Portland police are the problem, not the solution ... Here’s how many people had protest charges dropped in September

Squire

Active member
FACT: unarmed black people are NOT disproportionately killed by police.
BS. If you have any facts publish them.

"The killings have led to at least 30 judgments and settlements totaling more than $142 million, records show. Dozens of lawsuits and claims are pending."

This is a typical case where the family sued the city for $33.5 million and won.

A black man walking in the street detained and murdered without cause.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/9561...narmed-black-people-reveal-troubling-patterns

... Nathaniel Pickett II was walking back to his $18-a-night room at the El Rancho, a seen-better-days bungalow motel along historic Route 66 in Barstow, Calif. It was shortly after 9 p.m. on Nov. 19, 2015, and Nate, as his family called him, often took evening walks. As the 29-year-old former engineering student crossed the street, he caught the eye of Kyle Woods, a San Bernardino sheriff's deputy. Woods made a U-turn into the motel parking lot, jumped out of his cruiser and approached Pickett, police records show.

He demanded Pickett's name and birthdate. Pickett complied. In fact, he did everything Woods asked of him, including taking his hands out of his pockets. When Woods asked him if he lived at the motel and where he was from, Pickett said he didn't know. When Pickett asked if he had done something wrong, the deputy said he just wanted to talk to him.

"What's the problem?" Pickett asked Woods nine times as the deputy peppered him with questions about whether he had ever been arrested (yes), if he had lived in Barstow all of his life and where he was going.

"There is no problem," Woods responded.

Pickett asked if he could go to his room where he had lived since moving to Barstow seven weeks earlier. Woods would later admit under oath that he knew he had no probable cause to arrest him and that Pickett had the right to walk away. But when he tried, Woods grabbed him and told him to "stop resisting." Woods threatened to use a Taser on him. Pickett put his arms up and was running toward his room — Room 45 — when he tripped and fell in the breezeway. As he scooted backward from Woods, the deputy caught him. The two scuffled while a male citizen volunteer on patrol with Woods watched from a few feet away. Woods punched Pickett 15 to 20 times before pulling out his service weapon and threatening to shoot him. He fired, hitting Pickett twice in the chest — once with the barrel of the gun pressed against the man's chest.

Nathaniel Pickett II (right), who suffered from mental illness, was shot to death by a San Bernardino County, Calif., sheriff's deputy in 2015 after he was stopped while walking to a motel where he lived. Pickett was unarmed. His father (left) and mother sued the county and were awarded $33.5 million.
Nathaniel Pickett Sr.
"Ow," Pickett moaned. One of the bullets pierced his heart and left lung. Pickett was pronounced dead at the scene.

Woods, on the force for two years at the time but on the street for just a few months, said he shot him because he feared for his life.

Woods, who is Black, didn't give a statement to police about the incident for 28 days. And when he did, he said that he stopped Pickett after seeing him hop the motel fence. He thought Pickett was trespassing, and he was fidgety, like he might be under the influence, Woods said. Pickett had marijuana in his system, and his blood alcohol level was 0.01%, far below the level to be considered legally impaired, records show.

The deputy never faced criminal charges in Pickett's death, but the victim's family filed civil charges. And when he testified under oath at the civil trial, Woods told a different story: He said he never saw Pickett jump over the fence and that the gate actually was open. He also said it never occurred to him that Pickett could be mentally ill. Pickett was diagnosed with mental illness during his freshman year at Hampton University in Virginia and had been treated through the Mental Health Court in San Bernardino in 2012 after a conviction for resisting a peace officer and "false personation," records show.

Scott DeFoe, who spent two decades with the Los Angeles Police Department, testified as an expert witness at the civil trial. He said that Woods' use of force was "unnecessary and unreasonable."

"This is probably one of the worst cases I have looked at because of the mental health component," DeFoe testified. "There was no crime. ... He ran as he had a lawful right to do."

The jury in the civil trial was unanimous. Jurors agreed that Woods had no right to detain Pickett; used unreasonable or excessive force against him, which caused his death; and delayed getting him medical care. They awarded Pickett's family $33.5 million, one of the largest amounts ever in an officer-involved shooting case. ...
 
