Current Affairs George Floyd and Minneapolis Unrest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Them police who resigned in solidarity with their colleagues who got suspended. See it’s the problem these types of jobs attract the worst types of people. off course there’s many who just wanna do good and help people. But unfortunately they either are pricks that love the idea of the power of the badge that’s the main drive for them to start a career in it or were normal but got corrupted with the power.

To summarise you can’t just say there’s always going to be one or two bad apples. Ye just have to accept that. It’s not the case at all.
The language used is quite telling isn't it:

Murder someone in broad daylight in front of others while being filmed but do it in uniform = bad apple

Throw a brick through a window during a protest = scum/vermin/thug.
 
Much like 'defund the WHO' it's a bit daft. Reform don't defund.
Exactly. I've been reading into the movement and the rhetoric of improving services such as mental health, social workers and community liaison is good.

Nevertheless, I can't help but feel that it's misguided to believe that this alone, or at least any time soon, will deal with crime that unfortunately occurs.
 
Yes, I read their reply and remain unconvinced by their analysis. We can all quote mine (which is what I suspect you are doing) but you need to put their whole analysis under scrutinty, and when you do, it is not a robust one. For example, they didn't make a convincing response Schimmack and Carlsson either. I'm sorry this doesn't agree with what you are trying to suggest.

And again, this paper only addresses police shootings in 2015 not other use-of-force killings that are widely documented (Freddie Gray, George Floyd, Eric Garner).

And again: they are simply wrong, as shown convincingly here: https://replicationindex.com/2019/1...vilians-a-coding-error-in-johnson-et-al-2019/
And here: https://replicationindex.files.word...ce.shootings.commentary.500.word_.version.pdf

Since you like to quote mine, I'll make it easy for you: In 2019, Johnson, Tress, Burke, Taylor, and Cesario published an article on racial disparities in fatal shootings by police officers in PNAS (2). Their publication became the topic of a heated exchange in the Oversight Hearing on Policing Practices in the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 19, 2019. Heather Mac Donald cited the article as evidence that there is no racial disparity in fatal police shootings. Based on the article, she also claimed “In fact, black civilians are shot less, compared with whites, than their rates of violent crime would predict” (3). Immediately after her testimony, Phillip Atiba Goff challenged her claims and pointed out that the article had been criticized (4). In a rebuttal, Heather MacDonald cited Johnson from the authors response that the authors stand by their finding (5). Here we show that the authors’ conclusions are based on a statistical error in their analyses.



It is widely known that PNAS "direct submissions" are not always peer-reviewed. This is stated on their website. The authors do not thank anonymous reviewers as is standard practice. Also, the article sat on the psyarchiv preprint server where it garnered feedback from Knox and Mummulo, but their critique wasn't corrected in the final publication suggesting that it wasn't sent out for peer-review. You can email the lead author, Johnson, and ask him if his paper was sent out for anonymous peer review.




Nope. The central issue is that if you are involved in a use-of-force arrest are you more likely to die because of the color of your skin? That black people commit more violent crimes (as you love to point out) is thus figured into the studies on racial bias. If more black people commit crimes, then they are more likely to be arrested (i.e., arrest rates are higher) and then--and this is the central issue--are black people, when arrested, more likely to die at the hands of police than non-blacks. The answer is yes, and this is documented in numerous studies, which...erm, uh, I shouldn't have to point out to you because you apparently read the peer-reviewed literature (<--though no one, including you, actually believes that).

OK. Excellent post. I appreciate you trying to engage in disputing the information rather than making solely personal attacks. But then the sly dig at the end was unnecessary. But whatever.

Replicationindex argue:

We argue that it is necessary to include population proportions in the model. After all, there are many counties in the dataset with predominantly White populations and no shootings of Black civilians. This is not surprising. For officers to encounter and fatally shoot a Black resident, there have to be Black civilians. To ignore the demographics would be a classic statistical mistake that can lead to false conclusion.


However it’s already argued in the original article that the population proportion benchmark is a flawed argument, simply because it’s a “strong assumption that White and Black civilians have equal exposure to situations that result in FOIS”.


Somethings have been expanded upon here: https://theconversation.com/our-database-of-police-officers-who-shoot-citizens-reveals-who-shot-citizens-119623

It’s interesting but not surprising that they find a correlation between police shootings and violent crime areas. And at the county level:

Table1.webp


In regards to other studies, I have yet to read any studies that have concrete evidence of police bias and most of these studies need more information to why certain people died. I think everyone has to admit that it's very difficult to come to any firm conclusions. There need to be more information available.
 
Regards the whole defunding police shouts, is that really wise?

Doesn't it make it harder for the police to actually go after real crime? Is that beneficial?

It’s a terrible idea, especially as no one has any idea what they are going to replace it with and of course the notion that the money cut from the police is going to go to “the community” instead is close to zero. All it will probably end up doing is further removing the one functional bit of the state from some places.

If they’d rather instead called for an end to private prisons / insecurity of tenure for cops whilst removing some of the legal craziness that abounds over there (both of which make appalling behaviour much more likely) then it would be a lot more sensible.
 
Exactly. I've been reading into the movement and the rhetoric of improving services such as mental health, social workers and community liaison is good.

Nevertheless, I can't help but feel that it's misguided to believe that this alone, or at least any time soon, will deal with crime that unfortunately occurs.
From what I've seen, there are people calling for 'dialogue' and pushing out clichés like 'a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the cart', simultaneously trying to portray anything anyone on the left or anyone black for that matter as speaking on behalf of every black person.
 
this is the most libertarian way of saying “ i am not racist because i have black friends “ that i have ever seen. quite impressive.

Let’s see.

I get a labeled a right wing supporter/surfer of Candice Owens. A woman who is black. And verreauxi said “That’s a new one”.

I said “I don’t see why people connect politics to sport”. Just because I surf shouldn’t mean I have a certain political ideology. I find that prejudice weird.

Yeah, I did meet a vegan yoga instructor in Bulgaria. And the guy was the biggest Conservative you could ever meet. People assumed he was the total opposite in his political views on first appearances.

How you’ve managed to twist this into a correlation of “I have black friends I’m not racist” is actually not impressive at all, just another snide comment to indirectly imply I am racist. Which is tiresome.

Just because one subscribes to the view that the UK and USA are not Institutionally racist countries, does not make them racist. It also does not make them a Conservative.

Just because someone is a Conservative does not mean they are racist.

It’s this type of narrative that has divided the UK and USA, and also divided the left.
 
Which should all happen.

But that does not solve the immediate problem of lives being lost and knives in the streets.

I'm aware of the problem in London. I live here and I've personally seen a few incidents with knives (quite unlucky I think).

Deploying more community based officers to get to know locals would make an immediate impact on the issue. As would an injection of funding as outlined above.

You can't just keep racially profiling people, as the vast majority of people who are stopped are innocent.

Innocent BAME people who are repeatedly stopped because of their skin colour. It isn't right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top