daunte wright shooting

[Dahobbs 17,534]

25 minutes ago, Kyle said:

With all due respect ... logic requires intellectual positions based on data ... you know that gets you banned on here ... you have to go on emotional tirades fueled by fascist propaganda and unemployed twit influencers.

With all due respect, you enjoy espousing the virtues of logic, data, and the scientific process, but you can't even discern the difference between the introduction on why a study is taking place and the conclusions of the study. Don't think your not so subtle retreat from that conversation went unnoticed. A simple mea culpa would have sufficed. 

16 minutes ago, Kyle said:

As usual the data doesn't lineup with your stupidity.

To what data do you refer? I was pointing out the flaw in his analogy, not discussing actual aircraft incidents. 

As I mentioned above, while you love referencing "data," you have neither the experience nor the intellectual curiosity to actually understand any of the complicated phenomenon you discuss on this forum. And I'm sad for you because of that. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Dahobbs

[DalTxHornFan 3,101]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

With all due respect, you enjoy espousing the virtues of logic, data, and the scientific process, but you can't even discern the difference between the introduction on why a study is taking place and the conclusions of the study. Don't think your not so subtle retreat from that conversation went unnoticed. A simple meal culpa would have sufficed. 

To what data do you refer? I was pointing out the flaw in his analogy, not discussing actual aircraft incidents. 

As I mentioned above, while you love mentioning "data," you have neither the experience nor the intellectual curiosity to actually understand any of the complicated phenomenon you discuss on this forum. And I'm sad for you because of that. 

Here is a little something to kick off the "data" discussion:  https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2021/04/the-truth-about-police-shootings-in-america/

Edited April 15, 2021 by DalTxHornFan

[Kyle 207]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

With all due respect, you enjoy espousing the virtues of logic, data, and the scientific process, but you can't even discern the difference between the introduction on why a study is taking place and the conclusions of the study. Don't think your not so subtle retreat from that conversation went unnoticed. A simple mea culpa would have sufficed. 

To what data do you refer? I was pointing out the flaw in his analogy, not discussing actual aircraft incidents. 

As I mentioned above, while you love referencing "data," you have neither the experience nor the intellectual curiosity to actually understand any of the complicated phenomenon you discuss on this forum. And I'm sad for you because of that. 

I told you sweetheart, I am not on the market. But I am flattered. You're 90s BBS debating skills are both intriguing for their stupidity and alluring for their naivety.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

2 minutes ago, Kyle said:

I told you sweetheart, I am not on the market. But I am flattered. You're 90s BBS debating skills are both intriguing for their stupidity and alluring for their naivety.

I see you've decided to go full troll at this point. I'm guessing you'll be getting a vacation from this board sooner rather than later. Ciao. 

[Kyle 207]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I see you've decided to go full troll at this point. I'm guessing you'll be getting a vacation from this board sooner rather than later. Ciao. 

You begging for my KIK?

[Kyle 207]

40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Can you cite where we deem every police shooting as a bad shoot? Some are good shoots. Plenty are, actually. That was one of them. She was continuing to try to enter a secure area with hostile intent after being warned. She wasn’t running away. She wasn’t just disobeying a command. She was coming AT the cops and an area they had to defend. All of that said....there were several other instances in that attack where the cops absolutely could have fired and it would have been a good shoot....but they exercised some serious-ass restraint.

Anyone comes at a cop with hostile intent where they are defending a secure area may well get shot. Come AT a cop with a deadly weapon, including a car, and you might get shot. Come at the cops with a gun, you will likely get shot. We usually don’t criticize those shootings...because they aren’t bad shootings.

We don’t criticize cops for arresting someone for a warrant. We don’t criticize them for taking down someone busy attacking a victim, etc etc.

So let us get you on the record - a cop killing a person "with hostile intent where they are defending a secure area" is justified in killing said person? Question 2 - who determines "hostile intent?" So coming through a window is "hostile intent?" So "hostile intent" means someone not carrying a weapon? Did the officer think she was going to burp on him? Do you have a definition? 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Kyle

[cattail 112]

Did anyone answer where the national outrage is about Ashli Babbitt's murderer and why he hasn't been charged with murder? I missed the list of cities that burned, looteed, and murdered in response.

Lol wut? You mean the chick from the insurrection who tried to storm a secure area after being warned not to at gunpoint? She fucked around and found out.

[Kyle 207]

2 minutes ago, cattail said:

Lol wut? You mean the chick from the insurrection who tried to storm a secure area after being warned not to at gunpoint? She fucked around and found out.

So you think cops are justified in killing once they give an instruction and the perp does not follow it? (HINT: we'll never hear from you again on this thread)

Edited April 15, 2021 by Kyle

[Enchubben 5,510]

This thread is peak surly.

I’ve now seen advocacy for removing firearms from police officers, assembling a new force of meter maids to do traffic violations, a nationwide network of speed cameras (that I guess also check for insurance, drivers licenses, registration), and now punishing those with minor moving violations by dinging their credit.

