Antonio Martin, 18 year old black teen, shot dead by cops in Berkeley, Missouri

[Bocivus]

The stat that jumps out for me is that a young black man is 21 more times likely to be shot by a policeman than a young white man.

Wish there was more people like you on this forum , people who are capable of posting and presenting their arguments in a rational manner.

The cops should just let themselves get shot by the black men so they can make everything "fair" then, right? You ever think that maybe a black man is 21 more times likley to put himself in a deadly force sitution with the police? Or is that just a racist thing to say? I mean hey, a dead cop is just a statistic no matter the race, but a dead black man is an instant martyr and reason to riot against the KKK police no matter the facts of the case justifying the shooting. Yeah, that's it.

[freebuddy]

Stats also show that while Blacks only make of 13% of the US population, Blacks commit 50% of the murders in the US.

Try to explain that one away.

It is time for the Black community to look within themselves to solve their problems rather to blame racism for everything.

from the Economist:

And just because someone agree with you does not mean they are rational. Like the guy who wanted to know if the gun was loaded!

By Gary Younge

5 Reasons People Are So Wrong About 'Black-on-Black Crime'

We don't hear much about white-on-white crime or Asian-on-Asian crime.

December 12, 2014

Shortly after Michael Brown was shot dead in Ferguson, Missouri, a local pizzeria owner, Jim Marshall, flashed a gun at black protesters after an argument. Some branded Marshall a racist and called for a boycott. A few weeks later, according to The Washington Post, his wife, Dawne, stopped kneading dough and addressed her patrons. We are not the type of people who they say we are! she declared. She pointed to two black customers sitting in her restaurant. When I see you, I see you, she added, as she began to cry. I dont see color!

This would be funny were it not so pathetic. If Dawne Marshall really didnt see color, how on earth would she know to point at the black people, and why would she say that to them?

To the twenty-first-century racist, race is always, ostensibly, irrelevant. Not only do they not see color; they are also blind to history, economics, politics, privilege, disadvantage, systemic bias and institutional exclusion. All they really see is inferiority and the inherent threat of those who embody it: They just so happen to be black in the same way that the people Dawne Marshall pointed out happened to be black.

The rights response to police shootings has followed this particular contradiction. First they insist these shootings have nothing to do with race, only to ask in the next breath why those who are race-obsessed refuse to address a different racial phenomenonblack-on-black crime. Ninety-three percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks, said former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, deploying a conservative talking point. We are talking about the exception here [in Ferguson]. I would like to see the attention paid to that, that youre paying to this.

On any given day, Rudy Giuliani is wrong a thousand times before he even wakes up in the morning. But here are five reasons why changing the subject from police shootings to black-on-black crime is so wrongheaded.

1. The term is a racial canard. Of course, it could merely be descriptive, an adjective for a certain kind of crime, like same-sex domestic-partner violence. But its not. Same-sex domestic-partner violence is distinguished from opposite-sex domestic-partner violence. But black-on-black crime has no racial equivalent: nobody talks about white-on-white crime (see 2) or Asian-on-Asian crime. Its a construct assigned solely to black people, and it interprets their transgression through a purely racial lens. It ranks alongside the down-low, a phrase used to refer to black gay men who lead straight lives, only to cheat on their wives with other men. When white men do it, its called Brokeback Mountain; when black men do it, it gets a special name. The phrase black-on-black crime makes sense only if you understand black peoples propensity to commit crimes against people of their own race as inherently different from the way other racial groups commit crimes.

2. In this regard, black criminals are not particularly different. America is very segregated, and its criminality conforms to that fact. So the victims of most crimes are the same race as those who commit them. Eighty-four percent of white people who are killed every year are killed by white people. White people who buy illegal drugs are most likely to buy them from white people. Far from being extraordinary, the fact that black criminals are most likely to commit crimes against black people makes them just like everybody else. A more honest term than black-on-black crime would be, simply, crime.

3. It is not a taboo. Anyone who seriously thinks that black people are not talking about black people killing other black people just doesnt know any black people. Black people talk about it a lot. They have a lot to talk about. But while black-on-black crime is a nonsense term, black crime is a serious issue. Black people may not be much more likely to kill members of their own racial group than whites, but they are still more likely to kill and be killed. Its not as though the black community hasnt noticed that. Most cities have several black-led organizations confronting this very thing. Nor do black people grieve according to some code of silence. Go to any inner-city church, youth club, park, concert, barbershop, beauty salon or high school basketball game and listen. Every now and then, like last year after Chicago high school student Hadiya Pendleton was shot, they even get a national platform to talk about it. And when they do, they seize it.

