Jump to content

Police Reform


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I looked for a total number. @Jason Sitoke said by some sort of assault

 

 

edit: oops, sorry. I see this has been hashed out after this post. 

 

I think, whatever the accurate number is, both cops and people of color would do a lot to help their own causes by not stressing that they may be shot by each other since the instances of that - in either direction - are, as the bad-at-fractions guy pointed out, "vanishingly small."

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

  • Replies 896
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've always felt the police should be held to a higher standard of obeying the law, compared to the rest of the citizenry.   When in reality they're held to a much lower standard.

@Husker_Bohunk I would never answer if someone talked to me the way you’re talking to BRI. I’d find they aren’t worth talking to. You didn’t even attempt to approach this neutrally.

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Maybe it's just me, but I would suspect that it's reasonable to think that more people would be killed by cops than cops being killed in the line of duty.  There are just some very dangerous people and situations where that is a reasonable but unfortunate outcome.  So, I really don't think looking at the raw numbers and seeing that the cops have killed more people is a meaningful exercise without digging deeper.  

 

It really needs to be looked at specifically as to the situations the cops were in, what the person was doing and the danger to officers or public surrounding the situation before anything meaningful can be drawn from it.

Well said.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
32 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

You understand I'm not speaking about a ratio, right? I'm speaking about the number of officers killed. You cited a source, Devo cited a source, and they're wildly different.

 

Because there's only one answer to "How many police officers have been killed this year?"

 

I just got a total number. He got via assault of some time, as was stated in his original reply. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I feel like those "woke statements" wouldn't have generated such reactions if they did "absolutely nothing."

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What societal change has been accomplished that is directly attributed to Ben and Jerry’s coming out with corporate statements?  Link please.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I think, whatever the accurate number is, both cops and people of color would do a lot to help their own causes by not stressing that they may be shot by each other since the instances of that - in either direction - are, as the bad-at-fractions guy pointed out, "vanishingly small."

 

It certainly would not hurt

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I think, whatever the accurate number is, both cops and people of color would do a lot to help their own causes by not stressing that they may be shot by each other since the instances of that - in either direction - are, as the bad-at-fractions guy pointed out, "vanishingly small."

Agreed with the sentiment.  Not sure how many times officers are shot at statistically during traffic stops, but I guess 'vanishingly small' is subject to interpretation.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

What societal change has been accomplished that is directly attributed to Ben and Jerry’s coming out with corporate statements?  Link please.  

 

You mean like supporting Farm Aid to help America's family farmers?  

 

Or their support for the Children's Defense Fund, which lobbies congress on behalf of underprivileged children?

 

Or their voter registration drives during Free Cone Days?

 

Or their commitment to invest in renewable energy?

 

Or their partnership with Greenpeace to protest drilling in ANWR?

 

What about their development of chemical-free containers? 

 

Those are all pretty easy to find on the interwebs. They're a pretty socially conscious company. 

Link to post
32 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Seems like a Pretty s#!tty, borderline racist thing to say that people of color can’t afford that company’s ice cream and Implying that communities of color are primarily at or below the poverty line:blink: which is certainly not true. 
 

Maybe that wasn’t your intent but those communities deserve better than that language. 

 

In 2019, the share of Blacks in poverty was 1.8 times greater than their share among the general population. Blacks represented 13.2% of the total population in the United States, but 23.8% of the poverty population.

The share of Hispanics in poverty was 1.5 times more than their share in the general population.  Hispanics comprised 18.7% of the total population, but 28.1% of the population in poverty. 

 

My intent was clearly to point out the absurdity of your thought regarding an ice cream company's product doing more harm to communities of color than policy brutality. An asinine thought in and of itself. What's more if you'd do your research, the rate of diabetes and other nutrition based diseases is greatly increased in those who are living in impoverished communities, directly correlating your nonsense comment to the point I was making about impoverished people of color affording the product of the demon ice cream company you are suggesting has no right to exercise it's first amendment freedom of speech. 

 

Perhaps you should stick to making more coherent arguments rather than trying to "own the libs." 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

1 in 3.6 million is the low end?

1 in 20.1 million is the high end?

They flipped that around.

You're over-thinking this. Tweet meant 3.6 million is at the low end of stops and 20.1 million is the high end.

Link to post

4 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

In 2019, the share of Blacks in poverty was 1.8 times greater than their share among the general population. Blacks represented 13.2% of the total population in the United States, but 23.8% of the poverty population.

The share of Hispanics in poverty was 1.5 times more than their share in the general population.  Hispanics comprised 18.7% of the total population, but 28.1% of the population in poverty. 

 

My intent was clearly to point out the absurdity of your thought regarding an ice cream company's product doing more harm to communities of color than policy brutality. An asinine thought in and of itself. What's more if you'd do your research, the rate of diabetes and other nutrition based diseases is greatly increased in those who are living in impoverished communities, directly correlating your nonsense comment to the point I was making about impoverished people of color affording the product of the demon ice cream company you are suggesting has no right to exercise it's first amendment freedom of speech. 

 

Perhaps you should stick to making more coherent arguments rather than trying to "own the libs." 

 

 

https://clinical.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/3/130

The Disparate Impact of Diabetes on Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations

Racial and ethnic minorities, defined as American Indians and Alaska Natives, black or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders, have a higher prevalence and greater burden of diabetes compared to whites, and some minority groups also have higher rates of complications.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

https://clinical.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/3/130

The Disparate Impact of Diabetes on Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations

Racial and ethnic minorities, defined as American Indians and Alaska Natives, black or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders, have a higher prevalence and greater burden of diabetes compared to whites, and some minority groups also have higher rates of complications.

 

Now if we can just prove that Ben & Jerry's is the leading culprit of diabetes in racial/ethnic minorities, we can completely disregard their opinion on... whatever it was they contributed a few pages back. We've gone so far down this weird rabbit hole that I forget.  :D

  • Haha 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You're over-thinking this. Tweet meant 3.6 million is at the low end of stops and 20.1 million is the high end.

 

 

You're either underthinking it or it's a stupid tweet. No one cares what the total # of stops is when it comes to this. That isn't the topic of interest. It's the % that end in police getting killed. The low or high end % of killings is what's important. I think they that is what they were trying to say but flipped it around.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...