can we put our pettiness aside and just agree that this is awful regardless of her skin color. this would not be overlooked if she wasnt white, focus on the real issue.
@wrongway, People will tack on issues that are unrelated to any relevant thing happening. If it's not racist itll be homophobic. No, the guy is just a major dickwad. Leave it at that.
@wrongway, this should not be overlooked ever, but it may have been overlooked if she wasn't white.
@wrongway, i'm going to be petty real quick, I just wanted to point out, that I didn't hear about this until like a week after it happened! If this was a black person it would've been crammed down our throat's for the next three months
@Ewok612, if she wasn't white half the city would be burned down and the cop would already be facing charges. We're lucky she was white.
@Ewok612, Actually, I think a large reason why so much violence against POC is overlooked is because of their socioeconomic status. That might not be the cause of the violence itself, but I think that's why it's so overlooked. She's a nurse, so it's less likely even if she were black.
@celtics313131, I just now heard about this from this meme and now I have to go look up what happened
@wrongway, humans? Not be petty? HAH! YEAH RIGHT! ...now I'm sad
@celtics313131, it was on the front page of the washington post the day after it happened, you just need to check the news more often and not get everything from facebook or whatever. it was also plastered all over reddit within an hour
@lemongrenade, don't have Facebook or Reddit. I'm not saying it wasn't in the news I'm just saying it wasn't made into this huge spectacle like most things are.
@celtics313131, well, she also wasn't murdered so that may have something to do with it.
@StochasticTinker, could be! I'm just really nervous of the way our world is heading! I'm worried too bring another child into this world
@celtics313131, don't be, despite all the doom and gloom in the media, this is still, by far, the best time to be alive (or bring little ones into the world) fewer and fewer people die from violence, disease, and malnutrition every day. We have technological marvels that rival anything preceding them. The reason why we feel the sky is falling is because of a nasty case of being so interconnected and news corporations looking to turn a profit show us the worst of the worst happening in the world all the time now. But statistically, you're far more likely to die from too many chicken nuggets than a bad dude in blue or a goat fvcker from ISIS than ever before. So really, don't despair, the good times are actually here (maybe not environmentally), and bringing another little guy into the world isn't the worst thing.
I'm white. My first reaction consisted of; wow, there are some really shîtty cops in the U.S. How unfortunate. :l
@Pandaren Brewmaster, there are really s****y people in every job, it's just noticed more when they're in a higher position of power. Most cops aren't bad people, but unfortunately there are guys like this one, who's nothing but a scumbag, that enforce the idea that all police are like this. It's sad seeing the good ones take a hit to their reputation because of people like this.
@Pandaren Brewmaster, a shjty receptionist makes you wait too long
A shjty waiter messes up your order
A shjty cop kills you
@liberachi , except no one died here, does that make him an ok cop?
@The white dude, cop wasn't actually a scum bag just improperly trained and being overseen by an actual scumbag. If you read up on it his sergeant told him to do it and he listened because he didn't have the proper training to know he shouldn't. Thus he is just an idiot but not necessarily a scumbag.
@ThatGuyx79, that's true. Overall it just shouldn't have happened in general though
@The white dude, Thing is, though, this argument of "plenty of good cops" and "just following orders" has started to wear thin, because at some point, when things like this keep coming up, it's gonna have to fall on the good officers to act. If my boss tells me to do something that is clearly, ethically wrong, I'll tell him no. He can get mad all he wants, but I know and he knows, there's nothing he can tell me to force me to operate outside of my own principles.
Maybe this officer was told to get blood or issue an arrest, but this officer complied. He decided, "Yeah, I hear that I'm asking you to specifically violate the law on my behalf, but I care more about what my boss told me to do, and the fact that you're telling me no, than I do about actual ethics in this situation." He forcefully grabbed her, dragged her out of the hospital, pulled her wrist up to her neck, and put her in handcuffs, because "orders are orders". He did all this while "plenty of good cops" looked on.