4. The police are a special category. Thats the point. Black people are not, by dint of their melanin content, instructed to protect and serve the public; the police, by dint of their employment, are. Black people do not have a monopoly on violence; the police do. So when the people entrusted with upholding the law kill someone, that raises very different issues than if a kid from down the block shoots somebody. When the people who are supposed to protect everybody show an undeniable propensity to kill one group of people more than others (black men aged 15 to 19 are twenty-one times more likely to be shot by police than their white counterparts), that inevitably raises the question of discrimination. Our taxes dont pay to support black criminals in their pursuit of black victims; they are currently going to support police in the shooting of black people.

5. The police are not an elevated category. The law still applies to them. When black people kill other black people, families and communities seek justice. When there are eyewitnesses, videos and forensic evidence, they want investigations, arrests, indictments, trials and convictions. They also want the punishment to be proportionate to the crime. They want no less when a policeman is the killer. In reality, they get far less. In fact, they get nothing. There is no punishment because, apparently, there was no crime.

http://www.alternet.org/5-reasons-people-are-so-wrong-about-black-black-crime

[freebuddy]

You must be kidding? There is NO way to see if a handgun is loaded or not from a distance, and a handgun was recovered at the scene. But I'm sure those racist pigs planted it right?

Where was the body cam? Oh wait, he left it in the car, damn.

[freebuddy]

Probably because young black men seem more likely to have the gansta/thug mentality and do something stupid resulting in their getting shot.

Yeah, if the SCF riots had happened in the USA, there might have been a few dead white people, and people would have got really mad then.

[Bill Sikes]

Yeah, if the SCF riots had happened in the USA, there might have been a few dead white people, and people would have got really mad then.

That you Al?

[freebuddy]

That you Al?

That you Hannity?

[Red Light Racicot]

By Gary Younge

5 Reasons People Are So Wrong About 'Black-on-Black Crime'

We don't hear much about white-on-white crime or Asian-on-Asian crime.

December 12, 2014

Shortly after Michael Brown was shot dead in Ferguson, Missouri, a local pizzeria owner, Jim Marshall, flashed a gun at black protesters after an argument. Some branded Marshall a racist and called for a boycott. A few weeks later, according to The Washington Post, his wife, Dawne, stopped kneading dough and addressed her patrons. We are not the type of people who they say we are! she declared. She pointed to two black customers sitting in her restaurant. When I see you, I see you, she added, as she began to cry. I dont see color!

This would be funny were it not so pathetic. If Dawne Marshall really didnt see color, how on earth would she know to point at the black people, and why would she say that to them?

Lol? I think the author is taking this too literally or something.

If the author thinks the ability to visually distinguish between race and color is what makes people racist then we are all in big trouble aren't we?

By all means, claim she is being discriminatory if she refuses to let black people in the store or sell them anything for example, but not on account of this utter nonsense.

[Bill Sikes]

That you Hannity?

You think of that all by yourself or did a grownup help you?

[etsen3]

Stats also show that while Blacks only make of 13% of the US population, Blacks commit 50% of the murders in the US.

Try to explain that one away.

It is time for the Black community to look within themselves to solve their problems rather to blame racism for everything.

from the Economist:

Black Americans are only 13% of the population, but over 50% of murder victims.

And just because someone agree with you does not mean they are rational. Like the guy who wanted to know if the gun was loaded!

You said that black commit 50% of murders, but the article you posted is quoted as saying blacks are victims of over 50% of murders.

I get that many of black community's problems are self perpetuated, and criminals are responsible for their actions, but that's not what this is about. It's about leveling the playing field. Because it isn't and it never has been and that's created a cycle of poverty and broken families.

Even if you're just going about your life normally, you still have a higher chance of being treated as a criminal if you're black,

[Buddhas Hand]

Stats also show that while Blacks only make of 13% of the US population, Blacks commit 50% of the murders in the US.

Try to explain that one away.

It is time for the Black community to look within themselves to solve their problems rather to blame racism for everything.

from the Economist:

And just because someone agree with you does not mean they are rational. Like the guy who wanted to know if the gun was loaded!

I do not feel the need to explain anything away but maybe briggs can , we here in australia treat the black people in our society just as bad if not worse than the americans do and they were here 40,000 years before the whites got here

Lets follow your logic becuase blacks commit 50% of the murders then they should expect to be 21 more times likely to be shot to police , is that what you are stating ?

