I don't think it is. Often, police brutality arises due to the escalation of situations that did not require an armed response in the first place. This can be mitigated by utilizing trained social workers instead of police in these situations to provide the community assistance that an individual needs without resorting to force or violence. We just saw a black man killed last week after the cops were called on a him for sleeping in a Wendy's drive through. Does someone sleeping necessitate an armed response? Could this have been handled better and differently by individuals with a different goal and response tactic?

Additionally, many of these situations escalate due to a lack of trust for police. Especially when we are talking about black men, when an armed force with a history of killing and abusing black men responds to a minor incident, that often is an escalating factor before the confrontation even begins.

Further, I believe the benefit in a shift away from military tactics and gear should be plain to see, especially when looking at the protests from the last couple weeks. We know that meeting protestors with a militant force, using rubber bullets, tear gas, flashbangs and the ilk, escalates the conflict. If the police did not show up as a military force to "dominate" the protesters, I am confident that we would have seen a far different outcome in regards to police brutality.

But this extends past the protests. Research indicates that militarization doesn't improve police safety or reduce crime, but it does harm the reputation of police, which provides a significant hurdle to the community based policing which is important to reducing crime and reducing police brutality. It also infects the mindset of the police and implores them to develop a more militant understanding of their job. It becomes far more "us vs them", which can lead to an increase in the use of violence.

Sources:

Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation

"militarized 'special weapons and tactics' (SWAT) teams are more often deployed in communities of color, and—contrary to claims by police administrators—provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety or violent crime reduction, on average. However, survey experiments suggest that seeing militarized police in news reports erodes opinion toward law enforcement. Taken together, these findings suggest that curtailing militarized policing may be in the interest of both police and citizens."

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9181

Militarization and police violence: The case of the 1033 program

"We theorize that the receipt of military equipment increases multiple dimensions of LEA militarization (material, cultural, organizational, and operational) and that such increases lead to more violent behavior."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053168017712885

After watching the bodycam vid of Wendy's incident, I think the cops handled the situation fairly ok until the man suddenly went crazy. If anything,  they were too relaxed but that just tends to happen with routine stuff like this.

The difference is that police in Finland for example wouldn't have shot him when he's fleeing and already discharged the taser. But those cops did what I'd expect them to do in US. Seems to me US is overall admissible to guns and use of lethal force, and it reflects to police too. It's not healthy.. The whole mindset of how and when to use a firearm is different.

At least in some police departments. As far as I know, there are cities where police doesn't shoot people often and those departments do things more similarly to police here.

I don't see a reason why US police couldn't handle situations like these like police here does. Sending social workers, mental health professionals etc to respond may put them in danger. To me that idea is absurd and here they refuse to go before police if there's any possibility of threat. 

Also I don't think US cops do a shitty job as a whole. There's over 600 thousands officers making 10 million arrests a year and WHO knows how many responses. "Only" a quarter of them discharge a weapon on duty during their careers. I'm absolutely certain majority of them are good people doing their work professionally. 

That's why I think, in the end, it won't take that much to set things right about how they use force. Underlying issues in society like crime-rates, mental health problems, alchohol & drug abuse etc are another thing. I'm sure most cops would like to see these adressed as it would make their job easier and less risky. There's around 50 officers killed in gunfire a year which sounds insane. Plenty of things are fucked up in USA. And there seems to be hardly any constructive discussion going on imo.

you are the exact opposite of what we call a positive and constructive approach, you could have always said nicely that it's better I include/double check the source for every single figure from now on, and that's it, but you chose to make a pointless drama and accuse me of posting 'misinformation' and even making up figures, all because the figures do not help your views no matter what, whether it's 49 or 53%, and regardless of source

most Hispanics are included in white under the Race columns - they choose whichever race is closer because there is no Hispanic/Latino option to report in 'Race'... Race is one thing and Ethnicity is another, hence why they have separate columns for ethnicity... https://www.census.gov/mso/www/training/pdf/race-ethnicity-onepager.pdf