@The white dude, And I'm not saying there's no such thing as a good and fair police officer. I've had the privilege of working with a number of well trained, compassionate officers.
However, if the claim is true, and a vast majority of officers are "good", then these bad eggs would be washed out before things get to this point. This sort of incident would be stopped in its tracks, because there would be accountability. They would actually stand for justice and for serving the people, rather than some inflated sense of brotherhood.
@Berntley, if your boss tells you to do something that's wrong and you don't do it, good for you. The problem is not everyone has those same principles, and eventually after going through enough people someone would do something they know is wrong, because they just don't care. And as far as the bad eggs would be washed out thing, there's always going to be some bad officers, just like no matter where you are, there will always be bad employees. Because of that things like this will always happen, but so long as the officer is held accountable for his actions (which this one is) and it's shown that occurrences like this won't be tolerated, it will discouraged others from doing the same. I also support the idea that all officers should wear body cams. Some say it's an invitation of privacy, but I think having filmed proof of everything is more important. Maybe it will draw some attention to all the good they do as well as discourage the bad. Just my opinion though I guess.
@The white dude, There will always be bad officers, but what I'm saying is, they wouldn't be able to operate in this capacity, to the point that this many incidents outshine all the good deeds, if the collusion weren't running so deep, and the good cops were doing what good cops should do. As for being held accountable? Paid leave is not accountability, it's a vacation while the dust settles. In this case, unless further action has been taken, this officer was suspended specifically from their phlebotomy program, where officers are trained and allowed to draw blood. That's all. He still remained on active duty and everything. Again, that's not accountability. He flips his shît because a woman tells him no, throws her against a wall and cuffs her? Dude is dangerous, and they're just like, "guess you don't need to draw blood anymore".
@Berntley, the deeds of the good officers greatly outnumber those of the bad, but the good deeds they do are just part of the job. That's why things like this become so big and seem like they outshine the others. It's because they are the uncommon situation that isn't supposed to happen. That's why they get the atintion they do. And people try to make it seem like this is constantly happening, but in the numbers game, this is super uncommon, which is why it's been able to become so big. Over the sevrel days people have talked about this one bad act, thousands of good ones are going unheard-of. It still doesn't make something like this okay though. No good action makes up for the bad. As far as the paid leave, that's what they always do when there is an investigation into something like this. He still might end up losing his job, and if he doesn't he's still going to get some form of punishment for it when returning to work.
statistically speaking a white guy is more likely to be shot by police than a black guy. And in alot of the shooting where a black man died it could have been avoided using one simple trick.
It's called do what the cop tells you!
@Stevegiese, but, but muh racism
@Stevegiese, statistically speaking white people make up 62% of the population but 49% of those killed by police officers. Black people make up 13% of the population but 24% of those killed by police. That means they are 2.5x (some studies say 3x) as likely to be shot by police. Took me 2 seconds to look that up but everyone will upvote based on partisanship.
Officers in 2015 killed the same number of unarmed white people and black people, which means unarmed black Americans were 5x more likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer, due to the white population being 5x larger
@Blue Shirted Guy, You're only reporting half of the statistics. You can't say the percentage of black people killed by cops without saying the percentage of black people commiting crimes. Like how black people commit 51.1% of murder or 53.5% of robberies in the US. Doing bad things gets you in bad situations. Not every shooting was justified, but the majority of the ones that got widely reported were
@Commandshark, I was responding to the comment "a white guy is more likely to be shot by police than a black guy." The statistics you used are relevant to the debate of why black people are being killed by police at higher rates. That's not what I was using my statistics for.
@Blue Shirted Guy, I don't agree with his point, but you stated that black people are 3x as likely to be shot by police without stating why. That's the only reason I chimed in.
@Commandshark, ya I completely understand. A lot of times I just try to correct a false statement that seems to be getting taken as fact, but then others take it as me picking a side.
