Police said he died due to a car crash, then his family watches police beating and tasing him to death.

[Houseman]

....as well as other sources, such as hospital admissions, outreach workers, etc.

Source? That seems untrue, because those things are not necessarily connected to police incidents.
For example, let's say that the police admit a black person to a hospital. Is this automatically marked as "police brutality"? Why?
If black people are admitted to hospitals by police at a higher percentage than white people, does this mean that the police are the cause of their injuries, and that their injuries aren't justified? Or does this just mean that black people are resisting arrest more and committing more violent crimes that deserve an appropriately violent response?

 

[Seanchaidh]

"The Police..... oh wait, maybe I shouldn't try to call people out for using a bad source if I'm also using that same source. Sorry, my argument wasn't well thought out, and in my haste, I tripped over myself trying to score Gotcha points. I apologize."

Why are you still pretending that there isn't a difference between admissions against interest and self-serving statements?

 

[Houseman]

Why are you still pretending that there isn't a difference between admissions against interest and self-serving statements?

Are you saying that the "disproportionate amount of crime" statement is self-serving, and the "disproportionately harmed" statement is an admission against interest?

What evidence do you have to support that claim? As far as I know, both statements are based on data collected by law enforcement agencies.

 

[Elijin]

People often pose the question "Why do innocent people run?"

When you look at a country where a group of police officers beat a suspect to death then filed it as a traffic accident fatality, you get some insight as to why.

 

[Houseman]

People often pose the question "Why do innocent people run?"

When you look at a country where a group of police officers beat a suspect to death then filed it as a traffic accident fatality, you get some insight as to why.

Because people are bad at statistics?
In a country with millions of police offers and millions of police encounters per year, I don't think it's reasonable to let small number of abuses dictate their behavior.

 

[Gordon_4]

Because people are bad at statistics?
In a country with millions of police offers and millions of police encounters per year, I don't think it's reasonable to let small number of abuses dictate their behavior.

Yes it is. Police have vast and at times nebulous powers under the law to maintain public order, protect the citizenry and pursue and arrest criminals. They also may, in the orderly discharging of these duties, be required to take life.

As a great man once wrote, “With great power, comes great responsibility”. Those that have this power are entrusted to act responsibly with it. Not only did the people who perpetrated this act fail to act responsibly, their colleagues also failed by assisting with the lie.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Are you saying that the "disproportionate amount of crime" statement is self-serving, and the "disproportionately harmed" statement is an admission against interest?

What evidence do you have to support that claim? As far as I know, both statements are based on data collected by law enforcement agencies.

Police get really angry when you protest police brutality. They want to continue it. That is their interest.

The fact that black people are disproportionately harmed by the police forms a premise of various arguments against police brutality. It's clearly an admission against interest.

One reply to that argument is that black people commit more crime, and so we're meant to believe that the disproportionate harm is somehow an unavoidable and natural result of that. When coming from the police, or people who like police brutality for some other reason, that's a self-serving statement.

We therefore have a lot more reason to doubt the latter (and reasonings from that premise) than the former.

 

[Houseman]

We therefore have a lot more reason to doubt the latter (and reasonings from that premise) than the former.

I concede that there is a difference between the two statements, however I still maintain that "reason to doubt" is not "reason to dismiss", as Obsidian seems to be suggesting.

 

[Cicada 5]

I'm sure it won't be long until someone comes along to tell us "he was no angel" and "he was a thug who had it coming".

These same people have nothing to say when the cops who do this are revealed to have a history of violent behavior themselves.

 

[Trunkage]

Because people are bad at statistics?
In a country with millions of police offers and millions of police encounters per year, I don't think it's reasonable to let small number of abuses dictate their behavior.

Just wanna point out that this very much applies to police. A lot of police brutality happens because of over inflation of statistics

 

[Houseman]

Just wanna point out that this very much applies to police. A lot of police brutality happens because of over inflation of statistics

You mean that the police might be more prone to brutalize an individual from a demographic because he or she thinks that they are more likely to be violent or something?

 

[Silvanus]

Source? That seems untrue, because those things are not necessarily connected to police incidents.

That's why questions are asked.

A source is here that investigates official and unofficial sources of data on police brutality, and provides evaluation on accuracy etc. Surprise surprise, they find underreporting in official stats.

For example, let's say that the police admit a black person to a hospital. Is this automatically marked as "police brutality"? Why?

Obviously not. What an inane question.

If black people are admitted to hospitals by police at a higher percentage than white people, does this mean that the police are the cause of their injuries, and that their injuries aren't justified? Or does this just mean that black people are resisting arrest more and committing more violent crimes that deserve an appropriately violent response?

When it happens so fucking often, when we see incident after incident of unjustified brutality, when the police have been caught lying-- such as with the recent "traffic accident"-- why would we make these enormous assumptions to blame the victims?

