Two NYPD Officers Dead After Execution-Style Ambush

[Turtle]

That's kinda, sorta how it is - but if one wants to dig through the facts and the stats (which are admittedly incomplete) it's obvious that blacks and browns aren't nearly so oppressed and victimized by law enforcement as Al, Jessie, Obama and the usual race mongers would have us believe. (bold emphasis mine)

I don't think there is any question that blacks are more targeted and more readily suspected of something or another by cops than are whites. The stats show it, the overwhelming anecdotal evidence supports it, and even cops have admitted it. I thinks it's a lot worse than a lot of whites believe, but I agree with you in that it's not nearly as bad as Al and Co make it out to be. Having said that, police shouldn't be targeting black people at all. But that's more or less a pipe dream, because whether you're a cop or a citizen, white people are afraid of black people. And cops, black or white, are afraid of black people, especially if they're big and black. Shouldn't be, but that's the perception. Just like the perception that white cops routinely kill unarmed black people. They don't, and it shouldn't ever happen, but that's the perception.

One critical thing that I didn't see (or may have missed) is the number of deaths during arrest that occurred while the victim was resisting arrest. However it was noted that "Among arrest-related deaths attributed to homicide, 75% of decedents allegedly engaged in violent offenses (table 14)"

Still, resisting arrest shouldn't result in an immediate death sentence. And "I feared for my life" doesn't cut it in most cases, because (A) that fear is mostly irrational to begin with, and (B) that fear can often escalate things (every little movement and facial expression in wrongly interpreted as a threat) to the point where an actual self defense situation does occur but wouldn't have had it not been escalated.

 

[cheri1122]

Quite frankly I'm talking about other truckers.

As Turtle says, leave the CB off. One on one, other truckers will treat you the same as anyone else: some are great, others, not so much, but I've not noticed any particular animus towards black people at truck stops.
And when the DOT seems to assume you've broken some rule, [they just need to find out which one], it's not because you're black, it's what they do to white drivers, too.

 

[skyraider]

Is it Christmas yet?

 

[muttly]

I would venture to say that most fleeing criminals are armed in someway.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape AND the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The key fact with officers using deadly force on an armed or unarmed suspect is whether they believed a suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily harm to them or the public.
An officer can't legally shoot an unarmed non dangerous suspect who decides to flee. There has to be other circumstances also involved to justify it. Outrage in the public occurs because the suspect is killed and didn't possess a 'weapon' .Some assume that they couldn't possibly pose any threat to the officer. There can still be a perceived threat by the officer though because unarmed incidents can consist of physically assaulting an officer with their bare hands,trying to grab an officer's gun, a fake gun that looks real, and using an automobile to endanger them, among other examples.

 

[Moot]

I'm asking for example, if I'm a trucker, obtained my CDL, background check complete and passed, dtug test complete and passed. I'm sitting at a truck stop whether I'm an expediter or a long haul driver, will I be put into the same category as a killer, robber, rapist, etc? For the color of my skin?

You will be put in the category of truck driver; just under killer but slightly above child molester/killer.

 

[golfournut]

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape AND the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The key fact with officers using deadly force on an armed or unarmed suspect is whether they believed a suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily harm to them or the public.
An officer can't legally shoot an unarmed non dangerous suspect who decides to flee. There has to be other circumstances also involved to justify it. Outrage in the public occurs because the suspect is killed and didn't possess a 'weapon' .Some assume that they couldn't possibly pose any threat to the officer. There can still be a perceived threat by the officer though because unarmed incidents can consist of physically assaulting an officer with their bare hands,trying to grab an officer's gun, a fake gun that looks real, and using an automobile to endanger them, among other examples.

So it's all about the officers perception. Not yours, mine or anyone elses standing by. The officer has to be given the benefit of doubt in order for them to discharge their duties day in and day out and return home at the end of the day.
If an officers start hesitating action because of fear of prosecution, then more cops are going to get killed as well as more of the general public.

I cannot find anything anywhere of any injury or death to a citizen by a police officer that follows the officers instructions. Like it or not, at that moment in time, do as instructed. If a person is unwilling to do that, then be prepared for the worst of consequences. At that moment in time you have been deemed combative and resisting arrest. You most likely will lose. How much you lose depends on you.
It really is that simple.
The time to argue your case is either when the officer questions you or in court. Not before your submission.

 

[muttly]

NY cop killer was ARRESTED NINETEEN TIMES previously.
Who Is Ismaaiyl Brinsley? Alleged NYPD Cop Killer Arrested 19 Times In Three States

 

[LDB]

Out of an(y) organization of 35,000 it's not unrealistic to believe there are a dozen or two bad examples. That is unfortunate and everything realistic and reasonable should be done to weed them out. That doesn't include randomly murdering members of the organization.