I don't agree that the majority of the shootings were justified, especially against any unarmed person of any race. It's also quite concerning that an unarmed black person is 5x more likely to be killed than an unarmed white person, because there is little to no lethal threat in these cases. But my initial comments weren't meant to argue that, they were meant to simply disprove the false statement that nobody disliked. I think it's important to do away with false statements if we want to have a meaningful discussion about a topic, even if we disagree with each other.
@Blue Shirted Guy, so according to your numbers. Half of white people get killed by cops whereas only a quarter of black people are killed?? I think you might want to do some better research. Also by your logic you proved white people are more likely to be killed by cops. You should redo your math.
@Stevegiese, please re-read the comments. Roughly half of those killed by police officers are white people, and roughly 1/4 of those killed by police officers are black people.
This means more white people get shot by cops TOTAL, but not per capita. This also does NOT mean that a white person is more likely to be shot by a cop, because of the vast population difference. The statistics are pretty easy to follow, I'm not quite sure how else I could have written it.
@Blue Shirted Guy, actually, studies show white people are more likely to be shot than blacks. You have to look at the number of encounters blacks have with police and the number that end with shootings and compare that with the same data for whites. Police are more likely to use lethal force with whites than minorities.
And you shouldn't say a criminal being unarmed isn't lethal, they certainly can be. Not only could they take the cops gun, a punch to the head could easily kill the cops. Almost all the cop killings that have been blasted in the media were found to be justified
@Oujosh29, white people arent more likely to be killed by police than black people. I don't understand why you have to be so partisan. That's not a debate. We could debate *why* this is the case, but it's a simple fact that black people are disproportionately killed by police compared to their population totals.
I said there's little to no lethal threat in most cases. There certainly can be. Either way, unarmed black people are 5x more likely to be killed than unarmed white people. Legal justification and moral justification are 2 different things, and we could debate all century about both. There's also a difference between actual lethal threat and perceived lethal threat, which is an important part of the debate. But the first step is to stop being so partisan to the point of throwing around false statements.
@Oujosh29, if you want, find me statistics to support your first claim. Are you looking at TOTAL numbers without adjusting for the population rates?
@Blue Shirted Guy, it's not partisan, it's science. A Harvard professor did a study and proved that minorities (not just black people) were LESS likely to be shot than whites. The reason was pretty obvious if you think about it. The study showed that when police confront minorities they know the blow back that happens if they use deadly force, even if it's justified. They don't worry about that with whites. It's really easy to find if you google.
Pro tip, stuff that disagrees with you isn't partisan. You might want to look up the other side.
@Blue Shirted Guy, Google police less likely to shoot black people and you get a tons of reading material. and no, it's not all fox news. you'll be surprised by the results I'm sure
@Oujosh29, link me to the study or give me some statistics. My goodness. If it's easy to find on google then you can tell me specifically what you read. Again, are you looking at TOTAL numbers? You didn't answer that.
This is very frustrating haha. What don't you understand? Black people are killed disproportionately by police compared to their population rates. Unarmed black people even more so, compared to unarmed white people. I gave you ACTUAL statistics. It is an objective fact that a black person is more likely to be killed by police than a white person. You are being so partisan that you won't even acknowledge it. There is no other side *when it comes to this fact.*
Where there are 2 sides is *why* black people are being killed disproportionately and *why* they are more likely to be killed. *this is where partisanship should come into the debate.* Do you understand? I'm not trying to be condescending, but c'mon. My points are very simple.
@Oujosh29, if someone is giving you an objective fact, and you still disagree because of your biases, then that is being so partisan to the point where all meaningful discussion is lost. There are not 2 sides when it comes to facts.
The time to look up the other side is when we ask ourselves to *explain the fact.* We aren't at that stage, because you refuse to accept the fact. You can't have a discussion as to why the earth is round if one side thinks it's flat. Do you understand?
@Oujosh29, oh my goodness. You said you read a Harvard study. Give me the name or link to the study. I'll read through it. You brought up the study!
