Some more interesting numbers to throw into the racial discrimination number crunching truth generator that is debate on TeakDOOR.
It turns out that whites are 39% of the prison population and blacks are 40%.
Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia
Yet, of the 1000 killings by police per year, twice as many whites (50%) are killed as blacks (25%).
Also, blacks punch way above their weight in murder, accounting for over 50% of the 15000 murders committed annually in the USA despite being only 13% of the population.
Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
If blacks are committing the most violent crimes at these disproportionate rates (and getting locked up for serious crime in higher proportion) then they are bound to be attracting more high risk armed police confrontation than their population percentage alone would predict, which might explain their 25% share of police killings compared with their 13% population proportion.
Is digging out these numbers a gauche and embarrassing politically incorrect gaffe on my part?
Not really. It doesn't account for the death of unarmed suspects which - AGAIN - is what started this off.
It doesn't explain why unarmed blacks are killed by police at 2.5 times the rate per capita that whites are.
It doesn't explain why blacks are more likely to be arrested than let off for minor crimes; why if they go to court they are more likely to be convicted than whites; why sentences for blacks are on average longer than those for whites for the same offences.
It's merely a set of high level numbers that you're using to suit your predefined mindset without bothering to examine anything that might challenge it.
Which is what you've been doing since you first posted in this thread.
What a load of utter bolllocks that guy talks. Going on about armed police
All the police are armed in the States ain't they?.
The part where he thinks the police should drive Rayshard around the corner to his sisters house to sleep his drunkenness off?.... After being caught drunk in charge of a motor vehicle?
^ i know and don't get me started as to why Kelloggs Coco pops have a monkey on the front and Rice Crispies have white kids...there are just too many issues in play here. Where is screechy.?
Last edited by panama hat; 17-06-2020 at 04:06 AM.
Oh, definitely- most unPC. Hope there are no statues of you out there!Is digging out these numbers a gauche and embarrassing politically incorrect gaffe on my part?
The USA not only claims to be a first world nation, it seems to think of itself as the pre-eminent first world nation. As such, my primary point of reference is comparing it's record of Police homicides to other first world nations. By this measure, by no means is it a first world nation or even close:-
List of killings by law enforcement officers by country - Wikipedia
Look for yourself. In the US, 46 people per 10mm are killed by the Police annually. It stands, enviably, between Burundi and St Lucia in the rankings.
In the UK, it is 0.5 people per 10mm. Australia- 1.7 per 10mm. Canada= 9.7 (about the next greatest 'first world nation', if ya wanna be killed by the cops).
So I rest my case- there is a Real problem with police homicides in the US, and I can well understand peoples anger.
This brutality is not just applicable to blacks though- also hispanic & white. That is also true. But inordinately blacks.
So change is needed. Good luck with that- I hope you can do better than your farcical attempt at drawing the US into first world status with Healthcare reform, the lack of which certainly kills more people every year than Police bullets (or knees). Dissipating the protests to the point that they now encompass the "oh but Slavery" dorks, Vegans, Racist anti-racists, B'waaah Colonialism wimps, Antifa website groupies, Free Tibetans and every other wanker on the planet just makes your failure more certain.
Last edited by sabang; 17-06-2020 at 07:18 AM.
Chad just can't comprehend why those who are treated less than his equal would complain about it and disrupt his peace and quiet.Originally Posted by sabang
Why can't they just shut-up and dribble or protest where / when / what he says.
Maybe back in your day, in the 1960s or in Thailand after a little bribe. In first World countries nowadays it's an offence to be drunk and near your car with the keys to it in your pocket.
Of course not, in the UK he'd have been tasered too though for resisting arrest. What would have happened in the UK had he done the same and grabbed the cops taser, ran off and then turned around to fire it, nobody knows but it's very unlikely he'd have ended up dead although it wouldn't have worked out well for him.
