Reply With Quote
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...e-being-filmed
Man with his hands up shot and killed in broad day light.
#blueslivesmatter
If the boys in blue carried a football for a living there would be public outrage but cop apologists act like these guys can do no wrong...i believe it was boutons who mentioned cops having a high rate of domestic violence
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...e-being-filmed
Man with his hands up shot and killed in broad day light.
#blueslivesmatter
Ohio Cop Pulls Over Black Man Who 'Made Direct Eye Contact' With Him
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0b7a96338e614
"It’s just awareness that this stuff still happens in 2015."
Earlier this month, a police officer in Dayton, Ohio, tailed a man by the name of John Felton for two miles, then pulled him over for failing to use a turn signal 100 feet prior to making his turn. To be clear: Felton used a turn signal, but he apparently didn't put it on early enough.
Only after handing over a written warning did the officer acknowledge the real reason he'd pulled over Felton, a black man who was driving a car with out-of-state plates: He had "made direct eye contact" with the officer.
The Dayton Police Department confirmed the incident in a statement emailed to The Huffington Post on Friday, and acknowledged that "making direct eye contact with an officer" is not a legitimate reason to be stopped.
"The Dayton Police Department is a true partner in the community and enjoys a positive community-police relationship," the statement said. "The Dayton Police Department is in contact with Mr. Felton. He has agreed to a conversation with the officer, facilitated by the Dayton Mediation Center. This will allow Mr. Felton and the Officer to discuss the specifics of the incident."
Felton captured the absurd interaction on camera, then shared the video on Facebook page.
"This is why I hate coming to Dayton," he wrote in the caption. "He had no grounds for following/trailing me other than seeing an Infiniti with Michigan plates. His reason? 'I gave him direct eye contact while passing him.'"
Watch Felton's video, which contains adult language, below.
fter a bit of back and forth, Felton tells the officer he's using his cell phone to record the conversation and insists he had used his turn signal.
"You did signal," the officer clarifies. "You just didn't do it 100 feet prior to your turn."
"You just needed a reason to pull me over, sir," Felton responds, handing over his license and registration. "Is there a reason you pulled me over other than that?"
"Jesus Christ, this is so childish," he adds, speaking to himself.
The officer walks away, then returns a short time later with a written warning for the infraction.
"No disrespect, I don't have anything against police officers," Felton tells the officer, "but all the **** that's going on now, that's some scary **** to have a police officer just trailing you. ... Why were you trailing me?"
"Because you made direct eye contact with me and held onto it while I was passing you," he replies. "If you want to keep talking about it, I'll just give you a citation for the violation and we can take it to court. I'm not going to argue about it anymore."
In an interview with Dayton TV station ABC 22/FOX 45, Felton, who lives in Detroit, said he felt targeted as soon as he saw the officer's car.
"I have a nice car, I don’t know if he’d seen me as a black male, but I feel like I was targeted. Being a Michigan car and it was about 11 at night," he said. "I’m not your stereotypical black male that a lot of people have in mind. It’s just awareness that this stuff still happens in 2015."
__________________
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...e-being-filmed
Man with his hands up shot and killed in broad day light.
Can't believe he survived it the first time only to get shot again
#blueslivesmatter
I call bull . There are no reliable statistics for police involved killings.
its convenient that you call bulll for TSA's claim about police involved killings, but you dont call bull on other people's statistics about police involved killings
if there are no reliable statistics for police involved killings, you should call all of these recent claims bull
That's nice dear.
"As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police shootings by race is notoriously incomplete, which may explain why Peter Moskos, assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, decided to use figures from the website Killed by Police.
Based on that data, Mr. Moskos reported that roughly 49 percent of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 were white, while 30 percent were black. He also found that 19 percent were Hispanic and 2 percent were Asian and other races.
His results, posted last week on his blog Cop in the Hood, arrived with several caveats, notably that 25 percent of the website’s data, which is drawn largely from news reports, failed to show the race of the person killed.
Killed by Police lists every death, justified or not, including those in which the officer had been wounded or acted in self-defense.
“The data doesn’t indicate which shootings are justified (the vast majority) and which are cold-blooded murder (not many, but some). And maybe that would vary by race. I don’t know, but I doubt it,” Mr. Moskos said on his blog."
Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones.
“If one adjusts for the racial disparity in the homicide rate or the rate at which police are feloniously killed, whites are actually more likely to be killed by police than blacks,” said Mr. Moskos, a former Baltimore cop and author of the book “Cop in the Hood.”
“Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks 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.”
Mr. Moskos listed two possible reasons for the racial disparity. The first is that police assigned to largely black neighborhoods face “more political fallout when they shoot, and thus receive better training and are less inclined to shoot.”
The second is that police assigned to black communities with high crime rates are more accustomed to dangerous situations and thus are more likely to be able to resolve them without resort to lethal force.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ty-d/?page=all
OK, link all the recent statistical claims for me. I'm sure I haven't read them all.
