Police Shootings in Black America: The 2018 Data Is In


mirkwood
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yea, I'm just a "little" tired of the false narrative.  

 

 

 

Quote

 

There were 15 shooting deaths by police of unarmed black men in the United States in 2018

 

The Baltimore Sun reported that 217 blacks were killed in Baltimore in shooting deaths, while The Los Angeles Times said that 124 black victims were shot and killed in Los Angeles in 2018, and the Chicago Tribune reported 279 blacks were shot to death last year.

In three of the largest cities in the country, 620 blacks were slaughtered with no outcry from leftist media pundits. There were no candlelight vigils or marches, no outrage from celebrity athletes or prominent leftist black leaders, and certainly no attention from the Democrats who control policymaking in those cities.

 

 

 

Full article:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/police-shootings-in-black-america-the-2018-data-is-in_2757253.html?fbclid=IwAR03H2chrTiqRCFqlDn9Qal7GjZVD1mgMtJPricFfAA8TmyWJt-ufe7266I

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mirkwood said:

The article mentioned that:

Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed that in 2017, there were 2,627 murders of blacks by other blacks in the United States. For perspective, consider that this nearly equates to the number of the lives lost in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. And this is happening annually within our communities.

If only one tenth of the resources that have been expended in response to the 9/11 attacks had been expended on addressing the problem of blacks killing blacks, how much smaller would that problem be now and how many more people would still be alive? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

I wonder what % of black murderers get their charges dismissed after spending their trial period at home with their families. 🤔

Black Americans aren't oblivious to the violence within their own communities. It's a real and complex problem without a simple solution, but that doesn't mean people aren't trying. "What about Chicago" you may ask (and white conservatives LOVE to)? I've got some reading material here, here, and here. BTW, that last organization got a lot of volunteer support and donations from the Chicago Bears last year. AKA, those spoiled millionaires who should stop kneeling and do something in their communities (the Ravens are active with similar organizations in Baltimore). If you think black communities aren't trying to improve themselves, you're wrong. There's plenty of anger and grief surrounding that, but maybe you don't see it. The outrage you're referencing stems from the disparity of justice between black-on-black crimes and blue-on-black crimes. BTW, no one's saying that black murderers shouldn't be in prison. They're saying that maybe a few of those cops should be too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Godless said:

I wonder what % of black murderers get their charges dismissed after spending their trial period at home with their families. 🤔

Black Americans aren't oblivious to the violence within their own communities. It's a real and complex problem without a simple solution, but that doesn't mean people aren't trying. "What about Chicago" you may ask (and white conservatives LOVE to)? I've got some reading material here, here, and here. BTW, that last organization got a lot of volunteer support and donations from the Chicago Bears last year. AKA, those spoiled millionaires who should stop kneeling and do something in their communities (the Ravens are active with similar organizations in Baltimore). If you think black communities aren't trying to improve themselves, you're wrong. There's plenty of anger and grief surrounding that, but maybe you don't see it. The outrage you're referencing stems from the disparity of justice between black-on-black crimes and blue-on-black crimes. BTW, no one's saying that black murderers shouldn't be in prison. They're saying that maybe a few of those cops should be too.

You say “a few of those cops”... that’s not what we hear.  This is like the Gillette commercial.  They show men bullying, sexually harassing, etc., and make it look like that’s the normal thing and that men are just ok with that..  Similarly, news media and BLM groups show cops killing unarmed black people like that’s the normal thing and cops are ok with that.  So they go around portraying cops as pigs to be cooked like bacon or something.  When the reality is, when little boys bully other boys in the playground, the normal reaction is for the Dads to stop their kid and give them disciplinary action.  When cops kill people, the normal reaction is to investigate what happened and evoke proper disciplinary action when needed.

But the fact remains.  Problems in the black community is a byproduct of the absence of a FATHER.  And that’s where one side of the political spectrum is hurting more than helping their constituents in their political efforts that result in the removal of FATHERS from families.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we do the math and there were 620 shooting deaths by police on Black men, but ONLY 15 of them were between unarmed black men...

Doesn't that mean that there were 605 armed conflicts between police and black men?

That's only accounting for 3 cities.