I am not off, I refer to white the same way as FBI does because that's the data I have, Hispanics are not my focus here hence over-complicating things is just pointless, my point is that black people commit significantly more murders and that's crystal clear regardless *it's not arrested, offender = found guilty

once again, the 1/3 of the unknowns is unresolved/still in trial cases and since the murder's race is largely independent of whether the crime is unresolved or still in trial, that means that the data closely follows the 10,000 sample we have already ( I agree with your previous points about black people having less access to good lawyers or being wrongly convicted etc but in no way it is enough to change the overall picture)

deny all you want, the numbers are real and they are out there, anyone can read them on the internet and make sensible conclusions, either on wikipedia, google images or FBI it doesn't matter

if you are not biased to the bone, despite your exaggerating, brutal approach, and you honestly believe that the figures are garbage, then our real difference is statistical knowledge and experience with reading and analyzing graphs/tables/figures

you are really good at pointing out factors that could affect data collection or explain the results, so I'll be still waiting for your brutal replies - in case you change your mind about the "And no, we can't discuss other things."  ^_^

I think this is a problem with our justice system. There is so little trust in both the police and the justice system as a whole. Like, it doesn't shock me that someone would try to run away from a cop. They are afraid, not just for their immediate situation, but for the fact that being put into the justice system can fuck your whole life. I don't think an arrest of someone who was sleeping in their car with a 0.1% BAC is a situation that requires putting someone in handcuffs and arresting them. This may be a personal philosophy thing, but I think if the individual was encountered by a social worker they would be able to actually provide the individual with positive resources to prevent similar actions in the future instead of just saying "We 'bout to ruin your life". In my opinion, the public would have been more safe in the absence of an armed response here.

And again, I just want to emphasize that I have no issue with individual cops as a whole. I believe that there are fundamental issues with the system which make abuses both inevitable and common. If we try to address this at an individual level, we will fail. That is why the changes that are being asked for seem so large. They are asking for broad, systemic changes which may seem a little scary at first, for the people who feel safe under what is essentially a military force patrolling our streets.

And this is what's frustrating... because you're still jumping to conclusions without the proper justification.

*it's not arrested, offender = found guilty. 

Offender can be used to describe those convicted. It can also be used to describe a defendant in a criminal case in legal proceedings. It may have a specific usage in law enforcement. Whatever the case may be, it's pretty clear that in this case it is not referring to convictions.

The FBI has a separate table that lists arrests.  There were 8,508 arrests for murder AND non-negligent manslaughter.  If we eliminate the unknown cases, then there are about 11,000 "offenders". I can't see how there would be 8,500 people arrested and 11,000 people found guilty (plus more still in trial), especially since the arrests also include crimes beyond murder (it seems like the murder table might as well, idk).  It just doesn't make sense. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43 The data I gave before was in fact based on arrests.

You are saying things that are not true.  You are spreading misinformation. Stop doing that.

once again, the 1/3 of the unknowns is unresolved/still in trial cases and since the murder's race is largely independent of whether the crime is unresolved or still in trial, that means that the data closely follows the 10,000 sample we have already

Where does it say that on the site?  Anywhere? 

In fact, the FBI provides a figure for what percentages of crimes are "cleared" meaning a person has been arrested, charged, and the case has been turned over to the police (not necessarily ending in convictions).  The clearance rate for murder as of 2015 was 61.5%.  This means that at least 38.5% were unresolved, and it's almost certainly not the case that all of the resolved cases already have concluded criminal proceedings and ended in convictions.  

So, the number of unknown crimes 31.2% can not mean the amount that are unresolved.  Because the FBI tells you how many were unresolved.  Which means we still don't know why the unknown data is unknown.  

You just... kind of decided what unknown meant in this chart. That's what we call making shit up.  Stop doing that.

 ( I agree with your previous points about black people having less access to good lawyers or being wrongly convicted etc but in no way it is enough to change the overall picture)

How can you possibly agree with me on something I don't believe?  At no point did I say that black have less access to good lawyers or are wrongfully convicted more frequently than white people. I said it's a potential explanation that's worth looking into.  But I have NOT done sufficient research to claim this IS the case, and so I haven't claimed it. It's also quite possible that white murderers tend to be poor and therefore would have similar access to legal help.