So you confirm my claim that it's bull .
That's very nice of you, dear. Thank you.
i believe it was boutons who mentioned cops having a high rate of domestic violence
Still citing Fraud King's lies
Yes the FBI's stats are incomplete, that is why they weren't used.
The stats were compiled from here http://killedbypolice.net which led to “If one adjusts for the racial disparity in the homicide rate or the rate at which police are feloniously killed, whites are actually more likely to be killed by police than blacks,” said Mr. Moskos, a former Baltimore cop and author of the book “Cop in the Hood.”
“Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks 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.”
you are more than welcome to go through them on your own and prove his claim is bull .
No stats are complete.
Thanks again, dear.
I'll remember that next time you post a stat. Nice job claiming bull and then refusing to analyze the given data.
If I post a crime stat only based on whatever "corporate news sources" a pretty anonymous site searches feel free to call me on it.I know how they collected the given data.Nice job claiming bull and then refusing to analyze the given data.
It's a good start but nothing upon which to base any real analysis. It only proves the need for real statistics.
If the FBI data is incomplete, and the most comprehensive list of police killings doesn't satisfy you, how exactly do you think a proper analysis can be done?
It can't. That's the problem, dear.
ChumpDumper faulty analysis?(May,2013-April, 2015)
"About half the victims were white, half minority. But the demographics shifted sharply among the unarmed victims, two-thirds of whom were black or Hispanic. Overall, blacks were killed at three times the rate of whites or other minorities when adjusting by the population of the census tracts where the shootings occurred. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...d4e_story.html
That post is six months old and doesn't include the murder of Duboise in Cincinnati, among other unarmed blacks.
Washington Post compared the victims by race to the census and they found at least 63% were minorities of 2/3rds unarmed victims were black or Hispanic.
I actually went through and tried to tally the ethnicity of the unarmed people killed by police
2015 stats
Black-25
White-14
Hispanic-14
Other-8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphi...ice-shootings/
According to this site, I found those stats.
Whites outnumber Blacks and Hispanics 53% to 13% and 17%
but made up only 23% of unarmed killings. Blacks made up 41% while Hispanics made up 23%
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/10/8382457...ootings-racism
"An analysis of the available FBI Data Shows that US police kill black people at disproportionate rates: Black people accounted for 31 percent of police shooting victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population."
Again, incomplete data, dear.
Better than the feds, but still incomplete. The only way data will be complete is by real federal mandate.
What part of that do you not understand, dear?
I'll be sure to use this counter argument from here on out.
And why do you keep mentioning the fed's data? I never once brought that up.
You do that, dear. Try to make sure you know what you're talking abuot fist though, m'kay?
The article you posted brought it up, dear.And why do you keep mentioning the fed's data? I never once brought that up.
Did you even read it?
Oh, dear!
No, the article immediately dismissed the Fed data and used data from here http://killedbypolice.net to compile their statistics.
"As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police shootings by race is notoriously incomplete, which may explain why Peter Moskos, assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, decided to use figures from the website Killed by Police."
did you even read it
Yes, the article you posted brought it up, dear.No, the article immediately dismissed the Fed data and used data from here http://killedbypolice.net to compile their statistics.
"As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police shootings by race is notoriously incomplete, which may explain why Peter Moskos, assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, decided to use figures from the website Killed by Police."
As did I, dear.
That's where the statistics should be coming from. There should be a federal mandate to collect the information. It's a shame that there isn't and the resulting fed information is so bad that websites and media outlets have to resort to intern grunt work to put together incomplete statistics that you want to present as perfect.
Why are you having such difficulty understanding things today, dear? These things aren't difficult.
You just tried to claim an article didn't bring something up by saying what the article said about it.
Yes, the article you posted brought it up, dear.
As did I, dear.
That's where the statistics should be coming from. There should be a federal mandate to collect the information. It's a shame that there isn't and the resulting fed information is so bad that websites and media outlets have to resort to intern grunt work to put together incomplete statistics that you want to present as perfect.
Why are you having such difficulty understanding things today, dear? These things aren't difficult.
You just tried to claim an article didn't bring something up by saying what the article said about it.
Lol @ claiming some internet victory because the article said the word "FBI" while dismissing their data. Instead of discussing the data keeps running back to "but but but but the article said Fed!"
So were you just confused about the words "federal" and "FBI" being interchanged?
"Federal" is the first word in FBI.
You claimed the article didn't bring up federal statistics. It did and said the exact same thing I said about them.
What are you trying to argue here, dear?
I said the article dismissed the FBI statistics because they were incomplete, which both you and I agree on. Instead of discussing the actual data the article presented you'd rather try and deflect and play your go-to semantics game.
I already discussed the actual data the article presented, dear.
Are you trying to mul ask or something? You have managed to completely whiff on every claim you have made here.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