Last edited:

chris155au

Active member
BS. If you have any facts publish them.
Study by black professor Roland Fryer:


"On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account."

"The killings have led to at least 30 judgments and settlements totaling more than $142 million, records show. Dozens of lawsuits and claims are pending."

This is a typical case where the family sued the city for $33.5 million and won.

A black man walking in the street detained and murdered without cause.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/9561...narmed-black-people-reveal-troubling-patterns
None of this means that black people are disproportionately killed by police .
 

Squire

Active member
Study by black professor Roland Fryer:


"On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account."

None of this means that black people are disproportionately killed by police .
Absolute bullshit.

There is no analysis or explanation in this document only data that is very poorly annotated and not expressed in units that would be understandable.

Many blacks are still exploited, like the author of this report, and willingly so because they make money and become the darlings of police forces and right-wing political leaders from their own exploitation by others.

I repeat B U L L S H I T.

The report is unclear, obtuse, and deliberately obfuscatory. Deliberately because he was making money and he didn't want to make it blatantly obvious he was whitewashing police for a fistful of dollars.

"Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias." Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
FACT: unarmed black people are NOT disproportionately killed by police.

I seriously doubt that you would have the patience, or the inclination to read all 56 pages of this report. So could you please highlight the pertinent facts, supporting your claims?
 
Last edited:

chris155au

Active member
These don't take into consideration the fact that black people commit more crime that non-black people. This means more police interactions.
 

chris155au

Active member
Study by black professor Roland Fryer:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf

"On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account."
 

Squire

Active member
Study by black professor Roland Fryer:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf

"On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account."
A bland statement is bullshit when he doesn't back it up with data. His whole report is obfuscation with the objective of making money from white extremists including police.

"Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias." Wikipedia.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
These don't take into consideration the fact that black people commit more crime that non-black people. This means more police interactions.
I think people like you just want to hear bad shit about other races. Why let the truth stand in the way of a good story, right?

Stories like Blacks commit 50% more murders than Whites? This was proven statistically and verifiably a lie. That most Black children are raised in a single-parent family? THEY WERE NOT! The parents were just not married. Now, another shitty racial stereotype of disinformation. That is, that Black people are stopped by White cops, because Black people commit more crimes than White people do. Another statistical and verifiable lie.

I have deposited all of the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics since the 60's to this forum. These reports all lists the categories of the crimes that different races are ONLY CHARGED WITH(not convicted of). Whites not only have been charged with more crimes than Blacks, but Whites have been charged with over twice as many crimes, than all other races combined. If fact, there are only 2 out of the 32 crime categories where Blacks have been charged with more crimes than Whites. The rest Whites outshine all other races.

Why aren't cops stopping, and detaining them? Because they are White. So for all non-Whites. Please take a White friend with you, to protect you from cops.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43

The sad reality is, that non-Whites are stopped and questioned more often than Whites. Non-Whites are arrested, sentenced, and imprisoned more often than Whites. This has been statistically proven, even if Whites and Non-Whites are charged with the same crime.

So please, stop spreading these lies.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Study by black professor Roland Fryer:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf

"On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account."

So can you cite this "raw data" please? And, what exactly are these "contextual factors"?

And stop trying to appeal to authority. I don't care who he is. And, from what I have read about him, he seems to be a "tough love" advocate professor. Anyway, the stats disagree with your interpretation of his report.
 

chris155au

Active member
So can you cite this "raw data" please? And, what exactly are these "contextual factors"?

And stop trying to appeal to authority. I don't care who he is. And, from what I have read about him, he seems to be a "tough love" advocate professor. Anyway, the stats disagree with your interpretation of his report.
You have yet to cite an SINGLE study which says that unarmed black people are disproportionately killed by police.
 

chris155au

Active member
If fact, there are only 2 out of the 32 crime categories where Blacks have been charged with more crimes than Whites. The rest Whites outshine all other races.