@Blue Shirted Guy, can't post links, but Google Roland G Fryer Jr police study and enjoy. It shows whites are 20% more likely to be shot than blacks. He uses 10k arrests of whites with 10k arrests of black. Using the total percentage of population of blacks and whites is useless because police aren't arresting everyday citizens (ignoring the hyperbole by some). Again, data that doesn't agree with you isn't partisan. I could say the same as you, but I won't
@Oujosh29, ah, see. This is why I'm glad you told me the name. Right off the bat you are already misinterpreting the data. It didn't find that whites are 20% more likely to be shot than blacks. It found that whites were 20% more likely to be shot than blacks *in situations in which an officer might be expected to fire.* "In various models controlling for different factors and using different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites." (NYT) So already you're throwing out false statistics.
In terms of the study itself, it's not even a peer reviewed study. "Fryer emphasizes that the work is not the definitive analysis of police shootings, and that more data would be needed to understand the country as a whole." It's a working paper published by NBER, which isn't a peer-reviewed journal.
You still fail to understand my point on partisanship.
@Oujosh29, from Fryer: "As we state in the paper, there are certainly high-profile cases in which the facts stated by officers differed substantially from the videos. So let’s take a minute and think about how this sort of misreporting might bias our findings."
Methodology: The study, a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, relied on reports filled out by police officers and on police departments willing to share those reports.
Again, the fact you are even calling it a Harvard Study shows your lack of understanding. It wasn't a Harvard study. It wasn't peer-reviewed nor published.
@Oujosh29, you are going to take this as me disagreeing and writing off any data that disagrees with me, even though this was a non-peer reviewed study. You weren't even correct in your statistics, meaning that you either didn't read through it, you couldn't comprehend it, or you read a biased article about the study.
There is an actual peer-reviewed study that found an unarmed black person is 3.49x more likely to be shot than an unarmed white person, but you decided to pick the non-peer reviewed one that supported what you thought. I would say that's partisanship
@Oujosh29, sorry, last one. This is a good summary of the issue:
"I think of the Kathryn Johnston case, in which the police invented an informant and lied on a search warrant affidavit before breaking down the 92-year-old woman’s door. She was innocent. When she met them with the broken old revolver she used to scare off intruders, they shot and killed her. In the police report, she was an armed suspect who threatened them with a gun.
Again, none of this is to say this data is completely useless. We just need to be really cautious about how we use it, and realize that the numbers alone don’t always tell the story."
@Blue Shirted Guy, couple things. First, I didn't say it was a Harvard study. I said a Harvard professor did a study. Second, the actual study looked at police shootings and potential interaction when a police shooting would be justified, which is exactly what we are talking about. What's misleading about that? We're talking about police shootings, the study looked at police shootings and at times when it would be justified. I.e. exactly what were talking about. The study isn't as of yet peer reviewed but that doesn't dismiss the findings by a respected, black professor who called the findings the most surprising thing of his career.
@Blue Shirted Guy, you seem to be dismissing a perfectly good study and trying to use bogus stats that aren't Apple's and apples to back up your point. Comparing overall population data for the police shootings is, at best, wrong, and at worst, knowingly dishonest. You have to look at numbers of interactions a race has with police, not "there's x number of blacks and x number of cops shooting blacks, so there you go". When talking about if a race is more or less likely to be shot by cops, you need to look at relevant data.
@Blue Shirted Guy, and as an aside, you need to look up what partisan means. You're using it too liberally
@Oujosh29, fair enough on the "Harvard study" point. The definition of partisan im using is "prejudiced/biased in favor of a particular cause." Your cause is to prove that black people aren't more likely to be shot than white people, and you are so devoted to this cause that you give in to your biases. Your prejudice/bias is showing in multiple ways. I'll list them:
1) You call the study "perfectly good" even though it isn't peer-reviewed.