The former of which are not exactly free and would need to be funded and/or staffed during a period where a significant portion of the nation wants them defunded/eliminated already.

Anything, anything but recommending following the fucking law and not being an asshole (cops and citizens).

 

[Huckleberry 32,859]

38 minutes ago, Kyle said:

I told you sweetheart, I am not on the market. But I am flattered. You're 90s BBS debating skills are both intriguing for their stupidity and alluring for their naivety.

Don't use fancy words if you can't spell them. 

[Kyle 207]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Don't use fancy words if you can't spell them. 

How long did it take you to craft that response? Seriously. Was that a sick burn in your world?

[Huckleberry 32,859]

Just now, Kyle said:

How long did it take you to craft that response? Seriously. Was that a sick burn in your world?

It took about 3 seconds. It's not a sick burn, it's just helping you out when you go on one of your tirades where you try to pretend you're smart.

[52-80 19,157]

47 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Here is a little something to kick off the "data" discussion:  https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2021/04/the-truth-about-police-shootings-in-america/

Let’s not talk about this, but talk about and insult individual posters instead

[Kyle 207]

Just now, 52-80 said:

Let’s not talk about this, but talk about and insult individual posters instead

Exactly. That's why they have to go get the Gestapo to shutdown diversity.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

10 hours ago, Kyle said:

It's almost if you head is in the sand about crime rates ... there are days I actually think you've convinced yourself the biggest danger to black men is cops.

Not at all.  The biggest dangers to black men are almost certainly heart disease and diabetes.  Both of which are heavily associated with a diet tied to poverty and lousy food opportunities (food deserts etc.)  So, I mean, there are things we can look at broadly, from a social and political aspect to address those.  Most go back to poverty.

But as for the issue with police, to me, the reason I am concerned is a simple one: the police are my employees, purportedly acting in my interest, using powers that were given to them by my government (which is to say, by me).  So, I am very, very concerned when people answerable to me go south.  It's the reason that I write employee reviews and even terminate people who work for me, but don't do anything of the sort for people who work for the business downstairs.

When a cop abuses his power, he does so in my name, wearing a badge that I gave him.  That bothers me a lot.  It should bother you, too.  When the rest of the  cops cover for and protect him....that too  bothers me a lot.

10 hours ago, Kyle said:

So let us get you on the record - a cop killing a person "with hostile intent where they are defending a secure area" is justified in killing said person? Question 2 - who determines "hostile intent?" So coming through a window is "hostile intent?" So "hostile intent" means someone not carrying a weapon? Did the officer think she was going to burp on him? Do you have a definition? 

There's a pretty good line to draw -- it's not perfect, but it's pretty good.  Is the person coming AT you, or going AWAY from you?  If Ms. Babbit -- who had unquestionably just committed a crime in full view of law enforcement officials -- was trying to FLEE the scene, and the cops shot her, I'd damned well call it a bad shoot.  If, when the insurrectionists decided to run away, the cops had chased after them, and shot them as they jumped into their cars, I'd likely call all of those bad shoots.  If, on the other hand, one of the insurrectionists then turned his car and gunned it towards the officers, that shooting might be a good shooting.

Of course, as noted above numerous times, the sole measure of whether police have a problem isn't just whether they shoot people.  If they had tackled and beat the everloving shit out of fleeing insurrectionists, that would be a problem, too (as just one example of non-shooting problems).

[BabaYaga 15,297]

9 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Anything, anything but recommending following the fucking law and not being an asshole (cops and citizens).

LOL, yep.  The usual race baiters are out in force.  Certain groups being pulled over more than others is of course "a problem".  Nobody is disputing this.  But it's not "this" problem of a stop on a suspect with an outstanding warrant.  

Fast forward, maybe it's issued by these meter-maids and entirely justified - as all warrant stops are.  Would be the same scenario.  

Then when you flee after being apprehended, now we have a "big problem", that compounded into a "big fucking problem" with the officer shooting. 

These tragic mistakes do happen.  White man shot in PA (Brian Riling) in 2019 during a struggle and the officer mistakenly thought he grabbed his taser.  Year before that, in 2918 Ryan Shane Smith, also white, was handcuffed in the car and started violently kicking the officer, who again mistakenly thought he went for the taser and instead shot him.  Eric Butts, same thing in 2014 in MO, a white panhandler was accidently shot when the officer thought they were reaching for their taser.

Every one of these is a tragedy, but it doesn't make this racially motivated.  

[ChickenSandwich 9,836]

17 hours ago, dcar00 said:

in this particular instance the guy had a warrant out for aggravated armed robbery.  I think they knew that before going up to the car(was the car his?) but not sure.  In my opinion it does change the dynamic if he tries to flee by getting back into the car.  they don't know what is in the car.  they only know he was unarmed when he was out of the car. 

