Thank heavens some common sense at last. And thank heavens a passerby videoed it.

Here is a quote from a governor that is so true:

 Earlier on Friday, Minnesota Governor Tim Walzsaid in an emotional news conference that the unrest that has destabilised Minneapolis and St. Paul this week is the result of 'generations of pain, of anguish' over racism in policing.

 "Their voices went unheard, and now generations of pain is manifesting itself in front of the world," Walz said. "And the world is watching."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/300024355/minneapolis-cop-who-knelt-on-george-floyd-charged-with-3rddegree-murder

KiwiMum wrote:  "Their voices went unheard, and now generations of pain is manifesting itself in front of the world," Walz said. "And the world is watching."

If you go unheard long enough, most people start shouting.  Political movements do too.

This made me think about the stunt Mike Pence pulled in Indianapolis, when he made scene about leaving a pro football game after the players took a knee. 

Of course it's unacceptable! That's why it's only used as a last resort.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in the category of being heartbroken and horrified that this is happening.  But I have to note that peaceful protest has done nothing.  I don't support communism, but Lenin may have had something when he said (paraphrased) there is no change without revolution.

That being said, I am watching Minnesota Governor Waltz. It is clear to me he is very much out of touch with what is actually happening in Minnesota and the legitimate frustration of every single person of color in the United States.

If there is ANYTHING good coming out of this Pandemic it is showing us the dark underbelly of the United States and showing us how deeply ingrained the frustration is of the poor and people of color.

Until we all get on the same page the country will continue to burn with outrage, frustration and Covid19. 

Pixie wrote:

Who is DC...someone who desperately and definitely needs a different career!!!   That's a horrifying record/resume' to me - sorry, but truly horrifying this person has a badge on!

They tried taking a knee and nobody listened. Instead it was turned around and rebranded as a mark of disrespect to the military by someone who couldn’t have tried harder to avoid being in uniform - the same man who told police not to be so nice to suspects.

I’m not condoning the violence and loss of property, but after decades of systematic killings of black men and women by white police officers - and society turning a blind eye to it’s prevalence - it was inevitable that the boiling point would be reached. They have everyone’s attention now though, don’t they?

jacksdad wrote: They tried taking a knee and nobody listened. Instead it was turned around and rebranded as a mark of disrespect to the military by someone who couldn’t have tried harder to avoid being in uniform - the same man who told police not to be so nice to suspects. I’m not condoning the violence and loss of property, but after decades of systematic killings of black men and women by white police officers - and society turning a blind eye to it’s prevalence - it was inevitable that the boiling point would be reached. They have everyone’s attention now though, don’t they?

 

I think this puts it all in perspective as to what is systematic and where the problems lie.

If you’ve watched the debates between the Democratic presidential candidates, you’ve seen a common thread among the candidates – their anti-police rhetoric.

It’s reminiscent of the Obama years.

Take, for example, the criminal justice plan by Joe Biden, which promises that after he passes his policing reforms, black mothers and fathers will no longer have to fear when their children “walk[] the streets of America”.

According to him, that threat comes from cops, not gangbangers.

You may remember when President Barack Obama claimed during the memorial for five Dallas police officers killed by a Black Lives Matter–inspired assassin in July 2016 that black parents were right to fear that their child could be killed by a police officer whenever he “walks out the door.”

South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has showed his disdain for law enforcement, arguing that police shootings of black men won’t be solved “until we move policing out from the shadow of systemic racism.”

Then there’s Beto O’Rourke, who claims that the police shoot blacks “solely based on the color of their skin.”

But a new study that was just dropped in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences absolutely destroys the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings. It completely rejects the argument that white officers are engaged in an epidemic of racially biased shootings of black men.

Turns out, according to the study, that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians.

And as we’ve long known, it reinforces the fact that it is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer.

Here’s what it comes down to – the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects – no matter what that racial group is – the greater the chances that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer.

It gets even more interesting.  The study found if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians.

The authors are faculty at Michigan State University and the University of Maryland at College Park. They completed the study by creating a database of 917 officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 from more than 650 police departments.