2) You gave me false statistics. Unless you simply couldn't comprehend the statistics, then you were being biased.
3) You picked a non-peer reviewed study over an actual peer-review study that found unarmed black people are 3.9x more likely to be shot than unarmed white people, which you haven't addressed.
4) You completely ignored the fact that his study was based on police reports, and that Fryer himself said that misreporting could bias his findings. But again, you called the study "perfectly good."
@Oujosh29, 5) You did exactly what I said you'd do. You are saying I'm dismissing a perfectly good study. Im sorry, but it's laughable that you are calling something a perfectly good study when you didn't even understand what the study said in the first place.
@Blue Shirted Guy, 1) studies that aren't peer reviewed aren't somehow just wrong. Studies like the one quote are good sources of information and hopefully spurs more research into the issue.
2) the stat isn't false in any way to to the discussion of are whites less likely to be shot by blacks or vice versa. In fact, it's the entire point of the study. Your stats, from what your comments say, ARE false stats in what is actually being discussed, because it has nothing to do with whether the average black person is more likely to be shot than an average white person. It's biased data collection using the wrong data to prove a different point.
3) I tried and haven't found this study you are talking about, I'm going off your comments. Please give me a more specific thing to Google.
4) every study has to be careful about biased data, that doesn't invalidate studies. I'm not sure where else you get the data, so it's a silly complaint. It's not a reason to dismiss the study unless multiple
@Oujosh29, follow up studies shows it's wrong.
5) it's always fun when doing these debates. "Your partisan!" "No you are!" "Your just going to ignore my study" "Your data is wrong". If you go down that route and just call everyone else biased or partisan (which could easily be turned around on you) there's no point.
1) Studies that aren't peer reviewed aren't somehow just wrong, but they also aren't somehow just right. They are great to spur more research, but we can't use them as a good source of info until they are peer reviewed. It wasn't even a "study," in the formal context. It's a working paper.
2) What the hell are you talking about? You said "whites are 20% more likely to be shot than blacks." Don't backtrack that statement. You were flat out misinterpreting data. Nowhere is that stated. If you are pretending that statement isn't false, then you should never be discussing anything.
3) The study is called "A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings at the County-Level in the United States, 2011-2014." I haven't read through all of it, but it was published by a peer reviewed journal. I am simply saying that it's interesting you stopped researching at your study (working paper).
4) that is very true, but Fryer's entire study was based on police reports. That leaves it prone to an irregular amount of bias. It's not a silly complaint. I'm not saying it makes his paper meaningless, because you can control for that, but it can't be used as formal evidence until a peer-review.
5) I literally just gave you all the reasons why you're being partisan. Also, you're*. (I couldn't resist haha.)
I'm adding a 6th. Just the other day I provided you a study about extremist terrorism in this country. Then I saw other people providing you multiple studies. You didn't accept ANY of them. You said their methodologies were all flawed. But now, your study is "perfectly good." I don't mind talking to you on here. You're respectful and we tend to have civilized discussions. But sometimes it's like talking to a wall. How can you bash multiple studies on a different topic, and then cling to a non-peer reviewed one in this topic as your evidence? It's mind-boggling.
@Oujosh29, google "Roland Fryer study" and the top link should be a Harvard.edu blog post. You can read through some of the concerns about the working paper. (I'm not saying to take them as fact, since it's just a blog)
@Blue Shirted Guy, 1) I said it would spur more research on the issue, not that it was the end of the debate.
2) not sure what your confusion is, I stand by what I've been saying. The study I sighted is perfectly aligned with the topic.
3) that study is interesting, but it seems to be taking too broad of a view. It's the study I talked about is chance of being shot per police encounter, yours ignores police encounters and looks at population totals. That's biased, because if you ignore the higher crime rate in minorities communities, your ignoring a huge part of the context.
4) every source has a problem. If you look at the sources of your study, it doesn't come from official goverment sources. It comes from an outside organisation even though it states official goverment data isn't complete. To me, that's fishy.
