015, a little over a year ago, that found that black and Hispanic officers were actually far more likely to shoot unarmed black suspects under what's known as threat misperception. That is the false belief that the suspect is armed. That happens much more than with white officers, who are less likely to engage in that type of threat misperception.

Then there was a study by the New York Police Department. Te former acting director of the National Institute of Justice found that black officers in the New York Police Department were 3.3 times more likely to use their guns at shooting scenes than white officers. So, A, officers are more hesitant about shooting armed black suspects than armed white suspects to the point where now there's a risk that officers are hesitating so long that they may put their own lives at risk. The Black Lives Matter, that is all about white officers attacking blacks, is simply not true. That's the bottom line here. Everything everybody believes isn't true. They think Ferguson, Missouri happens every day. And it does not.

MAC DONALD: Well, let's look at some of the numbers. I know numbers are sometimes tough over the radio, but a larger proportion of white and Hispanic homicide deaths are the results of police killings than black homicide deaths. That is, 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by police officers. Four percent of all blacks, homicide victims, are killed by police officers. So if we're going to have an Anti‑Cop Lives Matter movement it would make more sense to call it White and Hispanic Lives Matter.

The fact is that over 6,000 blacks die of homicide each year. That is more than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population. And the reason they are dying of homicide at a rate six times higher than whites and Hispanics combined is because they commit homicide at eight times the rate higher than whites and Hispanics combined. And that type of crime disparity means that when the police are trying to save lives, they are in minority neighborhoods confronting people engaged in drive‑by shootings, killing children.

Yale - Cambridge - Stanford Law - so we know she's smart at least.

Of course she's probably now a knuckledragger for talking to Limbaugh.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Drudge had a link up to this interview which was interesting.....someone else would have to tell me how legit this author is.

Heather Mac Donald Talks About Her Essential Book: The War on Cops





Yale - Cambridge - Stanford Law - so we know she's smart at least.

Of course she's probably now a knuckledragger for talking to Limbaugh.

Fair enough, though I personally think that the issue is more about police overreach and that race is only a sidebar of that. We like to boil everything down to race a lot of the time but really it's not about that. It's about cops who think themselves soldiers in a war against citizens. I don't really care about the color of the cop or of the victim.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Fair enough, though I personally think that the issue is more about police overreach and that race is only a sidebar of that. We like to boil everything down to race a lot of the time but really it's not about that. It's about cops who think themselves soldiers in a war against citizens. I don't really care about the color of the cop or of the victim.

It is interesting how these things are covered. The Roof church killings in SC were a hate crime from the get go, that's not really been applied here but I think it fits. The Left usually loves that term, not so much right now. Personally I hate the term, murder is murder and by it's very action it's hate.

Heat Miser wrote:I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing

CheesySpartan wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing

Facts do not support this persons opinion...I support facts

LooseGoose wrote:Drudge had a link up to this interview which was interesting.....someone else would have to tell me how legit this author is.

Heather Mac Donald Talks About Her Essential Book: The War on Cops

You said you could end all police shootings tomorrow, both lethal and nonlethal and justified and unjustified, and it would have a negligible effect on the astronomical rate at which blacks die by shootings. And then there was this: The Justice Department under Obama came out with a report in March of 2015, a little over a year ago, that found that black and Hispanic officers were actually far more likely to shoot unarmed black suspects under what's known as threat misperception. That is the false belief that the suspect is armed. That happens much more than with white officers, who are less likely to engage in that type of threat misperception.

Then there was a study by the New York Police Department. Te former acting director of the National Institute of Justice found that black officers in the New York Police Department were 3.3 times more likely to use their guns at shooting scenes than white officers. So, A, officers are more hesitant about shooting armed black suspects than armed white suspects to the point where now there's a risk that officers are hesitating so long that they may put their own lives at risk. The Black Lives Matter, that is all about white officers attacking blacks, is simply not true. That's the bottom line here. Everything everybody believes isn't true. They think Ferguson, Missouri happens every day. And it does not.

MAC DONALD: Well, let's look at some of the numbers. I know numbers are sometimes tough over the radio, but a larger proportion of white and Hispanic homicide deaths are the results of police killings than black homicide deaths. That is, 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by police officers. Four percent of all blacks, homicide victims, are killed by police officers. So if we're going to have an Anti‑Cop Lives Matter movement it would make more sense to call it White and Hispanic Lives Matter.