When examining those shootings, 55 percent of the victims were white, 27 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic.

Between 90 and 95 percent of the civilians shot by officers in 2015 were attacking police or other citizens and 90 percent were armed with a weapon.

There were very rare cases of what’s called threat-misperception shootings, in which an officer shoots an unarmed civilian after mistaking something for a gun.

It’s not the first study to shoot down the idea that white officers are biased in shooting black citizens.

There’s also a shift underway right now thanks to political pressure for police departments to hire on race, based on the theory that doing so will decrease police shootings of minorities.

Buttigieg, for example, was attacked by his presidential rivals for not having more black officers on the South Bend force after a white officer killed a black suspect this June.

In that case, the officer had responded to a 911 call about a possible car-theft suspect, saw a man leaning into a car, and shot off two rounds after the man threatened him with a knife.

Back in 2016, the Obama administration pushed for police departments to lower their entry standards in order to be able to qualify more minorities for recruitment.

By that point, departments had already been deemphasizing written exams or eliminating requirements that recruits have a clean criminal record – it’s a trend that significantly intensified after.

Take, for example, the Baltimore Police Department.

They actually changed their exam to such an extent that the director of legal instruction in the Baltimore Police Academy complained in 2018.  He said rookie officers were being let out onto the street with little understanding of the law.

Biden’s criminal-justice plan would take that a step further.  It would require police hiring to “mirror the racial diversity” of the local community or not get federal funding.

The PNAS study concluded that this effort to increase minority representation will not reduce racial disparities in shootings.  Why? Because it found white officers are not responsible for those disparities; black crime rates are.

To make matters worse, dropping hiring standards can lead to bad police work and corruption.

Just look at the 2015 Justice Department study of the Philadelphia Police Department.

It found black officers were 67 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect.

It also found that Hispanic officers were 145 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect.

The study didn’t address whether lowered hiring standards are responsible for those disparities.

So what’s causing the belief that we’re living through an epidemic of racially biased police shootings?

Simple – selective reporting.

Look at the year the PNAS study focused on – 2015.

That was the same year the white victims of fatal police shootings included a 50-year-old suspect in a domestic assault in Tuscaloosa, Ala., who ran at the officer with a spoon; a 28-year-old driver in Des Moines, Iowa, who exited his car and walked quickly toward an officer after a car chase; and a 21-year-old suspect in a grocery-store robbery in Akron, Ohio, who had escaped on a bike and who did not remove his hand from his waistband when ordered to do so.

Because they were white, their stories never hit the mainstream media – which tends to focus only on stories that they can spin to be race-centric.

This whole idea that “police are racists” is simply increasing anti-cop tensions in minority communities. It also makes cops unwilling to engage in the proactive policing that can save lives.

Just look at the viral videos last month in Harlem, the Bronx, and Brooklyn as people assaulted passive New York Police Department officers.  The videos demonstrate that hostility toward the police in inner-city neighborhoods remains at dangerous levels.

It also pulls away from discussing real solutions to criminal justice problems, which includes high rates of black-on-black victimization.

Black men are murdered at eight times the rate of non-Hispanic white men.

But they aren’t being killed by cops – they are being killed by other black men.

If we’re going to really have a conversation about racial justice, we need to start there.

Let’s talk about police use of force.  It’s time to systematically destroy the argument that cops are racist killers.  And I’ll break this down pretty simply so everyone can understand.

• The U.S. population is about 314,000,000 people.
• There are approximately 670,439 police officers.
• That means there are less than 2.2 police officers per 1,000, or 2,133 officers per million.
• Police officers are less than .22 % of population.
• Officers come into contact with 17% of the population annually.
• That means 53,380,000 contacts …
• Which led to 26,000 excessive force complaints against officers.
• That’s 0.049% of contacts.
• Only 8% of those complaints were sustained.
• That’s 2,080 out of 53,380,000 contacts, or .0039%

A good friend of mine who is a Chief of Police put that into perspective:

• You are seven times more likely to be murdered …
• 15 times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident …
• 42 times more likely to be raped …

… than to have a police officer use excessive force on you.