Your last comment has me scratching my head ," And just because someone agree with you does not mean they are rational"

If you are referring to my post/reply to Esten in another thread , i was referring to the fact that he posted with out personal atttacks or smartarse liitle jabs and most importantly did not make it personal that was what i was referring to, also the fact that another member claimed the sandy hook shooting's did not happen , that they were a media hoax , do you think that person is rational ?

[Buddhas Hand]

The cops should just let themselves get shot by the black men so they can make everything "fair" then, right? You ever think that maybe a black man is 21 more times likley to put himself in a deadly force sitution with the police? Or is that just a racist thing to say? I mean hey, a dead cop is just a statistic no matter the race, but a dead black man is an instant martyr and reason to riot against the KKK police no matter the facts of the case justifying the shooting. Yeah, that's it.

Police in your country will shoot to kill when police in other countries will try everything esle before they actually shoot at some one breaking the law, and as i have stated before it is incomphrensible to an aussie that there is justification for shooting an unarmed to death , pumpinig multiple bullets into him./

Your army is the same, casualities from friendly fire are huge ,in WW1 the canadians refused to fight near the yanks because the yanks shot a lot of them by mistake , do some research , americans by nature shoot first and think later.

[Mr. Ambien]

You said that black commit 50% of murders, but the article you posted is quoted as saying blacks are victims of over 50% of murders.

I get that many of black community's problems are self perpetuated, and criminals are responsible for their actions, but that's not what this is about. It's about leveling the playing field. Because it isn't and it never has been and that's created a cycle of poverty and broken families.

Even if you're just going about your life normally, you still have a higher chance of being treated as a criminal if you're black,

People who act disproportionately like criminals get treated like criminals. Isn't that an amazing concept?

[Buddhas Hand]

People who act disproportionately like criminals get treated like criminals. Isn't that an amazing concept?

Even black people who are not acting in a criminal way get treated as potential criminals but this is justified because blacks commit more crime % wise , is this what you are stating ?

[Baka]

*clicks thread*

*enjoys lulz*

*moves on no fudge given*

[etsen3]

People who act disproportionately like criminals get treated like criminals. Isn't that an amazing concept?

I thought you were a defender of individual rights and allowing innocent people to go about their lives without coming under suspicion of the law. Or does the 4th amendment only apply if you're white?

I get that the black community has a higher crime rate, and that would result in more arrests. That still doesn't excuse the thousands of black people that are COMPLETELY INNOCENT and still get searched/arrested/harassed etc.

For example, in the stop and frisk program, 83 percent of those stopped are black or hispanic. Yet only 12 percent of stops resulted in arrests or summonses. Even if you take into account high crime rates for poor minorities, this is still an absurdly high proportion of minorities being searched.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/racial-discrimination-in-stop-and-frisk.html

It can also be debated whether minorities actually do commit more crimes after all, at least for certain crimes. Do black people really commit more crime, or are they just more likely to be convicted for it? For example, drug use rates are similar for white and blacks, yet black are much more likely to get caught.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities

Black people are twice as likely to be pulled over on the side of the ride, and not be given any reason for the stop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/

In the infamous police cash seizures program that was recently exposed, of those who challenged the seizures and recieved money back (in other words, were doing nothing wrong) the majority were minorities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

Bottom line is that racial profiling does exist, and that thousands or millions of minorities are having their rights and privacy violated simply for not being black (or of other minorities). Whether or not the black crime rate is higher, it does not excuse innocent people being treated as criminals. In fact, people of all races should be vigilant of right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

[Mr. Ambien]

I thought you were a defender of individual rights and allowing innocent people to go about their lives without coming under suspicion of the law. Or does the 4th amendment only apply if you're white?

I get that the black community has a higher crime rate, and that would result in more arrests. That still doesn't excuse the thousands of black people that are COMPLETELY INNOCENT and still get searched/arrested/harassed etc.