Al Sharpton was quoted as saying something along the lines of "I didn't advocate that action." Well, when the dialogue is something along the lines of "What do we want?" "Dead cops." "When do we want it?" "Now." anything less than directly and absolutely denouncing is effectively advocating and the above comment means nothing.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Are you in denial? 92% to less that 1% killed by cops, incedently, that's all races of cops.

Maybe you should look at the video again of the cop getting shot at that returned fire and killed the gang member.

I would venture to say that most fleeing criminals are armed in someway.

There quite a few videos around of cops getting shot during routine traffic stops. Why isn't anybody talking about that. What was that number, 104 cops killed this year. But that's ok cause their armed.

Then start a thread on it, as it's a different topic.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't think there is any question that blacks are more targeted and more readily suspected of something or another by cops than are whites. The stats show it, the overwhelming anecdotal evidence supports it, and even cops have admitted it. I thinks it's a lot worse than a lot of whites believe, but I agree with you in that it's not nearly as bad as Al and Co make it out to be. Having said that, police shouldn't be targeting black people at all. But that's more or less a pipe dream, because whether you're a cop or a citizen, white people are afraid of black people. And cops, black or white, are afraid of black people, especially if they're big and black. Shouldn't be, but that's the perception. Just like the perception that white cops routinely kill unarmed black people. They don't, and it shouldn't ever happen, but that's the perception.

Maybe it's not perception, but reality. Young black men are seven times more likely to be violent criminals than whites (see below). This perception/reality will exacerbated due to the recent activities of Al Sharpton and his "dead cops" chant followed by the assassination of two NYPD cops by a black criminal.

• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When Blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-Blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the White rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is Black and Hispanic.
• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving Blacks and Whites, Blacks commit 85 percent and Whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are Black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When Whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are Black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a White than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
• Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39 million.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than Whites. Hispanics are three times more likely.

Race and crime - Metapedia

Still, resisting arrest shouldn't result in an immediate death sentence. And "I feared for my life" doesn't cut it in most cases, because (A) that fear is mostly irrational to begin with, and (B) that fear can often escalate things (every little movement and facial expression in wrongly interpreted as a threat) to the point where an actual self defense situation does occur but wouldn't have had it not been escalated.

True to a certain extent, but training and experience in most police and sheriff's departments is woefully inadequate. That said, two points need to be made: 1. The reality is most blacks/browns should know what the deal is - if they have to deal with a cop in today's hyper-tense situation they better keep their mouth shut and comply (good luck with that); 2. State and local govts need to realize that if they want better quality personnel filling LEO positions they need to pay them more money - a LOT more money. If they want top quality people filling these positions spend more money on law enforcement personnel and less on pet projects for their donors - or raise taxes. Maybe in today's environment the taxpayers would support higher taxes if they were specifically allocated to attracting higher quality people to law enforcement careers.

One more thought: what would the result be if Gallup or somebody similar did a poll of recent college grads or military vets to see if they wanted to pursue a career in law enforcement?

One last thought: anybody talked to real cop lately and get his or her take on this situation? I doubt it.

 

[cheri1122]

Out of an(y) organization of 35,000 it's not unrealistic to believe there are a dozen or two bad examples. That is unfortunate and everything realistic and reasonable should be done to weed them out. That doesn't include randomly murdering members of the organization.

Al Sharpton was quoted as saying something along the lines of "I didn't advocate that action." Well, when the dialogue is something along the lines of "What do we want?" "Dead cops." "When do we want it?" "Now." anything less than directly and absolutely denouncing is effectively advocating and the above comment means nothing.

Your loathing of Sharpton is crystal clear - but your reasoning, not so much. He is not the one who chanted about wanting "dead cops", or anything remotely close, either. He has been quoted as saying he was "outraged" at the killing of 2 NYC officers, after weeks of saying that he and Eric Garner's mother stress that all police are not bad - in fact, most of them aren't. That sounds a lot like directly denouncing to me.
Are you just assuming Sharpton encouraged the death of cops because you despise him, or is it that they all look alike to you?

 

[Turtle]

Out of an(y) organization of 35,000 it's not unrealistic to believe there are a dozen or two bad examples. That is unfortunate and everything realistic and reasonable should be done to weed them out. That doesn't include randomly murdering members of the organization.

Al Sharpton was quoted as saying something along the lines of "I didn't advocate that action." Well, when the dialogue is something along the lines of "What do we want?" "Dead cops." "When do we want it?" "Now." anything less than directly and absolutely denouncing is effectively advocating and the above comment means nothing.

