Violence in Baltimore

[nobodythank you]

@ke4gde , ...

No, I am reading everything before I hit reply.
If your first question was "What was inflammatory about me saying a police officer from South Carolina shot an unarmed black man and was charged with murder?" My fault, I was going too far back for that specific question and got my wires crossed. At the time I was doing a little too much multi-tasking and got turned around. Apologies for that statement as it had not occurred at that point and it was unfair to assume you would make one without having done it yet.

I am highlighting the fact that there are too many instances of white police officers being in some way responsible for the death unarmed minorities to keep them all straight this year- and it's May.

Too many instances based on what information? News reports? Unless you have statistics corroborating that statement then it is now inflammatory and unfair to all officers. Just because anyone (including minorities) is unarmed, that does not mean that deadly force is not an option in the performance of duty. Some of the factors I listed come into play when an officer is deciding what level of force to use.

As to your second statement, too much on my plate in what way? The statement, to me is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Perhaps it is just me, I don't know.

No, I meant exactly what I typed the first time, and then re-explained above. The "murderous rampage of black folk" is you putting your personal spin on a national issue, like the damn biased news you so despise. Don't put words in my mouth.

Let it sink in? So that is an effective means of communicating a point? Perhaps I am just not accustomed to the way you interact with people, this came across as condescending. Which, if we get down to the heart of the matter you have no expertise in this area to attempt to school me on what is the main issue here as an outsider never having walked a beat (based on what you put in your profile and on your responses here) and painting every encounter with a racial brush. If that was not your intent or how you meant to come across then again we just may not be communicating well with each other. I didn't put words in your mouth. I was using an Reductio ad absurdum argument to show the ridiculousness of the statement. There the fault lies with me as I thought you would see how absurd it was.

No probable cause to pull Scott over, and insufficient cause for use of deadly force. Do you not feel that way now?

I feel that it is possible, but I don't know all the details of the case. I am allowing for the possibility that there is other information yet to be released.

Are you saying that the semantic difference of "pulled over illegally" and "the officer did not have probable cause to pull over the vehicle" and "killed illegally" and "insufficient cause for use of deadly force" make me someone that condemns police officers and holds them in the court of public opinion?

Again, we don't know for sure he was pulled over illegally. In the video, the officer says he pulled him over for the taillight issue which he was wrong on. However, Scott had an outstanding warrant for his arrest, which does not require probable cause to arrest him for. So given the scenario that he did not die, even if the officer had pulled him over illegally (ie without probable cause) then the arrest would still be justified. Since he died as a result of fleeing, does that mean the officer is liable for his death? I don't know. That is a discussion the attorneys will have to have with the judge and the jury. As to illegal use of deadly force, again we don't know the officers justification for it. We have incomplete information at this time. Based on only the video, we don't see any justification. So your statement does condemn the officer since we do not yet know all of the details. Coupled with your earlier statement that there are too many instances of white officers killing blacks leads a reasonable person to conclude that you were condemning him.

Maybe I am wrong, and maybe I don't have enough interaction with you to determine your style of discussion. I don't think I am, but I am willing to acknowledge the possibility. My logic as far as the foundation of the problem in these cases is solid.

 

[TLDR20]

However, white males tend to interact with the cops at a lower rate (percentage wise) than black males; so a white male stands a greater chance of dying if he interacts with the police.






see stats can be made to mean anything.
Do those white lives matter?

Well now you are using two different variables to suit your statistic. I took the variables given and in both cases showed a black male in the US is more likely to be killed by the police than a white male. That is supported by both what you posted and by what AKKeoth posted.

 

[AKkeith]

Fellow prisoner in transport van says Freddie Gray was trying to injury himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html?tid=sm_tw

 

[Shredder577]

If you live in a western nation, you're privileged. That goes for just about every single person. Hell, even homeless people typically have access to internet and TV (e.g. public recreational centers, libraries, etc). I don't understand why everyone hates the idea of being "privileged". Personally, I live under a roof, have access to food, water, clean clothing, and all my medical needs are catered for. Most Americans, regardless of race, sexuality, sex, gender, whatever, can say something very similar to that. Which is a GOOD thing. If you're an American, you're 'privileged'. Deal with it.

White privilege is a self-serving manufactured delusion that people promote because it's 'trendy' and it's much easier to blame someone or something else, than to take personal responsibility. Blacks are being victimized, not by "the man", but by themselves.

