am curious about your experience, would you mind telling us a little bit about where and when you witnessed violence, and give a few details about how this pushed you to take self defence more seriously
Sure. Watched a man dragged out of his car and almost beat to death trying to get into our condo building in Chicago.
I watched building burning from my deck.
I watched mobs destroy the train station, loop and west loop.
Edit: thanks for sharing that. I wondered if it was not a good idea to ask you to relive old trauma. Just witnessing violence can have a long term effect on somebody and I’m sorry you had to carry that.
Ok. I see we are getting a little off topic here but you should know that when you say “summer of love” without context, that could be taken to mean 1967 when droves of hippies descended on San Francisco.
Anyway again, I’m sorry you had to witness that. It is a shame that so much anger and violence erupted after the brutal murder of George Floyd by registered republican police thug Derek Chauvin. The world needs less violence, not more.
Perhaps if more black folks had guns, then it would no longer be true that, according to the British Medical Journal,“Fatal police shootings of unarmed Black people in US more than 3 times as high as in Whites.” Maybe then such riots could be a thing of the past.
Thanks for posting this good read. This article makes a lot of sense.
" These statistics are consistent with excessive use of deadly force against Black people, due to a mathematical phenomenon called Simpson’s Paradox.
The key point is that not all encounters with police are equally deadly. In any given kind of encounter with the police, a Black person can be likelier to be killed than a white person even if the overall rate of deaths per encounter appears lower for Black people. This would happen because Black people have many more interactions with police in non-deadly situations — a dynamic exacerbated by racism. And all those extra encounters dilute the rate."
Again you didn’t read the article you posted. It agrees with the findings of JMA and contradicts your false claim. It seems reality disagrees with you again. I’m sorry. This must be difficult for you.
You didn’t read the second article. The second article explains fully why the first article is wrong. It’s called opposing views. Something you struggle with since you like echo chambers
Lol you didn’t post the second article until I pointed out your mistake. You sir, are sneaky and deceitful. But ok let’s look at this.
"But if you’re going to look at the rates that police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to adjust for the rate that black and white male teenagers put themselves at risk – not the rate that both male and female blacks and whites of all ages commit violent crime.
Among blacks, teenage crime is much more of a problem. Black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murders than similarly aged white males, not two to three times as likely."
What’s the logic here? Black boys are bad and do risky things, so it’s necessary for police to kill them?
And this claim that black boys are 9 times more likely to commit murder - well there’s a link for this possible racist propaganda but it only gives a 404 error - which means there’s no source for this claim. It sounds made up. But again, how is this relevant? Is it supposed to imply that those black boys are killers, killers I tells ya! So the cops gotta kill 'em first? But this doesn’t explain the large numbers of people killed while restrained and unable to defend themselves or pose any threat, or for those who were not apprehended for violent crimes but killed during a traffic stop, or minding their own damn business.
The whole thing reads like a blame the victim justification for systemic racism that continues to oppress, marginalize and invalidate the lives of black and indigenous people.
Still the claim about unarmed black people being 3 times more likely to be killed by police is not limited to teenage boys. It’s black people of all ages and genders. Breonna Taylor was in her home in pyjamas when police murdered her, and your " black male teens are so dangerous" piece doesn’t address that. So I don’t think your second article is convincing to anyone except maybe
other cops.
Anyway I’m not here to vilify the men and women working in law enforcement, (even though in my heart I feel ACAB) but there is a problem, and ignoring it or justifying it is not good for anybody.
What’s the logic here? Black boys are bad and do risky things, so it’s necessary for police to kill them?
It says a lot about you that you would come up with that statement from reading the article.
The whole thing reads like a blame-the-victim justification for systemic racism that continues to oppress, marginalize and invalidate the lives of black and indigenous people.
Not at all. You are not here to have a real conversation and you already have an agenda. If you were serious, you would know Lott defends black people in much of his research and not just make up claims of false racism because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Your basic claim while true is statistically incorrect and Lott explains why. There are plenty of other studies out there that explain why that number is false but liberals are not good at math and logic, so they keep repeating it.
They also repeat lies like he had his hands up when shot, which isn’t true at all based on evidence but liberals keep repeating it. Not sure why liberals are compulsive liars but they just love to repeat things that are false.
LIke they shot an unarmed black man! then you read the shooting details and find out the suspect was armed or was attempting to murder the officer.
Remember the shooting of Blake? The liberals kept stating blake was not armed when the officer said he was, blake said he was and the photo evidence said he was.
Sure. Watched a man dragged out of his car and almost beat to death trying to get into our condo building in Chicago.
I watched building burning from my deck.
