Let's Start A Riot?!?!

This is caused by blacks committing more violent crime than whites, which they do at a rate of 3-5x, depending on the crime (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.). More violent crime, more interaction with police, more chances to be shot by police. You cannot prove "racism" in any of these encounters, but the violent crimes committed by the convicted are proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

Both sides have points here.

Police accountability is the core issue. Qualified immunity getting expanded far beyond original intents, the increased militarization of police, astronomical budgets with no oversight, failure to properly screen/train applicants/recruits, these are all issues that have to be addressed.

None of those are mutually exclusive with the fact that the poor are disproportionally targeted by police. Non-whites are met with substantially more force than whites - Dylann Roof says hi - so people who are in both circles of that particular Venn diagram, namely poor non-whites, get it twice as hard.

Class IS the much bigger target on the back, but it takes an astonishing amount of bad faith to suggest we don't have deep problems with race in America. Can you say with a straight face that a poor black man isn't going to be treated worse by any random police officer than a poor white woman?

I'm not automatically jumping on the bandwagon on calling anyone a racist. I learned my lesson during the Covington issue last year. I will only call people a racist if I personally see them committing racist actions, which, frankly, in this case, I'm not going to research that officer's online history to determine if he is one or not.

I do, however, believe that he should have been fired a long time ago, not only based on the actions he did towards George Floyd, but also on the 17 previous incidences, one of which was a lawsuit against him and other officer based on harassment, that should have at the very least put him on an administrative role and taken him off the streets permanently.

I do believe that the issues surrounding his ability to continue to be on the streets should be addressed, or at least acknowledged, but so far, nobody wants to talk about it.

This isn't an issue on the ability for police officers to do their job, this is an issue on the ability to remove bad cops from these situations. Unions shouldn't protect bad officers, because when they do, they place all officers as bad.

I'm going to need a chart to keep track of all the socks.

I thought maybe you just didn't understand statistics, but looking over your posts in this thread, you're just arguing in insanely bad faith. You've been topic banned.

Once I figured out who it was I just added the new account to my filter list. It's not worth it to deal with a bad faith actor.

I had the same belief regarding a federal agency who audit's police misdeads. I wouldn't put them with the DoJ, too much cross contamination and undue political influence. Instead put them under the IRS, Treasury or even DHS. Police have spent too long covering for bad actors in their attempts to "protect the image of police officers everywhere".

Then the "War on Drugs" just transformed the police to a poorly trained paramilitary force.

IRS is definitely the right answer here. I can't even imagine the bellowing from police unions if this went into place, despite the fact that restoring public trust is in their best interest.

They always talk about "a few bad apples" while ignoring that the rest of the saying is "spoils the bunch".

Facts don't care about feelings.

Unexpected Ben Shapiro

Edit: damn it even the avatar bares a resemblance.

***, please. I am way taller

That's a very fair point.

I wouldn't put them in the Treasury, same issue with cross contamination.

As a person who used to frequently deal with the IRS, especially those in Ogden, I would say that maybe not the IRS.

A subsection of the GAO maybe? Since it's principles are the same: accountability. Or maybe just take it out of the Executive Branch and place it directly in the Legislative Branch? Might give too much power to the Legislative Branch in that case, maybe?

I figured you to be a Guy Benson sort of person myself.

Change your statement to "poor white male" and I would say they are treated the same.

What you're missing is population density vs demographics heavily influences those numbers. Where are most poor blacks located? What is the population density in that location? What is the officer per sq mile ratio of that location? Now ask the same questions for poor white males.

Red necks or trailer trash cooking meth or growing weed is less likely to have a police encounter then inner city gang members. These guys get brutalized the same, only difference is less officers outside the cities.

Now for the cultural angle. A white dude becoming a law enforcement office isn't a big deal. A black male doing the same is considered a race traitor in black culture. That has an immense effect on perceptions and the number of black people in the police force.

Plus wasn't one of those dudes asian? Or are we ignoring them again.

:edit:
I'm saying this as a member of the trailer trash segment of the population. I knew people who cooked ***, robed homes and generally bad stuff. Spent an inordinate amount of effort to ensure I would never have to live in those places again.

Personally, I think police perception on the public depends on the crime factor of said area.

Places where less crime occurs generally have police presence who are more open to the community, and a community more open towards the police. The inverse is true also, in my opinion.

Plus, we are talking about a group of people in a very high-stress job.

Not only that, it’s highly inaccurate and ignorant at best.

why do people keep mentioning issues that have no bearing on this?

"He had an Asian Wife". So what- just like every dude without a non-white wife isn't racist, every dude WITH one isn't automatically a card carrying member of Black Lives Matter.

"Wasn't one of the officers Asian?" Again so what- abuse of power is abuse of power, the color of those in power isn't important at all in the discussion. Its the clash between those in control, and those not.

You can't have just one multicultural thing in your life and have that make you the moral advocate for all of America. One of the oldest mockeries of racial equality is the white guy saying "well I have one black friend"- if you can isolate all your cross racial connections down to one friend or just a spouse, or my kid's friend....then you're missing the point of NOT SEEING COLOR.

It is a color problem. But its not black that's the problem. It's blue. (that's not democrat blue, it's thin blue line *** blue)

And honestly, green. (money)

Yes, but who is the onus on? The civilian, or the trained professional? I expect more of a police officer than I do a civilian- they have the training and the responsibility in all situations they are involved in regarding conflict.

Bunch of white people arguing about racism, on behalf of others.

The absolute state of it.

Apparently its now racist to not see color.

I'm color blind, I only see green.

What I’m surprised about more than anything else is in the video of George Floyd’s murder, the EMT that arrive at the scene aren’t EMT but Sheriffs.

Honestly, you can't have cooperation without both sides.

Police do have more responsibility, and therefor should have more accountability, but communities should also have the responsibility towards each other...