Now, 15 is TOO HIGH OF A NUMBER.  I agree with that completely, but there is something unsaid there which is completely ignored when you see that the implications would be that this also means that there were ~605 armed confrontations, which also meant that there is possibly MORE blacks trying to kill police officers than police officers trying to kill black men.

That means there is a 97.5% chance that in conflict with a black man against a police officer where it results in a death, the black man may be trying to kill the police officer???

That probably could make anyone a little gun jumpy.

Not that I agree with the idea (perhaps if police had to go unarmed at first and could only call armed back up there would be more talking and less shooting from the police, but it would also probably end up with more police officers dead if the numbers in the article reflect anything to go on) that police should be shooting anyone.  I think that 15 unarmed deaths is STILL FAR TOO HIGH.

But, it implies that the police are not the only ones shooting in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You say “a few of those cops”... that’s not what we hear.  This is like the Gillette commercial.  They show men bullying, sexually harassing, etc., and make it look like that’s the normal thing and that men are just ok with that..  Similarly, news media and BLM groups show cops killing unarmed black people like that’s the normal thing and cops are ok with that.  So they go around portraying cops as pigs to be cooked like bacon or something.  When the reality is, when little boys bully other boys in the playground, the normal reaction is for the Dads to stop their kid and give them disciplinary action.  When cops kill people, the normal reaction is to investigate what happened and evoke proper disciplinary action when needed.

Let's explore that analogy a bit. The Gillette commercial wasn't speaking just to the minority of men who disrespect/assault women and raise crappy kids. It's speaking to the larger majority who see stuff like that and do nothing. Complicity through inaction. Changing an evil minority starts with a system of accountability from the majority. And, well, we have some work to do.

IMG_20190121_191415.thumb.jpg.ae322d8a6a57d759ab19f3c367f37078.jpg

You see where I'm going with this, right? There are a lot of great cops out there (including @mirkwood, I have no doubt). Just like there are a lot of great men out there. I like to think I'm one of them. But I'll be the first to admit that there have been times in my life when I could have done better at holding accountable the types of men that Gillette is addressing. I suspect that there would be less hostility towards cops if there was a more clear system of accountability within their ranks. 

FWIW, I thought the bullying angle was dumb too, and missed the root of the problem. When it comes to raising boys, we (as a society, not necessarily anyone here) can do better to raise compassionate men who aren't afraid of their own emotions. THAT'S where toxic masculinity starts. Emotionally-repressed boys grow up to be emotionally-repressed men, the types of men who disrespect and abuse women and raise even more emotionally-repressed boys. And 'round and 'round we go.

Quote

But the fact remains.  Problems in the black community is a byproduct of the absence of a FATHER.  And that’s where one side of the political spectrum is hurting more than helping their constituents in their political efforts that result in the removal of FATHERS from families.

I'm hopeful that the bipartisan prison reform bill that Trump recently pushed will help with this. 

 

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
14 hours ago, Godless said:

. It's speaking to the larger majority who see stuff like that and do nothing.

There is no one out there who thinks- "Well, I wasn't going to stop someone from being a scumbag, but after I saw that Gillette commercial, I'm going to change my ways and become a white knight. Thanks Gillette."  It is the liberal version of white knight syndrome. Classic definition of it, actually.  It's usually conservatives who shake their finger and moralize but sadly, liberals have become just as good at it. 

And for the record, I am hardly the macho-testosrone-obnxious guy. Heck, I can't even change a tire. Anyone who follows me on Facebook or knows me personally would be able to tell that in about 5 seconds. 

Gillette is playing your side (which as you know, I'm sympathetic to on a ton of issues) like children. Now all the cool, woke, hipsters will buy Gillette. Like they did with Nike.  And Ben and Jerry's. But, since Gillette is suddenly on the right side of social issues, capitalism and making money is fine. Two weeks ago, they were just another greedy company. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

There is no one out there who thinks- "Well, I wasn't going to stop someone from being a scumbag, but after I saw that Gillette commercial, I'm going to change my ways and become a white knight. Thanks Gillette."  It is the liberal version of white knight syndrome. Classic definition of it, actually.  

I think that's over-simplifying the intent. It's an awareness issue. People rarely ponder on things that they've become complacent about. That's the whole point of raising awareness, to make people think about things that may not affect them directly but may nevertheless need their attention in some way.