Sharpton never said the dialog. It was a dozen or two bad examples among the protesters. It was unfortunate and everything realistic and reasonable should have been done to weed them out. That doesn't include selectively blaming someone who didn't advocate or promote the cop killings, especially when the person blamed did, in fact, denounce the shootings.

It's easy to blame Sharpton, because, well, people like neat and easy instead of honest and uncomfortable, so the go for the neat and easy of blaming Sharpton. The reality is, those cops were shot because of Karma. What goes around comes around. As soon as white cops stop killing black people and getting away with it, black people will have nothing for which to retaliate. There's yer neat and easy.

 

[golfournut]

Then start a thread on it, as it's a different topic.

That sure added a lot to the conversation.
So were the what, last 20-25 posts.
Make that 40 plus posts!

 

[golfournut]

Sharpton never said the dialog. It was a dozen or two bad examples among the protesters. It was unfortunate and everything realistic and reasonable should have been done to weed them out. That doesn't include selectively blaming someone who didn't advocate or promote the cop killings, especially when the person blamed did, in fact, denounce the shootings.

It's easy to blame Sharpton, because, well, people like neat and easy instead of honest and uncomfortable, so the go for the neat and easy of blaming Sharpton. The reality is, those cops were shot because of Karma. What goes around comes around. As soon as white cops stop killing black people and getting away with it, black people will have nothing for which to retaliate. There's yer neat and easy.

Oh sheez, karma, that's way over top. Are you pain pills kicking in?

 

[golfournut]

Sharpton never said the dialog. It was a dozen or two bad examples among the protesters. It was unfortunate and everything realistic and reasonable should have been done to weed them out. That doesn't include selectively blaming someone who didn't advocate or promote the cop killings, especially when the person blamed did, in fact, denounce the shootings.

It's easy to blame Sharpton, because, well, people like neat and easy instead of honest and uncomfortable, so the go for the neat and easy of blaming Sharpton. The reality is, those cops were shot because of Karma. What goes around comes around. As soon as white cops stop killing black people and getting away with it, black people will have nothing for which to retaliate. There's yer neat and easy.

Yea, they'll just go back to killing each other again. Maybe bump that 92% up to 98%. Would that make you feel better?

 

[golfournut]

Interesting read. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/

 

[Turtle]

Oh sheez, karma, that's way over top. Are you pain pills kicking in?

Nope. It's almost inevitable. If you are a pestering mosquito. you're eventually going to get swatted. If you attack Pearl Harbor, you'll get what's coming to you in the form of an atomic bomb. If you launch Internet attacks against Sony Pictures, your entire Internet mysteriously goes down. If you continue to meddle in the affairs of other countries after being told to stop, planes will fly into your buildings. If you single out a particular ethnic group of citizens to harass and kill, eventually that same group will return the favor.

 

[Turtle]

Interesting read. Race and Justice: Much More Than You Wanted To Know | Slate Star Codex

I suppose it is if you believe that justice is truly blind and that there are no racial injustices ever, but otherwise it's mostly interesting for the sheer number and creative use of qualifiers to leave the impression of stating a fact without actually stating the fact. That and the wildly flawed logic used to reach conclusions, especially when those conclusions directly contradict the supporting document he cites as his source. Rather than describing the data as it is and drawing conclusions from that, or citing the conclusions already drawn in the study they cite, a predetermined conclusion was drawn, and the data was used to reach that conclusion.

For example... "Based on a national survey of citizens’ interactions with police, they find that 5% of whites and 11% of blacks have had their cars searched by police, with relatively similar results for other kinds of officer interactions. Therefore, blacks are about twice as likely to be searched as whites."

That's an extraordinarily flawed "therefore," because it assumes 2 things which are not true. It assumes the same number of blacks as whites in this country, and it assumes the same number of each group are stopped by police (even though the study shows the breakdowns, so Mr. Alexander chose to just ignore that part of the study). But he needed that "twice as likely" in order to get to his 1.5x when accounting for the (hey, look over here!) "multiple regression controlling" for other BS factors which sound kewl but have absolutely no bearing on the searches. The facts are that White Americans comprise 74.2% of the American population, and African Americans comprise 12.6% of the population for a difference of 5.75 times more whites than blacks. So when you figure in that little multiple regression controlling factor, his ridiculous "twice as likely" is actually twice as likely times 5.75, or about 11.5 times as likely to be searched as whites. Plus, when you multiple regression controlling factor in the fact that cops will (on record admitting it) manufacture probable cause quicker and more often with blacks than whites, and blacks are far more likely to answer "No, go ahead" to the question, "Do you mind if we search your vehicle?" than whites are, the 11.5 starts inching upwards to 12 or 13 times.