The fact is that over 6,000 blacks die of homicide each year. That is more than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population. And the reason they are dying of homicide at a rate six times higher than whites and Hispanics combined is because they commit homicide at eight times the rate higher than whites and Hispanics combined. And that type of crime disparity means that when the police are trying to save lives, they are in minority neighborhoods confronting people engaged in drive‑by shootings, killing children.

Yale - Cambridge - Stanford Law - so we know she's smart at least.

Of course she's probably now a knuckledragger for talking to Limbaugh.

Heat Miser wrote:Interesting points on the Automated Suicide Bomber:

When Can Police Use a ‘Bomb Robot’ to Kill a Suspect?

One can wonder why, if they could send in a teleoperated robot with C4 to kill the suspect,” he told TIME, “why they couldn’t instead equip the robot with knockout gas or some other nonlethal agent to capture the suspect, instead of killing him.

Gloria Browne-Marshall, an associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the incident was most concerning because of what it means for future cases: What are the parameters surrounding the use of such technology on civilian soil? “If we’re going to start using—as a country—this kind of drone technology and robots on a civilian population, then we’re easing into a civil war,” she told TIME. “We’re easing into one because we have civilians who believe that the government is not protecting them, and we have a government who believes that civilians are armed enough that they have to use military tactics.”

LooseGoose wrote:

Clarett's Folly wrote: The NRA, however, championed this course of action for the last several years and now, when faced with its reality, they sit deafeningly silent on the matter.

And again I ask what were they "fighting back" against last night? It was simple murder. No one was shooting at that man, no one was oppressing him - he simply chose to kill innocent people. I'm stunned at the number of otherwise sane people that seem to be justifying his actions.

As a new officer with the St. Louis in the mid-1990s, I responded to a call for an "officer in need of aid." I was partnered that day with a white female officer. When we got to the scene, it turned out that the officer was fine, and the aid call was canceled. He'd been in a foot pursuit chasing a suspect in an armed robbery and lost him.

The officer I was with asked him if he'd seen where the suspect went. The officer picked a house on the block we were on, and we went to it and knocked on the door. A young man about 18 years old answered the door, partially opening it and peering out at my partner and me. He was standing on crutches. My partner accused him of harboring a suspect. He denied it. He said that this was his family's home and he was home alone.

My partner then forced the door the rest of the way open, grabbed him by his throat, and snatched him out of the house onto the front porch. She took him to the ledge of the porch and, still holding him by the throat, punched him hard in the face and then in the groin. My partner that day snatched an 18-year-old kid off crutches and assaulted him, simply for stating the fact that he was home alone.

I got the officer off of him. But because an aid call had gone out, several other officers had arrived on the scene. One of those officers, who was black, ascended the stairs and asked what was going on. My partner pointed to the young man, still lying on the porch, and said, "That son of a bitch just assaulted me." The black officer then went up to the young man and told him to "get the fuck up, I'm taking you in for assaulting an officer." The young man looked up at the officer and said, "Man ... you see I can't go." His crutches lay not far from him.

The officer picked him up, cuffed him, and slammed him into the house, where he was able to prop himself up by leaning against it. The officer then told him again to get moving to the police car on the street because he was under arrest. The young man told him one last time, in a pleading tone that was somehow angry at the same time, "You see I can't go!" The officer reached down and grabbed both the young man's ankles and yanked up. This caused the young man to strike his head on the porch. The officer then dragged him to the police car. We then searched the house. No one was in it.

SpartanInNH wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:Interesting points on the Automated Suicide Bomber:

When Can Police Use a ‘Bomb Robot’ to Kill a Suspect?

This is the spot-on quote, I thought:

Gloria Browne-Marshall, an associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the incident was most concerning because of what it means for future cases: What are the parameters surrounding the use of such technology on civilian soil? “If we’re going to start using—as a country—this kind of drone technology and robots on a civilian population, then we’re easing into a civil war,” she told TIME. “We’re easing into one because we have civilians who believe that the government is not protecting them, and we have a government who believes that civilians are armed enough that they have to use military tactics.”

LooseGoose wrote:jimgeraghty ‏@jimgeraghty 3h3 hours ago
If Black Lives Matter feel they're being unfairly tied to actions of lunatic fringe, pro-lifers, gun owners and GOP know just how they feel.