Quote


It's usually conservatives who shake their finger and moralize but sadly, liberals have become just as good at it.

No argument here. There's no lack of empty finger-wagging on both sides a lot of the time. 

Quote


And for the record, I am hardly the classic macho-testosrone-obnxious guy. Anyone who follows me on Facebook or knows me personally would be able to tell that in about 5 seconds. 

You mean to tell me this ISN'T your profile picture on Facebook???95a5c50f2e42eb72bfb1e70a3174df17.jpg.5be2be51c04209303bfa4e3ec8917620.jpg

Quote

Gillette is playing your side (which as you know, I'm sympathetic to on a ton of issues) like children. Now all the cool, woke, hipsters will buy Gillette. Like they did with Nike. 

Perhaps. But they also have a lot of people (including us) talking about cultural problems in our society. If Gillette had a secondary motive aside from selling more razors, I think that was it. As for me, I'm going to continue my boycott of Gillette because their prices deeply offend me.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, Godless said:

95a5c50f2e42eb72bfb1e70a3174df17.jpg.5be2be51c04209303bfa4e3ec8917620.jpg

 

LOL THAT IS AWESOME!!!! You got me bro. 

 

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

. As for me, I'm going to continue my boycott of Gillette because their prices deeply offend me.

Remember this: the first goal of a company is to make money. Every other goal, no matter how noble, is way down on the list. Never forget that. Gillette knows exactly what they were doing. I see it totally differently. 

And I don't use their products either, but I have a full beard/mustache that I only trim. I haven't shaved daily in over 20 years. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Let's explore that analogy a bit. The Gillette commercial wasn't speaking just to the minority of men who disrespect/assault women and raise crappy kids. It's speaking to the larger majority who see stuff like that and do nothing. Complicity through inaction. Changing an evil minority starts with a system of accountability from the majority. And, well, we have some work to do.

You talk about those things like men don't stop bullies, rapists, jerks.  Why not show a sampling of serial killers?  Why not show a sampling of gang crimes?  Why not show all those mothers drowning their babies in bath tubs?  Why doesn't Gillette make ads of those?  Because everybody knows they're wrong and when they see those things they don't say, "Wait, what?  You're not supposed to drown babies in bath tubs?"  Now, if you think Men think, "Wait, what?  You're not supposed to rape women?", then you are not living in America.  You are living in the Middle East.  Therefore, that message is not about "minority of men who do those things and a larger majority who do nothing".  The message is about - those are things men do because they're men! 

So now, let's look at what's in the ad... 2 young boys rough-housing... because, if you got a bunch of dads and their kids are rough-housing, they let them be.  That's a good thing!  You know it has become bullying because the Dads would break up the fight and instill disciplinary action!  Here's another one - a guy sees an attractive woman pass by and decides to take a chance at getting noticed - no, no, no... sexual harassment.  REALLY?  The art of pick-up lines is now sexual harassment?  And in a board meeting the man rephrases what a woman says... Normal... but no, Gillette thinks Mansplaining is a thing.  They ignore the fact that women do it more than men.  Also NORMAL.  Women have more desire for talking than Men in a meeting and will rephrase and clarify something to death especially when they're a bunch of engineers.  And they get emotional.  Drives me nuts.  Engineers have the penchant to talk in cipher, women engineers are prone to elaborate ciphers even when everybody in the room understand what's being said - they just have to make sure.  And they have no problem treating male engineers like nerds in high school.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM.  The attack on MEN... especially WHITE MEN has gone past sanity.

 

2 hours ago, Godless said:

IMG_20190121_191415.thumb.jpg.ae322d8a6a57d759ab19f3c367f37078.jpg

You see where I'm going with this, right? There are a lot of great cops out there (including @mirkwood, I have no doubt). Just like there are a lot of great men out there. I like to think I'm one of them. But I'll be the first to admit that there have been times in my life when I could have done better at holding accountable the types of men that Gillette is addressing. I suspect that there would be less hostility towards cops if there was a more clear system of accountability within their ranks. 

FWIW, I thought the bullying angle was dumb too, and missed the root of the problem. When it comes to raising boys, we (as a society, not necessarily anyone here) can do better to raise compassionate men who aren't afraid of their own emotions. THAT'S where toxic masculinity starts. Emotionally-repressed boys grow up to be emotionally-repressed men, the types of men who disrespect and abuse women and raise even more emotionally-repressed boys. And 'round and 'round we go.