The bigger picture to me is that the USA needs to sort out their gun control and the neck stamping, as well as address the racism angle, instead it's been turned into this crusade, solely over the skin colour of some drunken and drugged up criminals.
Whoosh, that went over your head, didn't it?
- He is asking WHY police need to be armed to attend every incident, a drunk bloke asleep in a car being one of them. Maybe you missed it, but people are questioning how exactly police are keeping unarmed people safe by KILLING THEM.
- He suggested that even driving the unarmed bloke home under the current circumstances might have been a better choice than KILLING HIM. Maybe you might live in a cave and not realise that there are currently national riots underway in protest at violent policing that ends in the death of unarmed suspects.
I'm struggling to comprehend how can you be so biased as to hear it any other way.
Oh, how times have changed.
I clearly recall a parody I read in the 70s, in (I think it was) MAD magazine.
A cop shot a guy in the leg for some trivial offence. This was regarded as an absurd act at that time, hence it being in that magazine.
Nowadays they are getting shot in the back and killed, and it is not a parody, but reality.
If the cop felt he had to shoot, why the hell did he have to aim at his back ? Why not a leg, FFS ?
Not at all. It just sounds retarded.
How do the police know who is armed or not?
Would you volunteer to be an unarmed cop in America?
He committed a felony.
So because there are protests on, you think all black people out breaking the law should be sympathised with and dropped off at their doorstep?
Hazza is starting down the same road as screechy did, another 7-10 days and something will pop. Snap, crackle and pop.
Yea, I was born in the 60s . . . never had any colisions with cops at that age.
I don't think so, but if you'd like to cite that I'd be grateful
Sure - no problem with that. The difference as well is that the guy wouldn't have started fearing for his life being handcuffed in the UK.
You're not wrong, but the 'crusade' (poor choice of word) is becessary to change those attitudes. Hving gone to Uni in Chicago I can tell you some horror stories
^^ All those years in Saudi Arabia witnessing human rights abuses and daily floggings and his call centre job handing out the sage advice of "have you tried turning it off and back on again" to BT customers has brought him to his knees
Its called drunk in charge in the US and drunk in charge of a motor vehicle in the Uk(which I've been done for) and it carrys the same sentence as drink driving in the UK
Drunk in Charge of a Vehicle Offence Solicitors | PDA Law.Being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle
The charge of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle is a motoring offence which can lead to prosecution resulting in a fine or a custodial sentence of up to 6 months, endorsement of 10 points or disqualification from driving. The offence is committed if: “a person is in charge of any motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in their breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit they are guilty of an offence”.
Whether or not a person is in charge of a motor vehicle depends on the facts of each individual case. These cases usually arise when a motorist who is in excess of the prescribed limit is found inside a car but is not driving. The key question is whether the person is in control of the vehicle and whether there is a realistic possibility of them attempting to drive the vehicle. An individual could be charged with this offence if they have entered a vehicle with the intention of removing belongings or to sleep.
As with many motoring offences, the law is not clear cut. Every case is different and motorists need not accept the charge without challenge. Factors such as presence of car keys and the engine running all play a part in a case such as this. Therefore, the real key to defending a charge of being drunk in charge of a vehicle is centred upon the intention to drive. If you can prove that despite being over the prescribed alcohol limit you had no intention of driving, then you stand a very good chance of defending the charge and avoiding prosecution.
I agree and hope it does change the way black people are treated, who are more wronged undoubtedly.
It's a huge job changing America though. What a clusterfuck.
A huge start would be removing everyones guns, giving the cops individual racial diversity training and stopping those prisons being run as businesses.
The place is one huge Penal Colony in the heart of the Wild West. The land of the free? Pah!
It's the home of the brave alright though.
^ You come across as an awfully angry little man Raymond
^^
Triggered in 3,2,1.
I suspect when he took my advice and popped of to a BLM soc media place to bore the fook out of them, they laughed him out of there, I bet he barely got the words "Teaching English" out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)