DWags wrote:OK, reading my hometown paper --it's the freep-- don't click if you don't want, but it seems like their trying to make s big deal out of "a black man legally carrying a gun, dressed in camouflage", being detained and questioned at the Dallas shooting.

Really? Are they saying the cops should have ignored this guy at that time because of the 2nd amendment? Would you have? Is that racial profiling?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/08/dallas-police-shootings-person-of-interest-cleared-shootings/86846410/

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:OK, reading my hometown paper --it's the freep-- don't click if you don't want, but it seems like their trying to make s big deal out of "a black man legally carrying a gun, dressed in camouflage", being detained and questioned at the Dallas shooting.

Really? Are they saying the cops should have ignored this guy at that time because of the 2nd amendment? Would you have? Is that racial profiling?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/08/dallas-police-shootings-person-of-interest-cleared-shootings/86846410/

I thought that went as it should.

He was a suspect.

He was questioned, cleared and released.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I thought that went as it should.

He was a suspect.

He was questioned, cleared and released.

Yep. And our news media has that headline. What were they going for there?

I.B. Fine wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:
It's about a 10-1 difference so yeah that would be where I would start as well if I wanted to make a difference for the black community.

Quit bringing facts into the debate, just tell us how you feel

I have yet to hear one news outlet (or our President), that all are so quick to jump on police shootings, before facts are available, label this as a hate crime, it there ever was a case of racist mass murder, this fits the bill, probably even more than that crazy fuck in Atlanta, Dylan Rooff, hell, the guy said he hated whites and wanted to kill white cops.
Can we all agree that racism cuts both ways? and either way it's nothing buy ugly.
Black Lives Matter, while all altruistic in its premise, has generally devolved, in practice, into hate speech and actions directed at whites. if Black Lives really mattered to them, they'd spend conspicuously more time on the thousands of blacks being killed by blacks.
My hope is the leaders of the movement will take a step back and, for the sake of the easily confused, come out with a statement that ALL lives matter and shooting innocent police, or other white people, does not somehow resolve injustices done to blacks, but I'm not holding my breath.

In light of last night’s assassinations, it is also essential to remember that the more guns there are, the greater the danger to police officers themselves. It requires no apology for unjustified police violence to point out that, in a heavily armed country, the police officer who thinks that a suspect is armed is likelier to panic than when he can be fairly confident that the suspect is not. We have come to accept it as natural that ordinary police officers should be armed and ready to use lethal force at all times. They should not be. A black man with a concealed weapon should be no more liable to be killed than a white man with one. But having a nation of men carrying concealed lethal weapons pretty much guarantees that there will be lethal results, an outcome only made worse by our toxic racial history. Last night’s tragedy was also the grotesque reductio ad absurdum of the claim that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. There were nothing but good guys and they had nothing but guns, and five died anyway, as helpless as the rest of us.

Once again, the difference in policy views is clear, and can be coolly stated: those who insist on the right to concealed weapons, to the open carrying of firearms, to the availability of military weapons—to the essentially unlimited dissemination of guns—guarantee that the murders will continue. They have no plan to end them, except to return fire, with results we know. The people who don’t want the regulations that we know will help curb (not end) violent acts and help make them rare (not non-existent) have reconciled themselves to the mass murder of police officers, as well as of innocent men and women during traffic stops and of long, ghostly rows of harmless civilians and helpless children. The country is now clearly divided among those who want the killings and violence to stop and those who don’t. In the words of the old activist song, which side are you on?

Heat Miser wrote:

SpartanInNH wrote:

In light of last night’s assassinations, it is also essential to remember that the more guns there are, the greater the danger to police officers themselves. It requires no apology for unjustified police violence to point out that, in a heavily armed country, the police officer who thinks that a suspect is armed is likelier to panic than when he can be fairly confident that the suspect is not. We have come to accept it as natural that ordinary police officers should be armed and ready to use lethal force at all times. They should not be. A black man with a concealed weapon should be no more liable to be killed than a white man with one. But having a nation of men carrying concealed lethal weapons pretty much guarantees that there will be lethal results, an outcome only made worse by our toxic racial history. Last night’s tragedy was also the grotesque reductio ad absurdum of the claim that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. There were nothing but good guys and they had nothing but guns, and five died anyway, as helpless as the rest of us.