Why aren't cops stopping, and detaining them? Because they are White. So for all non-Whites. Please take a White friend with you, to protect you from cops.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43
Oh you CANNOT be serious! You're using the raw data? OF COURSE it makes sense that 70% of the population is committing the most crime! Now do it PROPORTIONATELY!
 

chris155au

Active member
A bland statement is bullshit when he doesn't back it up with data. His whole report is obfuscation with the objective of making money from white extremists including police.

"Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias." Wikipedia.
You have yet to cite an SINGLE study which says that unarmed black people are disproportionately killed by police.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You have yet to cite an SINGLE study which says that unarmed black people are disproportionately killed by police.
Maybe you missed it the first time,

"So can you cite this "raw data" please? And, what exactly are these "contextual factors"?

So you want me to cite a study that says that unarmed Black people are NOT being disproportionately killed by police? I have already deposited two for you. Did you just dismiss these entire articles, because the semantics wasn't exact?

This was YOUR comment. So back it up. What is the raw data, and what are these contextual factors? What is the evidence that objectively proves that unarmed Blacks are NOT being disproportionately killed by cops? Just a SINGLE bit of evidence will do!

I agree with the studies deposited by Squire. I also see the same top-down logic(selective bias) that Fryer employs in his studies. But, again this is not rocket science. Simply count the number of police shooting deaths, involving unarmed Black Americans(and other minorities), and the number of shooting deaths involving unarmed Whites. This article compares ALL the police shootings between 2015-2020 by race and age. This evidence is irrefutable. Even for you to dismiss or ignore.


Oh you CANNOT be serious! You're using the raw data? OF COURSE it makes sense that 70% of the population is committing the most crime! Now do it PROPORTIONATELY!
Yes I am serious. According to the FBI's UCR(2019), Whites are charge with committing almost 70%(69.3%) of all crimes in America. Raw data or not! Proportionately or not! The real reason Blacks are being targeted, is that Black Americans lack anonymity and can't blend in. Blacks are also burden with racial stereotypes, that follow them everywhere. They have very little legal recourse when any injustice is done to them. Most can't afford a private attorney, and must rely on court-appointed counsels, who are looking only for a quick plea.

I just can't imagine how many acts of injustices were committed by cops on Blacks, before mobiles had camera. And, before BLM, NCBL, or other groups advocating racial justice came along.
 

Squire

Active member
You have yet to cite an SINGLE study which says that unarmed black people are disproportionately killed by police.
"unarmed Black people were killed at three times the rate of unarmed white people"

Please don't thank me for doing your job of googling reputable sources.

You are a MAGA-head and I forgive you for your abject ignorance.

Police shootings summary:
  1. Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people;
  2. Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people;
  3. Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people;
  4. unarmed Black people were killed at three times the rate of unarmed white people; and
  5. unarmed Hispanics killed at 1.45 times the rate of unarmed white people.
https://news.yale.edu/2020/10/27/racial-disparity-police-shootings-unchanged-over-5-years

... In an analysis of 4,653 fatal shootings for which information about both race and age were available, the researchers found a small but statistically significant decline in white deaths (about 1%) but no significant change in deaths for BIPOC. There were 5,367 fatal police shootings during that five-year period, according to the Post’s database. In the case of armed victims, Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people (77 total killed). Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people (1,265 total killed); and Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people (889 total killed). Among unarmed victims, Black people were killed at three times the rate (218 total killed), and Hispanics at 1.45 times the rate of white people (146 total killed). ...
 

chris155au

Active member
So you want me to cite a study that says that unarmed Black people are NOT being disproportionately killed by police?
Why the hell would I want you to do that? That's what MY study found!

Simply count the number of police shooting deaths, involving unarmed Black Americans(and other minorities), and the number of shooting deaths involving unarmed Whites. This article compares ALL the police shootings between 2015-2020 by race and age. This evidence is irrefutable. Even for you to dismiss or ignore.

"There were 5,367 fatal police shootings during that five-year period, according to the Post’s database. In the case of armed victims, Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people (77 total killed). Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people (1,265 total killed); and Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people (889 total killed). Among unarmed victims, Black people were killed at three times the rate (218 total killed), and Hispanics at 1.45 times the rate of white people (146 total killed)."

