#___ingwhileblack

[DMT]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/...lled-by-police

It actual--Black men/women are killed more often by police than their white counterparts. This is what several movements in the POC communities are trying to communicate to Non POC--being White has privilege--like not having to worry AS MUCH about being killed by the police.

As you've stated, most police interactions are routine and end without incident, but If and When things go wrong, they go wrong from POC more often than White folks.

That's what I believe DMT was referring to as Privileged logic.

had the neighbor in this case acted ;like yours did and just checked in on her himself things might have ended differently. Not that he's at fault (though he's stated that feels he is) but again, had he just checked in himself....

Right...from a purely statistical standpoint, any given interaction with police isn't going to end in tragedy, but the likelihood is much higher for POC, and what's worse is they're rarely held accountable.

[DMT]

That's anecdotal though. It's like someone who has been in a car accident saying you should never drive. Unless you have evidence of the contrary?

There are always stories about the bad things that happen - and there should be, those need to be addressed and fixed and in this case the murderer needs to be locked up. But you don't see 100,000 stories about how someone called a non-emergency line to check on someone and nothing negative happened. Why would you?

Making assumptions only on the .001% case is just bad logic.

But car accidents don't overwhelmingly disproportionally affect a certain group of people, as police brutality does. Using overall statistics isn't going to win this argument.

[Gregg]

That's anecdotal though. It's like someone who has been in a car accident saying you should never drive. Unless you have evidence of the contrary?

There are always stories about the bad things that happen - and there should be, those need to be addressed and fixed and in this case the murderer needs to be locked up. But you don't see 100,000 stories about how someone called a non-emergency line to check on someone and nothing negative happened. Why would you?

Making assumptions only on the .001% case is just bad logic.

Yep, I agree with this 100%.

[Sour Masher]

No offense taken.

I do not doubt that I am privileged in many ways. Having a bad experience with a policeman does not make me a brother in arms. It just means I got involved with a crappy policeman.

In this example Sour stated I am still dumbfounded, given the reputation of that police force, that her neighbor called for a check up on her. It is obvious that the neighbor did not think of the police department like Sour. I am suggesting that we often times beat ourselves up in hindsight. No offense to Sour. I am often in the same boat.

I think the math still supports calling the police even though this had a terrible and unacceptable outcome.

As an added terrible outcome, this community will now have to deal with the "feeling" that the police are now their enemies and not the right call.

And if I am this neighbor's family or friend, that is what I am telling him--that this is not his fault, it is the bad cop's fault. But if I am that guy, I still feel horrible.

[DMT]

Yep, I agree with this 100%.

Comparing police brutality to car accidents is way off the mark.

[Ken]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/...lled-by-police

It actual--Black men/women are killed more often by police than their white counterparts. This is what several movements in the POC communities are trying to communicate to Non POC--being White has privilege--like not having to worry AS MUCH about being killed by the police.

Straw man argument, I don't disagree that black men/women are killed more often. What we are discussing is the chance that calling to check on your neighbor helps them vs getting them shot.

As you've stated, most police interactions are routine and end without incident, but If and When things go wrong, they go wrong from POC more often than White folks.

That's what I believe DMT was referring to as Privileged logic.

Feels like you missed the point though. If 1 out of every 50 million times a woman gets in a car he gets in an accident, and 1 out of every 10 million times a man gets in a car he has an accident, but 1 out of every 100,000 times a man walks to work he is assaulted on the street is it rational of the man to not get in the car simply because he's more likely to have an accident than a woman?

Made up numbers and concepts, but hopefully the general concept is obvious. We focus on the worst case of situations - just because those worse case situations can happen (or happen more likely than they happen to someone else) doesn't make it rational to make choices based on those worst cases.

had the neighbor in this case acted ;like yours did and just checked in on her himself things might have ended differently.

Asking someone to put themselves in what they perceive as a dangerous situation is faulty logic here though. An open car door does not suggest that a crime is ongoing, since you can pretty easily see that no one is in the car, but a door to a house that is left open for hours at 2 AM might.

Not that he's at fault (though he's stated that feels he is) but again, had he just checked in himself....

Right, I'm sure he initially feels guilty, that's natural. Heck people feel guilty all the time for things they are not to blame for. It's a completely normal reaction.

[Ken]

Comparing police brutality to car accidents is way off the mark.

That's a terrible way to have a discussion. No one is comparing them in their severity, we are using it as a way to discuss whether the neighbor was correct in his logic to try to help his neighbor.

Don't do that. You can compare anything for statistical purposes, trying to make it look like you are equating two things simply by comparing their statistical likelihood is low, you are better than that, I know this from many interactions.

[Ken]

But car accidents don't overwhelmingly disproportionally affect a certain group of people, as police brutality does. Using overall statistics isn't going to win this argument.

I addressed this in my response to GITH.

[GwynnInTheHall]

And if I am this neighbor's family or friend, that is what I am telling him--that this is not his fault, it is the bad cop's fault. But if I am that guy, I still feel horrible.

I'm pretty sure most of would as well

[Gregg]

[QUOTE=GwynnInTheHall;350515]

Doesn't sound like a very pleasant existence.

We rarely lock the door before it's time to go to bed and there's always at least 2 windows open at all times (outside of the 3 days in Winter when it gets cold here in So Cal)

I grew up that way in Cedarburg Wisconsin. I am not sure when we started locking our car doors and front door at night. I believe it was somewhere in the mid to late 80's.

Circumstances of where I moved to over the years made it the best choice to lock the door. I probably could live the rest of my life not locking the door where I live, but that would cause anxiety.

[DMT]

That's a terrible way to have a discussion. No one is comparing them in their severity, we are using it as a way to discuss whether the neighbor was correct in his logic to try to help his neighbor.

Don't do that. You can compare anything for statistical purposes, trying to make it look like you are equating two things simply by comparing their statistical likelihood is low, you are better than that, I know this from many interactions.

Why is it terrible if I disagree with the argument? I understand your point, but using an overall statistical model to discuss risk, while ignoring other statistics that show overwhelming differentials of that same risk to certain subgroups, is a flawed argument.

Now, I'm not saying the neighbor should be condemned for calling the cops, see my posts above. But I'm also not saying that POC should ignore the reality that they are way more likely to be victimized by cops and thus much more hesitant to get them involved. It seems like you are making that argument, but correct me if you're not.

[DMT]

I addressed this in my response to GITH.

Actuarial models are not the same thing as systemic bias.

[Gregg]

Comparing police brutality to car accidents is way off the mark.

I agree it would be, but I do not believe that was Ken's point or what I was agreeing with.

[gcstomp]

btw, i have tremendous respect for our spec ops military, and i have trust in the higher ranks of our fbi. the barrier to entry is so different with the level of training to becoming fbi, i do not cringe at thought of military or fbi leadership same way as some local leo. too many people have been admitted into ranks with too little training and too much baggage who power trip because they know they can get away with it. over past 10 years, more than 1k a year are killed by police, in total there are about 12 (1 dozen) convictions of these police. it takes such an open and shut case of gross negligence that is also captured on video to get a conviction of police.

[Ken]

I agree it would be, but I do not believe that was Ken's point or what I was agreeing with.

Exactly this.

I hate it when people do this.

It's like if I say that around "1 out of every 10 people are left handed and 1 out of 6 women is the victim of sexual abuse" and someone were to respond "Oh my God, how can you compare those two??? One of them scars a woman for life, and the other just means they have to use a different pair of scissors".

The comparison of the likelihood of two events happening is not something we should push back on when we aren't comparing the severity events themselves. The pushback against comparisons of statistical odds between two unrelated items is silly.