Once again, the difference in policy views is clear, and can be coolly stated: those who insist on the right to concealed weapons, to the open carrying of firearms, to the availability of military weapons—to the essentially unlimited dissemination of guns—guarantee that the murders will continue. They have no plan to end them, except to return fire, with results we know. The people who don’t want the regulations that we know will help curb (not end) violent acts and help make them rare (not non-existent) have reconciled themselves to the mass murder of police officers, as well as of innocent men and women during traffic stops and of long, ghostly rows of harmless civilians and helpless children. The country is now clearly divided among those who want the killings and violence to stop and those who don’t. In the words of the old activist song, which side are you on?

The Horrific, Predictable Result of a Widely Armed Citizenry

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

I'm sure I've said it before, but responding to someone saying "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" is as stupid as responding to someone saying "save the rain forest" with "why do you hate the Canadien wilderness? All trees matter."

The_Dude wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm sure I've said it before, but responding to someone saying "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" is as stupid as responding to someone saying "save the rain forest" with "why do you hate the Canadien wilderness? All trees matter."

You're a freakjob

The_Dude wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm sure I've said it before, but responding to someone saying "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" is as stupid as responding to someone saying "save the rain forest" with "why do you hate the Canadien wilderness? All trees matter."

You're a freakjob

There remains much that we don’t know about this — the tragic shooting of Mr. Castile, a school cafeteria worker, during a traffic stop in Minnesota — so the point here is not that a new narrative has been definitively established. But there are key elements of the story that are now credibly contradicted by emerging evidence.

Jenn Jacques at Bearing Arms has an excellent summary of them. Readers are familiar with the original narrative from Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who broadcast heartbreaking, live phone video of Castile after he was shot. The policeman stopped Castile, the driver, for a broken taillight, and supposedly shot Castile while he was reaching for his wallet — mistaking the movement for a reach for Castile’s gun, which we are told he advised the officer of, and had a carry permit for.

Perhaps worst of all, we were left to believe that the officer simply let Philando Castile bleed out in the car. The ambiguities of a given situation might prevent us from drawing hasty conclusions about the officer’s choice to shoot if he felt threatened. But once Castile was unable to move and was bleeding badly, there surely was no excuse for leaving him without the emergency care on scene in which all police officers are trained.

Now it looks like the most important features of the original narrative were incorrect. First of all, the police officer didn’t stop Castile because of a “busted taillight.” We know that from the police radio recording. At the time, the police were on the lookout for two suspects in the armed robbery of a store in the area, and Castile and Reynolds fit the description. The officer who made the stop reported that he was about to stop the vehicle for that reason.

In 1960, an Ohio coroner named Paul Kopsch, a police Sergeant named Daniel Turcos and Special Investigator Donald Ward started working on a new handgun round that could penetrate materials that stop a lead bullet. By 1981, the bullets were made from brass instead of lead and were punching through some previously “untouchable” material but were ruining barrels. So they ingeniously decided to coat the bullets in Teflon to keep from washing out the rifling. The new company was named KTW after the last names of the three founders.

In 1982, a year after they had become commercially available in brass, NBC broadcast a special demonstrating how these new bullets were capable of penetrating the body armor worn by cops. Instead of focusing on the fact that the bullets were constructed of brass, NBC focused on the Teflon coating, which does nothing to make the bullet go any deeper into the target, only saves the gun barrel from getting stripped. Anyways, Hollywood ran with Teflon, possibly because it sounds sexier, with countless movies making reference to sinister Teflon coated bullets penetrating ballistic vests (like Lethal Weapon 3).

While the KTW bullets could penetrate vests, it had nothing to do with what they were coated with.  I know to many this seems like quibbling over semantics (ultimately they’re still bullets that pierce body armor and yeah there’s Teflon on them, so what’s it matter what you call them as long as the public knows you’re referring to these specific bullets) but it accentuates the divide between what gun owners value, which are literal representations of their tools, and the masses willingness to assign labels (often provided for them by the media) to these things in terms of their supposed function or effect, often to the ends of spinning simple definitions for guns and bullets into tools of propaganda.

GRR Spartan wrote:I will never convince you that civilians don't need steel core or coated ammunition.
Probably can't convince you that registering weapons with the state like your boat is a way to track weapons, especially when stolen.  If you have a gun that you have to register you are more likely to report it stolen.

The gun used was an SKS and it was reported by Scott Pelley (CBS) that the shooter used teflon coated ammo that defeated the police issued body armor and resulted in casualties.