And not only did you conclude that black people have less access to good lawyers, but you also somehow concluded that this is not enough to significantly impact the data.  All of this without one ounce of research.  Amazing.

deny all you want, the numbers are real and they are out there, anyone can read them on the internet and make sensible conclusions, either on wikipedia, google images or FBI it doesn't matter

O_o... Yes, yes it does matter. Sources matter.   You still despite everything are insisting google images is a reliable source.  Basically any chart you find on the internet is true.

Unless 2014 was veeeeeeeery different from 2015 and black people were just going haam on whitey, at least one of these graphs found on google images are total bullshit.  

And here is what wikipedia says about wikipedia.

"Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself."

Wikipedia doesn't even think you can come to sensible conclusions based on wikipedia. They even warn you especially not to use wikipedia for data on contentious topics... you know like this one?

if you are not biased to the bone, despite your exaggerating, brutal approach, and you honestly believe that the figures are garbage, then our real difference is statistical knowledge and experience with reading and analyzing graphs/tables/figures

Someone who believes wikipedia and google image is a reliable source is claiming to have superior statistical knowledge.  That is simply fucking astounding.

Edit: Not going to address everything, and probably not going to reply further.  If at this point you still think wikipedia and google images are a good source of data, idk what more I can say.

I do know that, and some of it is common sense, such as the unknown race for unknown murderer



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/offender

2031 more offenders than arrests does not make the offenders data wrong, it could be due to 'murder and suicide', evidence of guilt but the murderer(s) disappeared or fled the country, murders in prisons...

why do you have to make things so complicated? I agreed with your point simply being a factor that affects the data we have, I have seen data supporting it before but I will not waste time posting sources on 'everybody knows' things such as white people being on average more wealthy

do I have to provide a source for every single sentence now? even common sense things? wouldn't that make the discussion impossible and too complicated/time consuming? if you disagree with a statement you can find your data to prove me wrong, asking me to research every single thing is just insane, and obviously you don't ask every single person in here for sources on every sentence, hence your bias

Trump's figure lol :P

I would never post something like that without verifying, cause most of all the 'whites killed by blacks' doesn't make sense, even if it's adjusted to population it should have said so, that is what you can call misinformation yes, by all means, or misleading at best, no one seems to know exactly where that came from btw

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/

it is rather sad how someone with Trump's careless attitude is president of the US, but sometimes I understand how it happened, people of extreme bias who want to see racism, they will see racism no matter what, and those who want to present others as bad people will find reasons to do so, but the real protest is done silently in the gallop box

I agree with some of them https://www.facebook.com/201956993160690/videos/292591268796378

racism does exist, but I don't think it's as bad as the media want it to be, even worse when it results in riots, violence, anarchy and more deaths - many being black people https://www.foxnews.com/us/deadly-unrest-people-have-died-amid-george-floyd-protests-across-us

the main topic should have been police brutality and not 'blacklivesmatter', cause the US police is killing people of all races, a lot of them

Someone who believes wikipedia and google image is a reliable source is claiming to have superior statistical knowledge.  That is simply fucking astounding.

Edit: Not going to address everything, and probably not going to reply further.  If at this point you still think wikipedia and google images are a good source of data, idk what more I can say.

WHAT!?

I understand what your skepticism, but google images and wikipedia are not sources of data but rather mediums of finding data fast, the actual data source is found under the figures or in links on wikipedia (U.S. Census Bureau, Pew Research Centre ....) which of course is always a good idea to check the actual data source like you posted the FBI links

that is true for the every medium that presents data online, like youtube, the medium through which one found the data does not mark the data as 'misinformation' or 'garbage' as you suggest, that is complete non-sense

your problem is not how I found the figures, but that they do not serve your views and that you cannot find counter data to prove them wrong

Since we are talking about Antifa and I think it is relevant to the first point you made, I'll post the message I sent to John a few days ago here. It may be a bit controversial because I was somewhat generous to the idea of libertarian communism, but my opinion is far from made up on this subject so I'd love to hear more opinions:

While Antifa is not exclusively communist, there are certainly a lot of individuals within Antifa who support communism. That said, they largely support a version of libertarian communism which is in itself a criticism of Leninism or other forms of authoritarian communism. While Leninism was all about state power and the centralization of government, which made it susceptible to abuse, libertarian communism is about decentralization of government and direct democracies providing power to the people. In many ways, this branch of libertarian communism is just as much a rebuttal of authoritarian communism, as authoritarian capitalism.