I will gladly take the additional stares and glances and in return benefit off of affirmative action. That's a pretty damn good deal, in my book.

You cannot group an entire race together and say privilege exists, that's ignorant. With that logic, you may as well say I'm a violent criminal just because blacks are more likely to commit violent and hate crimes.

Yeah, a black guy was shot in the back by some cock sucking power abusing pussy, it does not mean I'm, or any other black/minority for that matter is being actively oppressed. It merely means that individual was being oppressed at the time of his death.

This is kinda off topic, but sense everyone was talking about "white privilege", I thought I would get it off my chest. And yes, this is coming from a black guy.... Like that matters

I swear, this white guilt liberal BS along with political correctness is killing what once was the best country on Earth.

 

[nobodythank you]

...

 

[racing_kitty]

Fellow prisoner in transport van says Freddie Gray was trying to injury himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Supposedly, this has been discounted. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if the fellow prisoner wasn't going after some reduced charges or otherwise reduce the amount of time he was going to serve in the lockup. I'll see if I can't follow the breadcrumbs and get a link to where this was disproven, as I read it in the comment section of the article (I know, sane people never read the comments, but I'm not sane).

 

[Shredder577]

Y'know, I was going to reply with something snarky, But I have decided to ignore it as you added none of your own thoughts and merely retorted with a superfluous picture.

Have a wonderful night.

 

[racing_kitty]

I haven't found the nugget to either confirm or deny the WaPo article, but I did find the article from the Baltimore Sun that explained there was no settlement from a car wreck that resulted in spinal injuries for the deceased.

Online reports are swirling that Freddie Gray had spinal surgery shortly before he died in police custody, and had collected a payout in a settlement from a car accident. Those reports — which raise questions about the injury that led to his death in April 19— point to Howard County court records as proof.

But court records examined Wednesday by The Baltimore Sun show the case had nothing to do with a car accident or a spine injury. Instead, they are connected to a lawsuit alleging that Gray and his sister were injured by exposure to lead paint.

That doesn't mean he didn't have a preexisting injury before he was loaded up in the wagon, just that (here's a big fucking surprise) media outlets have gotten it wrong in their rush to either crucify or exonerate the six arresting officers.

Here's a novel fucking idea: wait for the investigation to come out before you run all your print about speculation. As it stands, if the initial investigation is completed and released Friday, it's not going to be made public. As per CBS:

The Baltimore Police Department said Wednesday the results of its investigation into the Freddie Gray's death will go directly to the State's Attorney's Office, not to the public.

"We cannot release all of this information to the public because if there is a decision to charge in any event by the State's Attorney's Office, the integrity of that investigation has to be protected," said Police Captain Eric Kowalczyk.

Makes perfect sense to me. Why? Because if they have enough to build a case (and to my untrained eye, it appears they just might), they will need to spend as much time as possible getting the charges right and dotting every I and crossing every T before they can spare someone to throw to the masses like PR meat to starving wolves. Again, a generational inability to understand delayed gratification means they demand the six officers be executed immediately by means that would make the crucifixion of Christ look absolutely humane. Hopefully, the system will work as the founders intended, and justice will be served fairly. As even a broken clock is right twice a day, so might a broken judicial system (perceived or actually) reach the proper verdict based on the facts of the case in their entirety, NOT the dribbles and leaks that increasingly look to me like their only purpose is to inflame passions and incite a race war.

 

[nobodythank you]

Y'know, I was going to reply with something snarky, But I have decided to ignore it as you added none of your own thoughts and merely retorted with a superfluous picture.

Have a wonderful night.

Awww the little lion thinks he can keep up with the rest of the pride. How cute.

At your age and experience level, it is highly recommended that you keep your trap shut and your eyes and ears open. You have zero real world experience, whereas the majority of board members here can maintain an intelligent debate without referring to an authority figure as a "was shot in the back by some cock sucking power abusing pussy". You have zero clue what happened, much less what it means to be in a life threatening situation. So puff your chest at someone else. Not impressed kid.

Now, that does not mean you can't contribute by asking questions and what not. Have a pleasant day in school and pass me the snacks.