I watched mobs destroy the train station, loop and west loop.
Fucking horrible man. Was that in 1967?
Edit: thanks for sharing that. I wondered if it was not a good idea to ask you to relive old trauma. Just witnessing violence can have a long term effect on somebody and I’m sorry you had to carry that.
That was in 2020.
Ok. I see we are getting a little off topic here but you should know that when you say “summer of love” without context, that could be taken to mean 1967 when droves of hippies descended on San Francisco.
Anyway again, I’m sorry you had to witness that. It is a shame that so much anger and violence erupted after the brutal murder of George Floyd by registered republican police thug Derek Chauvin. The world needs less violence, not more.
Perhaps if more black folks had guns, then it would no longer be true that, according to the British Medical Journal,“Fatal police shootings of unarmed Black people in US more than 3 times as high as in Whites.” Maybe then such riots could be a thing of the past.
Unarmed doesn’t mean they are not dangerous.
Also you should watch the real evidence of the trial. I doubt it’d change your mind but I did post the link to it. The media lied to you.
I agree the world needs less violence. Why I vote against democrats.
I was in law enforcement and the military. I’ve never seen anything more violent than a democrat.
Also you should be aware how statistics really break out. Based on crime data, blacks are less likely to be Killed than white people.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-truth-about-young-black-men-and-police-shootings.amp
Does anybody care that we are going ridiculously way off topic?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/
Thanks for posting this good read. This article makes a lot of sense.
" These statistics are consistent with excessive use of deadly force against Black people, due to a mathematical phenomenon called Simpson’s Paradox.
The key point is that not all encounters with police are equally deadly. In any given kind of encounter with the police, a Black person can be likelier to be killed than a white person even if the overall rate of deaths per encounter appears lower for Black people. This would happen because Black people have many more interactions with police in non-deadly situations — a dynamic exacerbated by racism. And all those extra encounters dilute the rate."
Again you didn’t read the article you posted. It agrees with the findings of JMA and contradicts your false claim. It seems reality disagrees with you again. I’m sorry. This must be difficult for you.
You didn’t read the second article. The second article explains fully why the first article is wrong. It’s called opposing views. Something you struggle with since you like echo chambers
Lol you didn’t post the second article until I pointed out your mistake. You sir, are sneaky and deceitful. But ok let’s look at this.
"But if you’re going to look at the rates that police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to adjust for the rate that black and white male teenagers put themselves at risk – not the rate that both male and female blacks and whites of all ages commit violent crime.
Among blacks, teenage crime is much more of a problem. Black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murders than similarly aged white males, not two to three times as likely."
What’s the logic here? Black boys are bad and do risky things, so it’s necessary for police to kill them?
And this claim that black boys are 9 times more likely to commit murder - well there’s a link for this possible racist propaganda but it only gives a 404 error - which means there’s no source for this claim. It sounds made up. But again, how is this relevant? Is it supposed to imply that those black boys are killers, killers I tells ya! So the cops gotta kill 'em first? But this doesn’t explain the large numbers of people killed while restrained and unable to defend themselves or pose any threat, or for those who were not apprehended for violent crimes but killed during a traffic stop, or minding their own damn business.
The whole thing reads like a blame the victim justification for systemic racism that continues to oppress, marginalize and invalidate the lives of black and indigenous people.
Still the claim about unarmed black people being 3 times more likely to be killed by police is not limited to teenage boys. It’s black people of all ages and genders. Breonna Taylor was in her home in pyjamas when police murdered her, and your " black male teens are so dangerous" piece doesn’t address that. So I don’t think your second article is convincing to anyone except maybe other cops.
Anyway I’m not here to vilify the men and women working in law enforcement, (even though in my heart I feel ACAB) but there is a problem, and ignoring it or justifying it is not good for anybody.
No, it was there. You just choose not to read it.
It says a lot about you that you would come up with that statement from reading the article.
Not at all. You are not here to have a real conversation and you already have an agenda. If you were serious, you would know Lott defends black people in much of his research and not just make up claims of false racism because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Your basic claim while true is statistically incorrect and Lott explains why. There are plenty of other studies out there that explain why that number is false but liberals are not good at math and logic, so they keep repeating it.
They also repeat lies like he had his hands up when shot, which isn’t true at all based on evidence but liberals keep repeating it. Not sure why liberals are compulsive liars but they just love to repeat things that are false.
LIke they shot an unarmed black man! then you read the shooting details and find out the suspect was armed or was attempting to murder the officer.
Remember the shooting of Blake? The liberals kept stating blake was not armed when the officer said he was, blake said he was and the photo evidence said he was.