For example, in the stop and frisk program, 83 percent of those stopped are black or hispanic. Yet only 12 percent of stops resulted in arrests or summonses. Even if you take into account high crime rates for poor minorities, this is still an absurdly high proportion of minorities being searched.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/racial-discrimination-in-stop-and-frisk.html

It can also be debated whether minorities actually do commit more crimes after all, at least for certain crimes. Do black people really commit more crime, or are they just more likely to be convicted for it? For example, drug use rates are similar for white and blacks, yet black are much more likely to get caught.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-minorities

Black people are twice as likely to be pulled over on the side of the ride, and not be given any reason for the stop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/

In the infamous police cash seizures program that was recently exposed, of those who challenged the seizures and recieved money back (in other words, were doing nothing wrong) the majority were minorities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

Bottom line is that racial profiling does exist, and that thousands or millions of minorities are having their rights and privacy violated simply for not being black (or of other minorities). Whether or not the black crime rate is higher, it does not excuse innocent people being treated as criminals. In fact, people of all races should be vigilant of right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

Actually I am a defender of "individual rights". You're confusing rights of people who are innocent with people who are not innocent. I have a thread where I point out where discrimination occurs against blacks who are innocent (hijacked by a bunch of blocked freebuddy posts), but I find it interesting that a thread about a black person who aimed a loaded gun at a cop and deservedly was killed stokes yet another liberal red herring harangue about unrelated circumstances of blacks being arrested/killed/whatevered. Right on par with the stupidity of the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" / "Can't Breathe" / "Trayvon Hoodie" movement.

[etsen3]

Actually I am a defender of "individual rights". You're confusing rights of people who are innocent with people who are not innocent. I have a thread where I point out where discrimination occurs against blacks who are innocent (hijacked by a bunch of blocked freebuddy posts), but I find it interesting that a thread about a black person who aimed a loaded gun at a cop and deservedly was killed stokes yet another liberal red herring harangue about unrelated circumstances of blacks being arrested/killed/whatevered. Right on par with the stupidity of the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" / "Can't Breathe" / "Trayvon Hoodie" movement.

I agree that Antonio Martin made a stupid move and the shooting by the cop was justified. Yet many of these cases are not nearly as cut and dried. The debate about blacks being unjustly arrested is relevant because it's a systematic trend which these cases are often a part of. And many times altercations start after police approach citizens simply going about their lives.

[Mr. Ambien]

I agree that Antonio Martin made a stupid move and the shooting by the cop was justified. Yet many of these cases are not nearly as cut and dried. The debate about blacks being unjustly arrested is relevant because it's a systematic trend which these cases are often a part of. And many times altercations start after police approach citizens simply going about their lives.

So what about this reminds you of all these circumstances you cite?

[Bocivus]

Police in your country will shoot to kill when police in other countries will try everything esle before they actually shoot at some one breaking the law, and as i have stated before it is incomphrensible to an aussie that there is justification for shooting an unarmed to death , pumpinig multiple bullets into him./

Your army is the same, casualities from friendly fire are huge ,in WW1 the canadians refused to fight near the yanks because the yanks shot a lot of them by mistake , do some research , americans by nature shoot first and think later.

The police are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized. If that takes 1 round, so be it. Sometimes it takes more. Have you seen actual footage of people being shot by a handgun? The velocity is not high enough to cause immediate incapacitation unless you strike the central nervous system. It's not like a rifle round. Handgun rounds kill by causing massive internal bleeding or vital organ shutdown if the CNS is not directly hit. There are many cases of people being shot and still physically able to harm/kill someone even if the wound is inevitably fatal.

People are VERY capable of killing someone with their bare hands especially if the person is twice their size. If a perp tries to beat you and take your gun and you reasonably believe that they will take your weapon and kill you with it, then deadly force is authorized. Intent, capability, opportunity. If all three exist to a reasonable person deadly force is authorized, unarmed or not. Each situation dictates itself.

[freebuddy]

The police are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized. If that takes 1 round, so be it. Sometimes it takes more. Have you seen actual footage of people being shot by a handgun? The velocity is not high enough to cause immediate incapacitation unless you strike the central nervous system. It's not like a rifle round. Handgun rounds kill by causing massive internal bleeding or vital organ shutdown if the CNS is not directly hit. There are many cases of people being shot and still physically able to harm/kill someone even if the wound is inevitably fatal.

People are VERY capable of killing someone with their bare hands especially if the person is twice their size. If a perp tries to beat you and take your gun and you reasonably believe that they will take your weapon and kill you with it, then deadly force is authorized. Intent, capability, opportunity. If all three exist to a reasonable person deadly force is authorized, unarmed or not. Each situation dictates itself.

If the cops in a lot of these shootings had proper training, the incidents wouldn't have happened in the first place, and they wouldn't escalate into a "business-as-usual" approach. Instead, you have the situation you have now, and people are tired of it. That's why you have people protesting all over the USA over it. Can't think of too many other countries where these type of shootings are so constant.