77+1265+889+218+146=2595 total non-white / (total killed) 5367-2595=2772 white people. Okay so there were more white people who were killed by police!
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Why the hell would I want you to do that? That's what MY study found!
Because that is what you do whenever you try to avoid your burden of proof. If this is what YOUR study has found, then please cite this "raw data", and what exactly are these "contextual factors?

"There were 5,367 fatal police shootings during that five-year period, according to the Post’s database. In the case of armed victims, Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people (77 total killed). Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people (1,265 total killed); and Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people (889 total killed). Among unarmed victims, Black people were killed at three times the rate (218 total killed), and Hispanics at 1.45 times the rate of white people (146 total killed)."

77+1265+889+218+146=2595 total non-white / (total killed) 5367-2595=2772 white people. Okay so there were more white people who were killed by police!
The entire paragraph was,

"In an analysis of 4,653 fatal shootings for which information about both race and age were available, the researchers found a small but statistically significant decline in white deaths (about 1%) but no significant change in deaths for BIPOC. There were 5,367 fatal police shootings during that five-year period, according to the Post’s database. In the case of armed victims, Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people (77 total killed). Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people (1,265 total killed); and Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people (889 total killed). Among unarmed victims, Black people were killed at three times the rate (218 total killed), and Hispanics at 1.45 times the rate of white people (146 total killed).".

Your 1st mistake, was to conveniently leave out the highlighted portion. Only 4,653(NOT 5,367) of the fatal shootings were analyzed based on age and race. This is because the race and age of the shooters and victims were NOT available in ALL police shootings resulting in deaths. Therefore, the correct sums should be,

77+1265+889+218+146=2595(ignoring all those killed listed under "others"). Therefore, the total of Whites killed would be 4,653-2595=2058 white people + "other" races. So there were less White people killed than non-White people. Math is simple when you use the CORRECT facts!!

Your 2nd mistake was to again change the goal posts. We were talking specifically about the number of UNARMED Blacks(and other minorities) killed by police over 5 years. NOT the number of ALL people killed by cops. Including ALL "suicides by cops" killings. Most of these roughly 1,000 per year shootings were clearly justified. BLM is not going to demonstrate over a Black gunman killed by cops, in the middle of a shooting spree.

Remember your comment in post #41? "FACT: unarmed black people are NOT disproportionately killed by police.". So stop jumping from treetop to treetop, and start backing up your so-called fact.

The truth can easily be hidden behind bullshit, but the bodies can't. So please again, RAW DATA, and the CONTEXTUAL FACTORS please!!!

No mention of "disproportionately."
Are you really arguing over semantics? Just because the word "disproportionately" is not used, doesn't mean that the entire article is not about Blacks being killed by cops disproportionately more often than Whites. Right? Just because I don't call you a man, doesn't mean that you are not a man, right?
 
Last edited:

chris155au

Active member
Your 1st mistake, was to conveniently leave out the highlighted portion. Only 4,653(NOT 5,367) of the fatal shootings were analyzed based on age and race.
I misread it. Nothing to do with "conveniently" leaving it out.

77+1265+889+218+146=2595(ignoring all those killed listed under "others"). Therefore, the total of Whites killed would be 4,653-2595=2058 white people + "other" races. So there were less White people killed than non-White people. Math is simple when you use the CORRECT facts!!
I thought that we only comparing white deaths to black deaths. 1483 blacks were killed compared to 2058 white people.

Your 2nd mistake was to again change the goal posts. We were talking specifically about the number of UNARMED Blacks(and other minorities) killed by police over 5 years.
The article doesn't state the number of unarmed white people who were killed.

Are you really arguing over semantics? Just because the word "disproportionately" is not used, doesn't mean that the entire article is not about Blacks being killed by cops disproportionately more often than Whites. Right? Just because I don't call you a man, doesn't mean that you are not a man, right?
The article doesn't imply that the disparity is based on racism. That's the point.
 
Top