 

[Houseman]

That's why questions are asked.

A source is here that investigates official and unofficial sources of data on police brutality, and provides evaluation on accuracy etc. Surprise surprise, they find underreporting in official stats.

Thanks. This article, cited by yours, is a good one that deals directly with this issue.

So then if we assume that the data that shows that black people are disproportionately harmed comes solely from journalists, and data that shows that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime comes from the police, then it becomes a matter of who do you trust more, the police, or the media?

Because the media never lies, and doesn't have a bias, right?

 

[Trunkage]

You mean that the police might be more prone to brutalize an individual from a demographic because he or she thinks that they are more likely to be violent or something?

Yes. And considering how some people think Floyd deserved to be knelt on for 8 mins, I don’t think it’s just police,

Thanks. This article, cited by yours, is a good one that deals directly with this issue.

So then if we assume that the data that shows that black people are disproportionately harmed comes solely from journalists, and data that shows that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime comes from the police, then it becomes a matter of who do you trust more, the police, or the media?

Because the media never lies, and doesn't have a bias, right?

Do they lie as bad as pretending that a killing was just a car accident? Can they get away with a ‘lie’ for 18 mths? How many news departments have directly killed people?

I understand mistrusting the news. I do trust someone in the mess to get it right over the police because it’s not a top down authoritarian system like the police system. That someone might not be the news you read but if you’re just readin one news source, they are always going to get somethings wrong. There are no alternative sources for police. They have a monopoly on stats. Including the assumption and variables.

 

[Houseman]

Do they lie as bad as pretending that a killing was just a car accident? Can they get away with a ‘lie’ for 18 mths?

As bad? Probably worse.
Can they get away with it for 18 months? Probably longer.

Everyone on the planet probably believes a lie that the media told them years ago.

How many news departments have directly killed people?

Probably very few. But indirect deaths? Probably millions. Is that better or worse? You be the judge.

For example, I keep bringing up COINTELPRO that the media was complicit in. They helped spread the lie that certain groups were dangerous, and therefore, helped fuel racism.

 

[Trunkage]

For example, I keep bringing up COINTELPRO that the media was complicit in. They helped spread the lie that certain groups were dangerous, and therefore, helped fuel racism.

I keep bringing up the same thing to say how the US media was just a propaganda arm for the government, very similar to the Soviets. But apparently that’s a bad take. And just gotta say... that doesn’t make a government agency more truthful at all. Your points makes me believe the police less.

But, it also speaks to how much BETTER and truthful the US media is today. Don’t get me wrong, I still mistrust it. But as much as back then? No.

That being said, there is a difference between believing the government and toeing the line and committing the crimes. Like the Hunter Biden stuff sounds sketchy and sounds pretty nepotistic. The Trump and Ukraine stuff is definitely illegal. No amount the MSM agreeing with Trump or Biden is going to convince me. I don’t blame them for committing the crime. But there was plenty of evidence with both situations they glossed over.

You know, very similar to police brutality. They believed the FBI for years, who themselves was just believing police departments. They should not have. But it was the news who decided to collate the information themselves and proved that it was at least double what the FBI claimed. There has been haggling on the exact numbers for years but they are still around the news initial claim and no where near the FBI claims.

So, I do take the news with a grain... maybe more a teaspoon... of salt. I’m Also not going to pretend a government agency as being more truthful. You’ve already pointed out that they are not

 

[Houseman]

Let's say that these statistics are true, and you have a 1 in 4 chance of being brutalized by the police during a routine traffic stop.
If you run, you will have a 3/5ths chance of being brutalized. and 1/5th chance of getting killed, and a 1/5th chance of getting away safely.

Why take that chance? The best odds you have of escaping unscathed are if you comply.
Lo and behold, a majority of the videos we see where black men die by the hands of the police are when they resist arrest, including this case here.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Lo and behold, a majority of the videos we see where black men die by the hands of the police are when they resist arrest, including this case here.

Took awhile to finally say what you wanted to say, huh? "Resisting arrest gives cause for shooting" is a bold, and fucking stupid take to have in a case where police were caught lying on multiple occasions and on official forms/records.

 

[Houseman]

Took awhile to finally say what you wanted to say, huh? "Resisting arrest gives cause for shooting" is a bold, and fucking stupid take to have in a case where police were caught lying on multiple occasions and on official forms/records.

Read my post again, that is not what I said.

I will not respond further to these baseless accusations of yours.

 

[Gergar12]

I love how Biden can sign the 1990 crime bill, and work with segregationist Strom Thurmond, and had Trump done that people would be calling him a racist, but Biden who is deeply racist by his actions, his tone, and his congressional career can do whatever because he's got a D next to his name.