I'm hopeful that the bipartisan prison reform bill that Trump recently pushed will help with this. 

 

All those headlines are selective narratives.  Where's the story of black football and basketball college and professional players who are never convicted, never even arrested for rape, assault, and domestic violence?  Where's the story about the 52% of rape convictions who are white?  Where's the story about the false rape allegation of Duke students among others?  Where's the story about White teen-agers libeled, doxx'd, their lives threatened, for standing still and doing absolutely nothing while a group of Black and Native Americans harrassed them and then cried racial victimhood?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I did not know what people were talking about in regards to a Gillette ad and so I looked it up.

I DO get Gillette razors (I prefer the Sensor which only had TWO blades.  I can't find the base unit anymore but as I still have my originals and they still sell the blades, I get those).  The commercial did not change whether I will use them or not (I will still use the razors).

I also have a straight razor for shaving when I want, but as I shave in the shower without a mirror many times, I use the Gillette there.  I use the straight razor when shaving in front of a mirror.

So, for those who did not know what people were referring to when talking about the Gillette commercial....here it is (as long as I get the youtube video to post right).

I actually like the commercial.

I have no problems with it.  I'm do not know why this would cause any controversy, but apparently people have bad or good feelings because of it.

On the otherhand, for those of you who feel angry due to this commercial, here is one put out by Egard watches in response to it...so both sides of the coin here for us.

They are both decent commercials.

Probably more beneficial to Egard watches as I had no idea who they were prior to this.

For those who were like me and did not know what commercials people were discussing, I think this could be useful to be able to see these commercials in order to understand the context.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, I did not know what people were talking about in regards to a Gillette ad and so I looked it up.

...

I actually like the commercial.

I have no problems with it.  I'm do not know why this would cause any controversy, but apparently people have bad or good feelings because of it.

I didn't really have a bad reaction to the commercial -- even when couched in the conservative commentary that was criticizing it. 

What makes it controversial is that it isn't selling a razor.  It is preaching.  And in today's political climate, it amounts to nothing more than virtue signalling.  That's what was irritating about it.

Can't a razor company just do commercials about razors? 
Can't an actor just act?  Can't we go to a movie and just be entertained without having SJW dogma being thrown at us? 
Can't we just have a conversation using normal English words without having to worry if any single word might offend someone to the point we'll get sued for hurting someone's feelings?
Can't we fly a flag that supports our LEOs and not worry about being called racist for doing so?
Can't we vote for someone without being called a biggot?
Can't Catholic students sing their school anthem and not be called racists?
Can't we be friends with whom we have political disagreements?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what happens when Chivalry dies. 

Andrew Klavan made an interesting observation in one of his podcasts not long ago.  He pointed out that there was indeed a time when male power was unrestrained and you had a violent, brutal society.  Chivalry was invented to create a structure whereby male power was channeled to a nobler cause, while still providing a context for it to express itself.  Chivalry, being a product of Christianity, taught values like hospitality, courtesy toward women, mercy, courage and fairness.

In the 20th Century, chivalry came under attack as being sexist, old-fashioned, etc.  Even in the '90s there was a rising awareness that sometimes guys would do things like hold a door open for a woman, assist her with something heavy, etc. and get yelled at for it, as if he were motivated by a sense that she was inferior and needed the door held open.

Shortly after 911, I read an article by a feminist writer who saw this as a problem.  She was in New York City and felt reassured and protected, watching the fire trucks streaming toward Manhattan to help however they could.  It gave her a renewed sense of appreciation for the manly men on those trucks who were string, brave, and using that masculinity to help those who needed help. 

She shared a story of a time when she was about to get off of an airplane and as she was wrestling her carry-on out of the overhead compartment,  an elderly gentlemen next to her tried to help.  She had rebuked him for it and did it herself, with some difficulty.  Looking back, she felt regret.  That guy wasn't as chauvinist, he was just trying to be nice and she'd been mean to him for it.  

So here we are now, with Chivalry all but dead, and young men not being given much in the way of a framework for what it means to be a man.  So what happens?  Political pandering, nonsense like "toxic masculinity" and insipid ads from Gillette.  