 

[RetPara]

Supposedly, this has been discounted. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if the fellow prisoner wasn't going after some reduced charges or otherwise reduce the amount of time he was going to serve in the lockup. I'll see if I can't follow the breadcrumbs and get a link to where this was disproven, as I read it in the comment section of the article (I know, sane people never read the comments, but I'm not sane).

I think we need some clarification in order to completely comprehend if those that have Liked or Agree this comment were Liking/Agreeing with

Supposedly, this has been discounted. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if the fellow prisoner wasn't going after some reduced charges or otherwise reduce the amount of time he was going to serve in the lockup. I'll see if I can't follow the breadcrumbs and get a link to where this was disproven, as I read it in the comment section of the article .

Or were you Liking/Agreeing with the following.

I know, sane people never read the comments, but I'm not sane.

Myself... I was agreeing with the latter.....

 

[8654Maine]

Y'know, I was going to reply with something snarky, But I have decided to ignore it as you added none of your own thoughts and merely retorted with a superfluous picture.

Have a wonderful night.

I'm going to second and add to what @ke4dge wrote.

There are some salient points being debated. I've been around the block and have some notches on the belt, yet, I learn something new from these posts.

This forum will allow input from the least to the most experienced. Just write something intelligent or ask a poignant question. Jive or talk smack at your own risk.

My input is that empathy allows me to put on the clothes and lives of those that I disagree with. The world seems very different from that viewpoint.

I can understand the rage against perceived bias, whether skin or uniform.

Doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

[CDG]

Well now you are using two different variables to suit your statistic. I took the variables given and in both cases showed a black male in the US is more likely to be killed by the police than a white male. That is supported by both what you posted and by what AKKeoth posted.

The problem is that no one knows what the no-shit numbers are. Numbers can be twisted to fit nearly anything you want them to. However, if we're going to continue referencing those which support specific viewpoints, I'll be more than happy to go point/counterpoint. While it may appear from a pure percentage of the population breakdown that blacks are killed at a higher percentage, even if lower total numbers, when adding the variable that takes race into account as it relates to violent crimes, police are once again more likely to kill a white suspect than a black one. The article also mentions the case of 18 year old white male Gilbert Collar, naked and unarmed, who was shot and killed by a black police officer. I don't recall any riots after that case. In fact, I had never even heard of it until searching around for stats related to this current discussion. What would the most likely COA been had the race of the officer and Mr. Collar been reversed? Is this evidence of systemic racism? Because the shooting of Walter Scott has been used as such.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all

 

[Shredder577]

@ke4gde
Shooting someone in the back when they pose no immediate danger to you, as they flee, and then planting your taser next to them, is sick. How any one could defend a man like that - is beyond me. What's even more, is he did not stop using force. He shot Scott multiple times. If you defend an officer like that, you're part of the problem. Believe me, I'm definitely not against the use of lethal force and understand that in some situation LEO's have no other alternative. I'm not shunning any officers that use lethal force justly.

Although your second point is actually a really good one. It reminds me of some advice a couch gave me.. "Never miss an opportunity to shut the fuck up.". Which I should be doing, so I appreciate that.

@8654Maine
Absolutely. I'll admit I'm still trying to adjust to this kind of environment, and remember that I'm talking to professionals, and not my friends or random strangers on Facebook. Although that's no excuse and I take full accountability for my actions. I appreciate the words of wisdom.

 

[nobodythank you]

Now here is an instance where I could use some help in deciphering what it going on, check my logic cause I am colored confused (get it? lol no? ok):
Baltimore Protesters Go Free as Arrest Paperwork Backs Up
From the article

The public defender...had filed habeas corpus petitions demanding that people arrested Monday night be released if they weren't formally charged within 24 hours.

On one hand I am glad that the rule of law as it relates to habeus corpus is being observed. However, the tin foil side of me thinks WTF? These protesters were legally arrested and now released because of a "slow down" in completing paperwork. It is not as if thousands upon thousands of protesters had been arrested to where officers could not have completed the required paperwork. Even with the logjam that was there, enough officers would have been available to complete the required paperwork for so few arrests (comparatively speaking). It is almost as if the administration intentionally delayed the paperwork in order to allow them to go free. In light of the Baltimore administration's response to everything it seems as if they are playing a very dangerous game. Now the signal has been sent to other violators to feel free from prosecution. In effect the arrests never took place because they were never booked.