I'm sure you can come up with another study by someone talking about the myths military ammunition and why its no more deadly than standard ammo.  Having shot some of that ammo I can tell you the damage it does is significant compared to standard mmo used for hunting.

I was referring to the shooting victim in MN who told the officer he had a gun and a permit to carry the gun.    The officer saw the gun, panicked and shot him.  Its a mess.  Now you can't carry a licensed weapon in your personal vehicle without fear of being shot because the police think you might use it?   Where does it stop?

By legal agreement, military full metal jacket ammo is not designed to kill. It is only designed to injure with small wound channels!

Well over 100 years ago there was a series of treaties between world governments called the Hague Convention, and the Geneva Convention, which are still abided by. Specifically to this subject, it became illegal for military forces to deliberately kill. Several types of weapons and ammunition became illegal to use. For rifle ammunition, expanding or hollow point ammo can not be used because it causes too much damage to the human body.

This led the military to switch back to the full metal jacket round, and a change military thinking. The FMJ round is designed to penetrate the target, leaving as small as injury channel as possible. It is not the legal goal of military forces to kill the enemy, despite what is actively promoted through propaganda. The goal is to injure the enemy. The reasoning behind this thinking is if a soldier is killed on the battlefield, it costs nothing to treat him. If a soldier is injured, it now takes two or more other people to carry him off, and another to treat his injures, and requires resources to transport him back to a medical unit. In the long term, it costs that soldiers government much more money to treat his injuries over his lifespan than if he died.

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:I will never convince you that civilians don't need steel core or coated ammunition.
Probably can't convince you that registering weapons with the state like your boat is a way to track weapons, especially when stolen.  If you have a gun that you have to register you are more likely to report it stolen.

The gun used was an SKS and it was reported by Scott Pelley (CBS) that the shooter used teflon coated ammo that defeated the police issued body armor and resulted in casualties.

I'm sure you can come up with another study by someone talking about the myths military ammunition and why its no more deadly than standard ammo.  Having shot some of that ammo I can tell you the damage it does is significant compared to standard mmo used for hunting.

I was referring to the shooting victim in MN who told the officer he had a gun and a permit to carry the gun.    The officer saw the gun, panicked and shot him.  Its a mess.  Now you can't carry a licensed weapon in your personal vehicle without fear of being shot because the police think you might use it?   Where does it stop?

Scott Pelley is certainly the definitive source on guns and ammo.   Strange no one else has mentioned that tidbit.

The paragraph I highlighted of yours is 100% wrong, I can't believe you even typed it.

I hate to upset you but - military ammunition IS less lethal than hunting ammunition ON PURPOSE.  By International law and the Geneva Convention?  Ever heard of that?  Hunting ammunition IS Hollow Point which is designed to kill quickly and painlessly.

Myths of military full metal jacket ammunition.

By legal agreement, military full metal jacket ammo is not designed to kill. It is only designed to injure with small wound channels!

Well over 100 years ago there was a series of treaties between world governments called the Hague Convention, and the Geneva Convention, which are still abided by. Specifically to this subject, it became illegal for military forces to deliberately kill. Several types of weapons and ammunition became illegal to use. For rifle ammunition, expanding or hollow point ammo can not be used because it causes too much damage to the human body.

This led the military to switch back to the full metal jacket round, and a change military thinking. The FMJ round is designed to penetrate the target, leaving as small as injury channel as possible. It is not the legal goal of military forces to kill the enemy, despite what is actively promoted through propaganda. The goal is to injure the enemy. The reasoning behind this thinking is if a soldier is killed on the battlefield, it costs nothing to treat him. If a soldier is injured, it now takes two or more other people to carry him off, and another to treat his injures, and requires resources to transport him back to a medical unit. In the long term, it costs that soldiers government much more money to treat his injuries over his lifespan than if he died.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Scott Pelley is certainly the definitive source on guns and ammo.   Strange no one else has mentioned that tidbit.

The paragraph I highlighted of yours is 100% wrong, I can't believe you even typed it.

I hate to upset you but - military ammunition IS less lethal than hunting ammunition ON PURPOSE.  By International law and the Geneva Convention?  Ever heard of that?  Hunting ammunition IS Hollow Point which is designed to kill quickly and painlessly.

Myths of military full metal jacket ammunition.

Then we should only sell the ammunition that kills animals, be it painful or not, rather than having any ammo that might pierce a cops vest.