Missin' Chivalry, are we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all of you who don't have a problem with the Gillette commercial - you must not have had exposure to the drumbeat of the Modern Feminist - a cancer in our society built upon by all these subtleties of the Gender Studies program in American Universities.

I'll introduce you to the Rabid Modern Feminist buzzwords in that commercial -

1.) Rape Culture (plainly shown in that commercial - the comedian on TV, a man seeing a woman pass by and wanting to interact) - the Modern Feminist believes that Men are born Rapists and that men chasing after women or even asking for their phone number or asking them to smile is sexual harassment indicative of that rape culture. 

2.) Mansplaining (plainly shown in that commercial - the work meeting where a man explained what the woman is saying) - Men trying to explain anything is mansplaining and is subconsciously treating women like they're a dumb species.

3.) Toxic Masculinity (plainly shown in that commercial with the boys running and rough-housing) - Traditional Masculine behavior is Toxic.

These are the type of STUPID DEMEANING OF MANHOOD that my 2 teen-aged boys have to fight when engaging in any public social interaction - from being Star Wars fans to just playing a World War 2 re-enactment video game to having a school curriculum completely tailored to the female learning style even as it is incompatible with the male learning style to females telling them, "We don't need Men, Men are violent, Men are rapists, Men are stripping us of our Rights!".

Meanwhile, the statistics of Single Motherhood is rising, the statistics of boys having no meaningful Masculine figure in his upbringing is rising, and NOBODY SEES A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE... MUH PATRIARCHY and it's time for Women to finally get rid of Male Dominance because... The Force is Female don't you know?

 

BONUS FEATURE:  The female newscaster in that commercial is no other than Ana Kasparian, newscaster of the rabid alt-leftist The Young Turks, the poster child of rabid modern radical feminism.

another Bonus Feature:  The director of that commercial is no other than Australian-born, now living in London, Kim Gehrig... another poster child of the rabid modern radical feminism.  One of her works is pinning Australia's problem of steroid abuse, not to poverty or depression, but to Men bullying each other and Fathers bullying their children because of Toxic Masculinity.

THIS HAS TO BE STOPPED!!!

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Can't we be friends with whom we have political disagreements?

I feel sorry for people who have no friends who they disagree with. It happens more on the left,  but in fairness but I see a lot of conservatives who can't handle it either. You delude yourself and you begin to think that "anyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong, but clearly isn't a good person." Very dangerous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I feel sorry for people who have no friends who they disagree with. It happens more on the left,  but in fairness but I see a lot of conservatives who can't handle it either. You delude yourself and you begin to think that "anyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong, but clearly isn't a good person." Very dangerous. 

I agree with the caveat that BOTH sides are equally prone to this in my experience. I have been unfriended and blocked by Conservatives for being too Liberal and unfriended and blocked by Liberals for being to Conservative.  And I've heard friends on both sides of the aisle talk about why you shouldn't be friends with "the other".  I think it's all nonsense, we need to listen to o e another even if we disagree. And I wish our society would not make everything political. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, LiterateParakeet said:

we need to listen to o e another even if we disagree. 

Perfectly said. Agree 10,000%. 

I get that too. Blocked by liberals because I'm pro gun, anti  SJW and blocked by conservatives because I'm pro gay marriage/pro choice and therefore I clearly hate families. I get it all the time. All the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Perfectly said. Agree 10,000%. 

I get that too. Blocked by liberals because I'm pro gun, anti  SJW and blocked by conservatives because I'm pro gay marriage/pro choice and therefore I clearly hate families. I get it all the time. All the time. 

I blocked you because you listen to ABBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

  I think that 15 unarmed deaths is STILL FAR TOO HIGH.

 

https://training.forcescience.org/unarmed-but-still-dangerous/

 

Quote

perhaps if police had to go unarmed at first and could only call armed back up there would be more talking and less shooting from the police, but it would also probably end up with more police officers dead if the numbers in the article reflect anything to go on

That would lead to more dead cops.  Frankly that is one of the dumbest ideas anyone ever floats.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

That would lead to more dead cops.  Frankly that is one of the dumbest ideas anyone ever floats.  

It would lead to more dead civilians as well. When someone decides to go on a killing spree, they won't be dissuaded by "Hey you meanie-leave us alone or I'm telling." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share