For those that don't know, the officer that arrested each individual does not have to be the one to file the initial booking paperwork as probable cause is transferable to another officer via the Fellow Officer Rule. Therefore any officer can fill out the initial booking report while the others can file the necessary paperwork at a later date. Given that most were arrested for the same offense (assuming no other charges), the paperwork should be relatively simple, short, and in a virtual template form.

 

[TLDR20]

The problem is that no one knows what the no-shit numbers are. Numbers can be twisted to fit nearly anything you want them to. However, if we're going to continue referencing those which support specific viewpoints, I'll be more than happy to go point/counterpoint. While it may appear from a pure percentage of the population breakdown that blacks are killed at a higher percentage, even if lower total numbers, when adding the variable that takes race into account as it relates to violent crimes, police are once again more likely to kill a white suspect than a black one. The article also mentions the case of 18 year old white male Gilbert Collar, naked and unarmed, who was shot and killed by a black police officer. I don't recall any riots after that case. In fact, I had never even heard of it until searching around for stats related to this current discussion. What would the most likely COA been had the race of the officer and Mr. Collar been reversed? Is this evidence of systemic racism? Because the shooting of Walter Scott has been used as such.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all

I can't read that link without filling out some crazy survey. But taking all the stats that have been posted here on Shadowspear so far, including those relating to crimes, it has been shown that blacks are more likely to be killed by the police than whites. While from a purely numerical standpoint more whites are killed, that makes sense, as both whites commit more crimes, and have more interactions with the police, because there are more white people than black people. But from a percentage standpoint you are more likely to be killed by the police if you are black. I'm not here twisting any statistics. I have been very clear at the numbers I have used, they were provided here and in the US Census data.

ETA: Finally got that link to work. The last line shows what I have been trying to say the whole time"The odds that a black man will be shot and killed by a police officer is about 1 in 60,000. For a white man those odds are 1 in 200,000.”

It is still highly unlikely, but unbelievably more likely if you are black.

 

[nobodythank you]

@ke4gde
Shooting someone in the back when they pose no immediate danger to you, as they flee, and then planting your taser next to them, is sick. How any one could defend a man like that - is beyond me. What's even more, is he did not stop using force. He shot Scott multiple times. If you defend an officer like that, you're part of the problem. Believe me, I'm definitely not against the use of lethal force and understand that in some situation LEO's have no other alternative. I'm not shunning any officers that use lethal force justly.

I'll just focus on this response since you appear to be trying to understand what is being said by myself and others, which is appreciated. As I have mentioned in previous posts, you don't know that he did not pose an immediate danger. You were not there. You don't know that he planted the taser. The video only shows one aspect of the entire event. Furthermore, you are not versed in use of force at all. You have zero experience in attempting to apprehend a subject or combating one. Until you have, you are speaking out of your ass and it does not help your case. Even those on this board that have not walked a beat, but have been in harm's way understand being in a stressful situation and having to make a life or death split decision. EDIT: It is for this reason that the SCOTUS evaluates an officer's actions based on what he knew at the time and not what is known after the fact.

Not once in any of my posts have I defended the officer's actions. However, I have advocated the delay in judgement until all the facts are in. So, in point of fact, you are the one that is part of the problem. The only thing you need to jump to is to reach the top shelf, not a conclusion.

 

[Shredder577]

@ke4gde

You are right.

Everyone deserves innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. I'm going against my own principles, which is hypocritical. I apologize.

 

[nobodythank you]

@ke4gde

You are right.

Everyone deserves innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. I'm going against my own principles, which is hypocritical. I apologize.

Appreciated. Don't dwell on it. We all stick our heads up our fourth points of contact from time to time. I am guilty of it more than I care to be. This is a difficult topic to discuss from any angle.

 

[CDG]

ETA: Finally got that link to work. The last line shows what I have been trying to say the whole time"The odds that a black man will be shot and killed by a police officer is about 1 in 60,000. For a white man those odds are 1 in 200,000.”

It is still highly unlikely, but unbelievably more likely if you are black.

Is it? From the same article, and the same speaker: “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”

 

[TLDR20]

Is it? From the same article, and the same speaker: “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”

Yes.
Read that again. We are talking about the likelihood of a non-police(citizen) being killed by the police.... Not the police being killed, that would be a different stat. Why would we include police being killed? That takes something from outside of the scope of the argument and randomly inserts it.