1. There's a reason why they struggle: Because they fear/don't trust the police! You, as a white person, don't have any reason to fear the police. A black person does. To them, it doesn't matter what they do, they can still be injured or killed. Just ask Philando Castile. If you encountered someone who you feared could injure or kill you for no reason, would you not try to get away?
Statistically, a larger percentage of criminals are of the African-American race, and thus , they tend to have more interactions with cops.
2. Police killings, in general, are not at an epidemic level, but as a percentage of their respective populations, police kill black people at a much higher rate than white people. Not only that, but police give white people a lot more leeway before they decide to pull the trigger. Here's a good article that lists 8 times white people have pulled guns on cops and lived: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/8-white-people-who-pointed-guns-police-officers-and-managed-not-get-killed Now the argument here is not that more white people should be killed, it's that black people should be given the same courtesy.
I just saw a video of Chicago police chasing a black man who had stolen a car. The man shot at officers and one officer was hit in the face. When the man stopped, he was taken into custody and not shot. Why? Because he dropped his gun and surrendered when told to. How hard was that?
It's been shown time and time again that it's the actions of the suspect, not the color of their skin, that dictate how the police deal with them. If you surrender when the police tell you, you won't get shot. Ignore them and point a gun or other weapon at them, and you will get shot. It has NOTHING to do with skin color. Compared to the amount of police/ citizen contacts every year, the odds of being shot by an officer is extremely low. It's even lower odds if you don't shoot at, try to stab, fight, or resist arrest. I guess that takes too much common sense.
Furthermore, as a more reliable Washington Post chart shows (
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/), a vast majority of those shot by the police this year were armed. Also, far more white people were killed than any other race. To me this just shows a false narrative where certain groups want people to believe police are just shooting people indiscriminately. If that was the case, these numbers would be much higher. It drives me nuts when people say "police murdered [x] people this year" which is garbage and is an untrue statement. Killing and murdering are two totally things. Are all police perfect? Of course not. But, we need to look into the numbers more than just the number killed.
It's not just the fact that police kill black people who didn't do anything that warranted death, it's the fact that they GET AWAY WITH IT! They get paid leave and then a slap on the wrist. Every. Single. Time.
They don't "get away with it." See, when an on-duty officer shoots someone, he's placed on administrative leave while Internal Affairs investigates to determine whether or not the officer's use of lethal force was justified. 95% of the time, it is found justified. You have to remember that the police do not disclose all details of an open investigation to the public, so as to maintain the integrity of the case. BTW, I've seen officers be dismissed, and sometimes subjected to criminal charges, when their actions are found to be unjustified (like Herc's actions against that minister).
Not only that, but whenever an incident like this happens, white people in general IMMEDIATELY leap to the defense of the cop and automatically assume that the black person deserved it. If it becomes clear that the black person didn't deserve it, then the cop apologists look to the victim's past and say, "Well, he was no angel. Look, he had a criminal record." So what?! Why does that matter in this instance?
It DOES matter. Talking about what type of person the suspect was is important. It isn't to "'victim' blame" or anything like that. It is so we can have HONEST conversations about why these things happen. Glossing over the conduct, lifestyle, and decisions of the dead suspect does not help us find ways to prevent these kinds of shootings in the future. We can't analyze only 50% of the participants and expect to come up with 100% of the answers.
reply
share
jonnyk82
8 years ago
Statistically, a larger percentage of criminals are of the African-American race, and thus , they tend to have more interactions with cops.
That doesn't really address the point I brought up. Like, at all.
I just saw a video of Chicago police chasing a black man who had stolen a car. The man shot at officers and one officer was hit in the face. When the man stopped, he was taken into custody and not shot. Why? Because he dropped his gun and surrendered when told to. How hard was that?
Ok. What about Philando Castille? He was complying with the officer's requests. What about Tamir Rice? He was never given a chance to surrender. What about John Crawford? He was also never given a chance to surrender.
Also, far more white people were killed than any other race.
Probably because there are far more white people in the general population than any other race. Just a wild guess, though.
You have to compare the percentage of people of a particular race who were killed against their percentage of the general population.
They don't "get away with it." See, when an on-duty officer shoots someone, he's placed on administrative leave while Internal Affairs investigates to determine whether or not the officer's use of lethal force was justified.
And you don't think that Internal Affairs do everything they can to look after their own?
It DOES matter. Talking about what type of person the suspect was is important.
No, it doesn't matter. Why does the past conduct of a victim matter when the victim wasn't doing any of the past conduct at the time of the shooting?
reply
share
dmcreif
8 years ago
Ok. What about Philando Castille? He was complying with the officer's requests. What about Tamir Rice? He was never given a chance to surrender. What about John Crawford? He was also never given a chance to surrender.
1. Philando Castile never declared he was armed to the cops who stopped him and then reached for the weapon on his waist. Also, the cops were already on edge because he matched the description of an armed robbery suspect (meaning he probably was not an innocent person).
2. About Tamir Rice? Well, a grand jury ruled it was a justified shooting. Remember that a grand jury is comprised of citizens, and not officers. Tamir Rice wasn't shot for being a black kid in Cleveland, he was shot for waving a toy gun around in a park that looked an awful lot like a real gun and was doing so in was perceived as a threatening manner.
No, it doesn't matter. Why does the past conduct of a victim matter when the victim wasn't doing any of the past conduct at the time of the shooting?
The actions of the suspect at the time of the police encounter are the most important. If you're compliant, you surrender when you're told, you'll live. You fight the cop, try to pull a gun or a knife, and you'll get shot. It's not rocket science.
The deceased's criminal history is still important because, I think it indicates the likeliness of the perpetrator to fight police trying to arrest him.
reply
share
Meroitic
8 years ago
There are thousands of academic studies on the effects of systemic racism on every aspect of American society, from policing to the way we're treated when we're in need of medical attention.
There are hundreds of community organisations dedicated to addressing crime and other social problems within the Black community. Not a week goes by that they aren't begging someone, anyone in the media to publicise their activities, attend their events or spread awareness of them outside the Black community.
Yet, you always have people who, despite their total ignorance of the Black community and lack of close personal associations with Black people, decide they know better than bona fide experts, academics and Black people themselves, what obtains within Black communities. They don't do any research, because in truth, they don't really want anything to disturb their pre-existing prejudices. I mean, what if they found out that America wasn't entirely fair and just? So, they listen to some ill-informed dishonest buffoon like Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage or Limbaugh and then pat themselves on the back so vigorously that they end up spraining something. After all, by doing so, they can pretend that they went out of their way to give Black people the benefit of the doubt.
Concern trolls aren't worth anyone's time, especially not yours.
reply
share