 But we’re just warming up.  Let’s look at 2015 police shootings – a time during which some argue police “brutality” spiked.

990 people were shot by police in 2015.  Here’s the demographic breakdown of those “victims”:

• White — 494, 50%
• Black — 258, 26%
• Hispanic – 172, 17%
• Other — 66, 7%

Of those:

• Mental illness played a role in 25%.
• 25% involved fleeing suspects.
• In 75% of the incidents, the officer was under attack or defending someone that was.
• Indictments of police officers tripled from previous years.

Listen.  I’m not suggesting racism doesn’t exist in law enforcement.  It exists everywhere – that’s the sad truth of it.

And yes, black people in the United States are more likely to be victims of violent confrontations with police officers (per capita) than their white counterparts. 
But let’s dive deeper into why this is.

Statistically, minorities come to police attention far more than their population would suggest.

• Black Americans make up about 13% of the population.
• But according to the FBI, they account for about 50% of murders, and about 38% of all violent crime overall.

Chicago gives us some great examples.  And let’s not forget the insanely strict gun laws there, by the way.  For example, during the first eight months of 2016 (the most recent period for which the numbers are available), 2,818 people were shot — only 12 by police. (That’s one-half of 1 percent).

In cities with large black populations, homicide rates have skyrocketed during that same period:

• In Washington D.C., homicides are up 54%. In Cleveland, up 90%. Overall, homicide is up 17%.
• The U.S. Department of Justice says that Black people make up 15% of the population in the 75 largest counties in the United States, yet account for 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders, 45% of all assaults.

So what’s going on here?  Are we confusing the color of one’s skin with poverty or inequality? It’s a fair argument. Black people tend to be greater offenders, statistically speaking, because they tend to be more disadvantaged, living in poorer urban areas with less access to public services.

Then of course there’s the argument about the “violent subculture theory.” This is the idea that some black communities have developed cultural values that are more tolerant of crime and violence.

I want to leave you with a few recent studies.

First, a 2016 study by Roland G. Fryer Jr., who is an economics professor at Harvard. He found that no racial bias could be detected in police shootings, in either the raw data or when accounting for controls.  He also found racial bias was detected in lesser use of police force, but not deadly encounters.  His recommendation?

“Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces.”

Second, there were 6,095 black homicide deaths in 2014 according to FBI Data — the most recent year for which such data are available — compared with 5,397 homicide deaths for whites and Hispanics combined. Almost all of those black homicide victims had black killers.

Finally, police officers — of all races — are also disproportionately endangered by black assailants. Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.

Seems to me like the real problem here is socioeconomic disparities along with a public perception issue thanks to biased reporting.  And let’s not forget the huge role that social media plays in disseminating false narratives and creating emotional, knee-jerk reactions.

It’s important to have very real conversations about racism in America and accountability among those who hold the thin blue line.  Let’s just make sure we’re basing those conversations on facts and not feelings.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/study-destroys-argument-that-white-cops-are-shooting-black-men/

And here is the Sun Times site on homicides in Chicago go ahead and have a look and see who's being killed and remember while you look remember that blacks make up 29% of the population of Chicago.

https://graphics.suntimes.com/homicides/

Where are the protest's and riots for all these needless black deaths? You'r right it is systematic but to do something to change it would require accountability by the black community for it. Change starts from within.

OK. I confess; I did not read all of it.  I got to line 4 and found I agreed with Biden.  Figures for cops in general aside, and some of them are impressive I agree, IN THIS INSTANCE not only was it clearly murder, caught on camera, but it was not this specific cop's first time, not even his second.  Yet it took an inarguable video before the whole syustem took any notice at all.  He and his cohorts were not even suspended until the video came out. 

That one instance would be simply impossible in a fair system.

Again in line 7, I agree with O Rourke.  This one did FOR CERTAIN!  Nothing happens until there is indesputable evidence, but there was no handy cameraman the previous times.

Line 11 says it all.  That was the last bit I read.  That is the very definition of racism: JUDGING SOMEONE BY THEIR PHYSICAL FORM!   Even if they have had problems with someone of color in the past, THAT IS RACIAL STEREOTYPING.  IT IS RACISM.