 

[golfournut]

I suppose it is if you believe that justice is truly blind and that there are no racial injustices ever, but otherwise it's mostly interesting for the sheer number and creative use of qualifiers to leave the impression of stating a fact without actually stating the fact. That and the wildly flawed logic used to reach conclusions, especially when those conclusions directly contradict the supporting document he cites as his source. Rather than describing the data as it is and drawing conclusions from that, or citing the conclusions already drawn in the study they cite, a predetermined conclusion was drawn, and the data was used to reach that conclusion.

For example... "Based on a national survey of citizens’ interactions with police, they find that 5% of whites and 11% of blacks have had their cars searched by police, with relatively similar results for other kinds of officer interactions. Therefore, blacks are about twice as likely to be searched as whites."

That's an extraordinarily flawed "therefore," because it assumes 2 things which are not true. It assumes the same number of blacks as whites in this country, and it assumes the same number of each group are stopped by police (even though the study shows the breakdowns, so Mr. Alexander chose to just ignore that part of the study). But he needed that "twice as likely" in order to get to his 1.5x when accounting for the (hey, look over here!) "multiple regression controlling" for other BS factors which sound kewl but have absolutely no bearing on the searches. The facts are that White Americans comprise 74.2% of the American population, and African Americans comprise 12.6% of the population for a difference of 5.75 times more whites than blacks. So when you figure in that little multiple regression controlling factor, his ridiculous "twice as likely" is actually twice as likely times 5.75, or about 11.5 times as likely to be searched as whites. Plus, when you multiple regression controlling factor in the fact that cops will (on record admitting it) manufacture probable cause quicker and more often with blacks than whites, and blacks are far more likely to answer "No, go ahead" to the question, "Do you mind if we search your vehicle?" than whites are, the 11.5 starts inching upwards to 12 or 13 times.

Numbers, as you have proven, can be skued.

When you look at this link
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702

In particular this paragraph

*"Black drivers (12.3%) were about three times as likely as white drivers (3.9%) and about two times as likely as Hispanic drivers (5.8%) to be searched during a traffic stop in 2008."

But then go to the study at this link
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4779

In particular this paragraph

"Relatively more black drivers (13%) than white (10%) and Hispanic (10%) drivers were pulled over in a traffic stop during their most recent contact with police. There were no statistical differences in the race or Hispanic origin of persons involved in street stops."

We can both throw numbers all day at each other. The fact is the "studies" don't substantiate your claims. I'm sure you can provide states, but throw them into a study and what comes out is totally different. While there are obvious issues it still boils down to this.
When stopped by a cop, follow directions.

I find this interesting

"About 1% of drivers pulled over in traffic stops had physical force used against them by police. Of these drivers, 55% believed the police behaved properly during the stop."

Of the 45% who didn't believe the police behaved properly, how many were white, black and hispanic? How many have rap sheets? How many were male or female? Ages etc...

The moral of this debate is, it ain't over and never will be. It's been going on for 300 years and will continue long past when all of us are gone.

Perhaps this has something to do with it.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/science-of-racism-prejudice

Merry Christmas all, I gotta finish my shopping now.

 

[skyraider]

Numbers, as you have proven, can be skued.

When you look at this link
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Traffic Stops

In particular this paragraph

*"Black drivers (12.3%) were about three times as likely as white drivers (3.9%) and about two times as likely as Hispanic drivers (5.8%) to be searched during a traffic stop in 2008."

But then go to the study at this link
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Police Behavior during Traffic and Street Stops, 2011

In particular this paragraph

"Relatively more black drivers (13%) than white (10%) and Hispanic (10%) drivers were pulled over in a traffic stop during their most recent contact with police. There were no statistical differences in the race or Hispanic origin of persons involved in street stops."

We can both throw numbers all day at each other. The fact is the "studies" don't substantiate your claims. While there are obvious issues it still boils down to this.
When stopped by a cop, follow directions.

I find this interesting

"About 1% of drivers pulled over in traffic stops had physical force used against them by police. Of these drivers, 55% believed the police behaved properly during the stop."

Of the 45% who didn't believe the police behaved properly, how many were white, black and hispanic? How many have rap sheets? How many were male or female? Ages etc...

The moral of this debate is, it ain't over and never will be. It's been going on for 300 years and will continue long past when all of us are gone.

Perhaps this has something to do with it.
The Science of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men | Mother Jones

Merry Christmas all, I gotta finish my shopping now.

If one were to use the statistical formulas as taught in college stat class, many in here would be more confused, but then again.......................Merry Christmas.