5) and I disagree, and could say the same about you. See how that works?
@Blue Shirted Guy, I remember what you were talking about, but I've heard all those bogus claims before so had already looked them up. Of course I'm going to disagree with studies that didn't even try to hide their bias, and honestly there's a LOT on the left that do that. You'll probably just say that's me being partisan, but if you seriously would call those studies legit, you're crazy. No matter what side you're on
@Oujosh29, this is what I'm talking about. It's like talking to a wall. Your study is "perfectly good," right? But the study I provided you is flawed? Right there! How do you not see the partisanship?!? Yours is a working paper that's not peer-reviewed, but it's perfectly good! But the 3.49x statistic is from a flawed study, and you disagree with all the other studies that happen to be "from the left." I'm not calling them all legit, you still don't understand. You are calling them all illegitimate *while calling your single working paper legitimate.* Do you understand now? That's pure bias!
And I have to address #2 again. The study didn't say whites are 20% more likely to be shot than blacks, which is the statistic you gave. It's false. You won't acknowledge that it's a false statistic. You either misinterpreted the paper, or read someone else's misinterpretation
@Blue Shirted Guy, you do realize you are literally doing the exact thing you are claiming I'm doing right? My study and it's sources aren't but yours is? Who's biased much?
And for the record, I never said your study isn't good. It looked like a legit study for what it looked at. My problem with it is it's a broad overview that ignores important key context, and instead of looking at encounters with police it looks at overall population. Trying to ignore that a minority has many more encounters with police over a different race but then try to give a comparison with police shootings is, at best, going to give you skewed findings.
I'll say it like this. When it comes to police encounters, whites are 23% MORE likely to be shot than blacks. Maybe being more specific will help.
@Blue Shirted Guy, its like looking at the gender pay gap. If you just compare mens income vs women's income, it's going to be heavy skewed to men. But if you actually look at context, and control for education, time off for families, women choosing to go into less demanded fields, etc., the gap pretty much disappears
@Oujosh29, your study is a non-peer reviewed working paper!!!! And my goodness, I'm not doing the same thing! You are calling every study people throw at you flawed EXCEPT for your single working paper. Literally every one except yours. I told you I didn't read through "my study." That's not why I provided it to you. For me to be doing the same thing, I'd have to be providing you one paper that I claim is legitimate, while calling every study you throw at me illegitimate. Is that what I'm doing?
And no!!! Whites are not 23% more likely to be shot than blacks when it comes to police encounters! You aren't comprehending the data. They found that blacks are 23.8% less likely to be shot in interactions *where lethal force may have been justified.* They separated the types of interactions. In the conclusion, he specifically states "on officer involved shootings, we are unable to detect any racial differences in either the raw data or when accounting for controls."
@Blue Shirted Guy, I literally just said your study was legit for what it looked at. Tell me, when looking at police shootings like we are talking about, do you not believe the number of police encounters matter? Does context not matter?
Ok, during police encounters when a shooting is/would be justified, whites are 23% more likely to be shot. That specific enough?
@Oujosh29, you said my study (and we can refer to it as that but I haven't even read it haha) was biased and too broad. You also came to that conclusion very quickly. But you said yours was "perfectly good." You called all of the studies in the other topic flawed as well. But not your paper.
Of course context matters. You still fail to understand my point. Number of police encounters matters, and that could be a major part of *why* black people are more likely to be shot (killed) by police. We could have a great debate about the reasoning, but you won't even accept that there's a debate to be had. All based on a non-peer reviewed working paper.
Ya, that's specific enough. But that's not the same thing as "more likely to be shot." When it comes to that general question, the paper says there is no real difference.
@Blue Shirted Guy, black people are only likely to be shot more if you take the context out. You only get that statistic if you look at white population/shot vs black population/shot. That's literally ignoring all the context of what were talking about.