There might be far better arguments further down in the article, but the utter failure to grasp the very definition of racism rendered the rest suspect in my eyes.  So I gave up. 

Sorry!

The problem with America....

No Free health care,

No Free schooling.

No good social security system.....

You either pay for folks to help them ,

get  good Food, Health,Education so they can get a job and be part of society....

Or you pay to lock them up when they commit crimes to pay for what they want......

Reap what you sow......

Start looking After your Own Citizens...

Not hard........

Technophobe wrote: Why on Earth was this 'licensed mobster' allowed to keep working up to now?

Blue entitlement.  

Thank you, Witchy!  

I am as succeptable to the circular argument as anyone, but wave statistics in front of my nose and the errors just LEAP out.  

I admit it, I was brainwashed.  - I was blessed with the best science teacher ever!  You can blind me with political bias, emotional pressure or even simple agression.  But mention a science subject and the clarity returns.

WitchMisspelled wrote: AI wrote: Of course you gave up, can't have facts interfering with your narrative. And that is part of the problem looking at only a piece of the problem, instead of the problem as a whole. Politicize this all you want, AI.  That's on you and yours.  It doesn't interfere with any narrative except the one you evidently support.  But then... That's what you do.  Spam people with facts taken out of context and try to force people into a circular arguments.   Not this time bud.   Techno, ignore the spam post of AI's.  It's selective information geared to make you think one thing instead of thinking it through.

Yeah don't look at the facts or figures whether they come from the FBI or DOJ, run on feelings and emotions when considering the problem. If it doesn't fit your narrative dismiss it out of hand. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of cities experiencing these rioting problems are democrat states and cities. Why is that? But you already knew that didn't you. 

AI 

how many non white people do you have as friends? 

Do you have any Gay friends? 

Do you have any friends?.....

It is not a question of my narrative, but the way group narrative affects the collection of statistics.  Sorry you can't see that.

I will make another attempt to explain.  I will try harder to put my point more simply.

If I am a police officer who thinks "black people are more prone to crime" and I work in a precinct where this is the majority opinion, it will affect my policing.  If I hear of a murder, for instance, I will look for a black suspect.  My time is valuable, many crimes, few police.  If I find some evidence (even if flimsy or circumstantial) incriminating a black man, I might look no further, even if there was far more solid evidence that a white man did it, just waiting to be found.

I arrest the man and drag him in front of the judge and jury.  Being poorer than a member of the white community, he is more likely to have to rely on the public defender.  If the judge shares my prejudice, the poor man stands no chance of an acquittal.

Now we already have a skewed statistic.  If that statistic and its cousins are then collected by the police and published in a police journal, by the very people who started out biased, the resultant figures are suspect.

All this is shown in stark relief if you look at this latest case.  There is clearly a bias toward ignoring a crime comitted by a policeman.  Had irrefutable proof not emerged, this cop's brutality would have continued unabaited.

There is an instinctive tendancy for people to want to be seen in a good light.  Police are no exception to this.  Statistics published by policemen will attempt to make policemen look better.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Not the police themselves, obviously. Possibly the FBI. So I read their figures instead.

Technophobe wrote: It is not a question of my narrative, but the way group narrative affects the collection of statistics.  Sorry you can't see that. I will make another attempt to explain.  I will try harder to put my point more simply. If I am a police officer who thinks "black people are more prone to crime" and I work in a precinct where this is the majority opinion, it will affect my policing.  If I hear of a murder, for instance, I will look for a black suspect.  My time is valuable, many crimes, few police.  If I find some evidence (even if flimsy or circumstantial) incriminating a black man, I might look no further, even if there was far more solid evidence that a white man did it, just waiting to be found. I arrest the man and drag him in front of the judge and jury.  Being poorer than a member of the white community, he is more likely to have to rely on the public defender.  If the judge shares my prejudice, the poor man stands no chance of an acquittal. Now we already have a skewed statistic.  If that statistic and its cousins are then collected by the police and published in a police journal, by the very people who started out biased, the resultant figures are suspect. All this is shown in stark relief if you look at this latest case.  There is clearly a bias toward ignoring a crime comitted by a policeman.  Had irrefutable proof not emerged, this cop's brutality would have continued unabaited. There is an instinctive tendancy for people to want to be seen in a good light.  Police are no exception to this.  Statistics published by policemen will attempt to make policemen look better.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Not the police themselves, obviously. Possibly the FBI. So I read their figures instead.