As far as I am aware, we have not yet seen this political philosophy in practice on a large modern scale so you cannot honestly describe evils done it its name, but even still, to refer to communism as evil due to historical injustices seems as nonsensical as referring to capitalism as evil due to historical injustices. I think you could make quite a strong case for the evils of capitalism, and the harm done its name. The institution of racial slavery as seen in America is an extension of capitalism, for example as are virtually every other labor abuse committed. The evil that sprouts forth from both communism and capitalism is often an extension of state power and the abuses of authoritarianism.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that your ire is misplaced. While I don't support communism personally, I believe these criticisms of communism as "evil" are largely the result of the same bogeyman formation as the fears regarding Antifa. Taking several steps away from pure capitalism towards democratic socialism, as many Antifa members support, would help alleviate many of the injustices they are fighting against, to an extent. While inequality will always be a consequence of capitalism, we can still do a lot to make a more just society even if we choose to remain under its banner.

your problem is not how I found the figures, but that they do not serve your views and that you cannot find counter data to prove them wrong

No... the problem is that you post things without knowing they're true, and then continue to do so even when this is demonstrated to you.

I'll just post two example because this is wasting too much time.

First off offenders=/= convictions.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/offender#:~:text=offender,See%3A%20defendant%2C%20accused)

It can be used for either defendants or convicted.  You don't know which.  

The number of murder cases where someone has been arrested and charged is 61.5.  So, the number of cases that have not ended in conviction is at least 38.5%.  I literally gave you this data a post ago.  The number of "unknown cases" is 31%.  These don't match up... Somehow after pointing that out, you're still insisting unknown=unresolved.  

Now, let's put all of this together.

The FBI figures show that 61.5% of murders lead to arrests, and the defendant being charged in court. (This 61.5% figure also includes cases where there is enough evidence for arrest and prosecution but the defendant could not be arrested due to extraordinary circumstances). Despite 38.5% of murder cases not leading to criminal charges, there are somehow 2,500 more convictions than there are arrests O_O!  

This is a garbage conclusion.  This is what happens when you have garbage data, you get garbage conclusions. 

If you're going to accuse me of bias, at this point I'm going to either have to ask for evidence or consider it trolling.  Show me examples of other people I've interacted with who have posted inaccurate statistics with no source that I've let slide.  

This conversation has been infinitely frustrating to watch.

As per the FBI:

" In the UCR Program, the term known offender does not imply that the suspect’s identity is known; rather, the term indicates that some aspect of the suspect was identified, thus distinguishing the suspect from an unknown offender. "

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/offenders

It actually applies to neither defendants nor convictions. It applies solely to information obtained by the police. This is obviously susceptible to biases and issues with eyewitness reports. This means the "unknowns" are generally when there is no information about a suspect.

That said, there is no question that black people commit far more crime than whites (including homicide) when controlling for population size (which you seem to be failing to account for in many posts). There is virtually no doubt about this fact in the scientific community. Even if you were to assume that every homicide where the police have no information regarding race was committed by a white person, and half of homicides with black suspects were misreported, you would still have the black population accounting for a disproportionate amount of homicides. Both of those assumptions are inherently ridiculous, but when you have to go beyond ridiculous to erase these racial disparities it is usually pretty safe to say that they are quite real.

I agree with you on most points here J, but you are getting so bogged down in pedantic retorts that I feel you are losing the forest for the trees. There is a lot to talk about regarding the original point, but focusing so heavily on a bad stat used to prove something that is clearly true, prevents any of that discussion from happening.

At no point did I say that black people did not commit crimes commit crimes at a rate that is disproportionate rate to their population size..

However, if you want to say that "it must be the case" that racism is caused by the murder rate, as was done, then you need to actually know what the murder rate is, and how other indicators of racism vary along with it.  In that context a ten percent difference can be very significant.  

If you want to draw a conclusion, being able to collect data is step one.  If you're not getting your data from proper sources, and don't see the problem with that, or if you're claiming the data shows something which it does not show instead of actually checking its methodology, that's a problem.  If you haven't gotten step 1 right, then you can't move on.

Admittedly I probably should have just quit trying a while ago.  I can be stubborn sometimes. So if you think there's something worth discussing, you can go for it. I'm out.