@Oujosh29, ahhhh! Exactly! I was taking the position of black people being more likely to be shot from a population standpoint. Now the debate to be had is WHY this is the case, which is when we add in all the context. Do you understand? You've done this to me a few times now. You see what I say and then jump forward or around to a different argument. I'm NOT saying black people are more likely to be shot *because they are black,* whether or not I believe that to be true, partially true, or false.
@Blue Shirted Guy, meh, ok, so we were talking around each other again. That's cool, slow day at work anyways. But don't you think it's better to look at stuff like this in context? otherwise you give wrong or incomplete impressions
@Oujosh29, ya, happens a lot on here. It's tough to stay on track when 100 ideas are flying around.
Have a good what's left of the work day! I have a hurricane that I should probably be preparing for haha
"Brutalized" might be getting a bit hyperbolic, but clearly she shouldn't have been arrested.
@Branth, Dude, maybe she didn't get shot, tazed, or beaten, but I'm pretty sure I saw her wrist touch the back of her neck. This was more than just a "misunderstanding". Maybe it wasn't extreme force, but it was certainly excessive.
Except she really didn't do anything wrong.
@x2 6x 9 lol, maybe if she was robbing a store or pulling a gun on the cops then it would be a better comparison
When I saw it my first thought was - like upon seeing many of the police shootings of black people in prev years - that I wondered how many times there wasn't a camera? How much do they get away with this? I'm sure the majority of the time it's a minority and not a white nurse, but all cases are sad. People shouldn't be punished or killed for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Police in US seem to just like showing their power sometimes
@Luna 5, police in the US do not at all. Individual people do. I have known many good officers and I can assure you it is a small tiny minority of individuals who would abuse their power.
@Luna 5, the difference is that almost all the shootings of minorities are justified. It's why you see all the whining without the facts being reported then are shocked when the cops aren't charged or found not guilty. If a group keeps saying they are the victims no matter what they'll eventually start to believe it
@Oujosh29, of all the unarmed people shot and killed by police in 2015, 40% of them were black men, even though black men make up 6% of the nation's population. Almost all of the shootings of minorities are justified though, right?
@Blue Shirted Guy, man I love that statistic that people pull up. Looks like 40% of all "shoot-worthy" crime is committed by 6% of the population apparently then.
@Richard Cypher, if I said "of all the people shot," then your reply would make sense. But I said "of all the unarmed people." Even if you think every one of those incidents were justified, you still aren't using statistics correctly.
A better response would have been "40% of all the shoot-worthy crime by unarmed people is committed by 6% of the population apparently then." You were close though!
@Blue Shirted Guy, eh close enough. They were criminals and maybe a best 2% may have been unjustified but unarmed does not mean defenseless. Resisting arrest or trying to fight a cop or acting like you have a weapon are all bad choices to make in the situation. So still. 40% by 6%
@Richard Cypher, don't disagree with any of that, but you don't seem to know how to use statistics. "Maybe a best 2%." Just a guess? 40% by 6% when talking about unarmed people, not all people. Just trying to help you out
But yes this is a case of a cop abusing his power and should be punished.
That prick aas bully cop still has his job and has yet to be slapped with criminal charges. Proof yet again that cops having body cams is a waste of money.
@DHS Crisis Actor, the department thanked the nurse for doing her job correctly and is investigating the situation last I heard.
Funny thing is you also dont see nurses carrying guns and shooting at cops either, i dont understand how people dont understand this but if youre a cop and you know that plenty of police officers have lost their lives because of blacks carrying guns or knives then youre going to be much more careful when dealing with them.
I believe what we should be looking at is how no matter what your skin tone is. Cops are d*cks sometimes. So this proves there is equality among the races. Just not equality of intelligence. The cops I mean.
Vast majority, not all, but most of the high profile cases of police vs black gentlemen the last few years have involved a blatantly guilty suspect. This video recorded event shows a dick of a "University police detective" (security guard) arresting a nurse for following the law and hospital policy.
There's a subtle difference.