Well the DOJ and FBI put out annual crime statistics 

Technophobe wrote: Most black murders were comitted by black offenders.  Most white murders were comitted by white offenders.  All that proves is that the two communities don't mix.  Factoring in the racial demographics of the USA as a whole, there are more per-capita murders by black men.  But that is both explainable by socio-economic drives, the mental effects of socio-economic stress and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, no excuse for racial profiling affecting prosecution rates, which it clearly has in the case of this police officer.

Actually that is one part I disagreed with in the article. Blacks make up 13.6% of the US population, whites make up 72% per the 2010 census. The socio-economic drives and the mental effects of socio-economic stress that you claim is explainable clearly isn't when the both the crime rate and poverty rate are compared between that of the two. If what you say it true then, there would be an increased rate of crime reflected in the crime data by whites. Simply put there are more poor whites than poor blacks because there are more whites in America overall. The information clearly doesn't correlate with your assumptions. And even if racial profiling is accountable for a 10% increase of cases( which would be a stretch) there is still clearly a very high and disproportionate number represented.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?dataView=1&currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

Have a look for yourself. So then how would you explain it without assuming socio-economic factors as a base cause for the increased crime rate?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-doj-police-reform-minneapolis-protests_n_5ed11aa0c5b6228cdfe1b4cf

05/30/2020 06:57 pm ET

Trump Justice Department Killed Police Reform Programs That Could Have Helped Minneapolis

Instead of helping cities change police practices, the Justice Department is threatening to turn federal resources on protesters.

Excerpt.....

Since President Donald Trump took office, his appointees at the Justice Department have all but eliminated the federal government’s police reform work. The Civil Rights Division’s police practices group has shrunk by half, and it hasn’t opened any major pattern-or-practice investigations that could rein in police departments that regularly violate constitutional rights. 

The Trump administration effectively killed a collaborative reform initiative created by DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services that allowed cities to voluntarily implement reform, a move that left the local officials who had partnered with DOJ feeling abandoned.

Under Attorney General William Barr and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions before him, the Trump Justice Department has subscribed to a “bad apples” view of policing that dismisses systemic problems in local police departments that make unconstitutional policing routine. Sessions rolled back police reform even though he conceded he hadn’t actually read any of the DOJ police department investigations he described as “anecdotal.” Barr recently said that communities that don’t show more respect for law enforcement “might find themselves without the police protection they need.”

carbon20 wrote: In 2010, adult black non-Hispanic males were incarcerated at the rate of 4,347 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents. Adult white males were incarcerated at the rate of 678 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents.

Occams razor highly suggests that the most probable and likely answer is "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". 

Technophobe wrote: It is not a question of my narrative, but the way group narrative affects the collection of statistics.  Sorry you can't see that. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Not the police themselves, obviously. Possibly the FBI.   So I read their figures instead.

AI wrote: Well the DOJ and FBI put out annual crime statistics.

Didn't I just say I read the FBI ones?  The DOJ falls under the approbation I  have been attempting to explain.  Now who does not read anything which disagrees with their preferred narrative?

If you quote me, please do it without adding an underscore, or anything else for that matter, unless you clearly state you have added it.  The Second half of that sentence was the bit I wished to stress.

Witchy hit the nail on the head again : 

WitchMisspelled wrote: Apples and Oranges

 Yes, I make assumptions, I can see that.  So do you.  Can you see them?

I'm sorry, Witchy.  That statement was not aimed at you; I was agreeing with you!

Technophobe wrote: I'm sorry, Witchy.  That statement was not aimed at you; I was agreeing with you!

No need to apologize.  I know it was not aimed at me.  I was just.. how shall we say... highlighting.