 

Around 2:30 a.m., two women at the home told Wright and Driver they needed to leave, but the two men said they did not have a ride, the documents say. The women reportedly allowed Wright and Driver to spend the night.

 

In the morning, one of the two women left the apartment to get $820 in cash to pay the other for rent. After paying the rent, she left for work. 

As Wright and Driver were waiting for their rides, the other woman who stayed behind said Wright allegedly blocked the door, preventing her from leaving. Wright then allegedly pulled a black handgun "with silver trim out from either his right waistband or his right coat pocket," pointed it at the woman and demanded the $820, the court documents say.

The victim asked him, "Are you serious?" to which he allegedly responded, "Give me the f---ing money, I know you have it," according to the court documents. 

When she asked again if he was serious, he allegedly told her, "I’m not playing around."  

Wright then allegedly choked the woman while trying to pull the cash out from under her bra, where she had tucked it away.

The court documents say she was able to pry herself loose and "started to kneel down and scream." She told authorities that she allegedly heard Driver tell her to give the money to Wright, who was yelling at her to stop screaming. 

She reportedly screamed at them to get out of her apartment, telling them that the cops were close. Wright allegedly told her he would shoot her and said, "Give me the money and we will leave, give me the money and we will go."

He allegedly tried to choke her a second time and tried to take her money, according to the court documents. Driver allegedly told her to give Wright the money. The two men then left the apartment, got into a white Cadillac, and left the scene without the money. The woman later identified Wright and Driver via photo line-ups.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/daunte-wright-had-outstanding-warrant-for-attempted-aggravated-robbery-when-he-was-killed

[Jkwellborn 6,701]

There's a pretty good line to draw -- it's not perfect, but it's pretty good.  Is the person coming AT you, or going AWAY from you?  If Ms. Babbit -- who had unquestionably just committed a crime in full view of law enforcement officials -- was trying to FLEE the scene, and the cops shot her, I'd damned well call it a bad shoot.  If, when the insurrectionists decided to run away, the cops had chased after them, and shot them as they jumped into their cars, I'd likely call all of those bad shoots.  If, on the other hand, one of the insurrectionists then turned his car and gunned it towards the officers, that shooting might be a good shooting.
Of course, as noted above numerous times, the sole measure of whether police have a problem isn't just whether they shoot people.  If they had tackled and beat the everloving shit out of fleeing insurrectionists, that would be a problem, too (as just one example of non-shooting problems).

Does foolishly calling them insurrectionists make you feel better? Because if it were the same situation and a white lady shot a black dude, you be making the same arguments you are now.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Too bad Wright can't be tried in a court of law for his alleged crimes, huh?

[MonkeyDoughnut 10,235]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Too bad Wright can't be tried in a court of law for his alleged crimes, huh?

Gotta show up for your hearing if you want to do that

[Dahobbs 17,534]

35 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

Does foolishly calling them insurrectionists make you feel better? Because if it were the same situation and a white lady shot a black dude, you be making the same arguments you are now.

That's what they were. And that's why many of them face significant prison time And I am confident that the race of the shooter and victim didn't play into @Brisketexan's analysis of the shoot. 

[Not a cat 5,656]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Year before that, in 2918 Ryan Shane Smith, also white, was handcuffed in the car and started violently kicking the officer, 

Found futureman's sock.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Every one of these is a tragedy, but it doesn't make this racially motivated.  

Has anyone argued that this shooting itself was racially motivated? Y'all constantly setup this strawman argument that conflates direct racism with systemic racism. The racial problem here is that black people are more likely to be stopped and be in a situation where they could make a mistake (which this person did) that costs them their life. That doesn't require any of the officers involved to be racist. Separate from the racial problem is the general cop problem: they escalate situations rather than de-escalate, they use deadly force when not required, and the way they enforce the laws means that both cops and citizens are often put in high-stress situations where somebody can make a mistake that ends up costing a life. 

[Brisketexan 105,139]

58 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

Does foolishly calling them insurrectionists make you feel better? Because if it were the same situation and a white lady shot a black dude, you be making the same arguments you are now.

I truly have no idea what you are getting at.  I called them insurrectionists....because they were openly, admittedly, and proudly committing an insurrection?  I mean, they told us repeatedly exactly what they planned to do -- they were "storming the capitol" to "stop the steal" (meaning, stop Congress from certifying the vote).  That wasn't exactly a closely-held secret.

And if a white lady shot a black dude in the context of an insurrectionist actively assaulting a defended position.....yeah, I would be making the exact same argument I'm making now: that would be a good shooting.  EDIT -- hell, I just thought of an example that I can go with that will flip the script -- the assault on the Portland federal courthouse during the BLM protests, with civilians inside.  Had a protester (let's specifically say a black protester) penetrated the security of the building, and was coming at cops in an inner corridor who had those civilians in a defensive position behind them, and the protester was breaking through the last barrier to get at those people in spite of repeated orders to back down.....the cops could have fired and that would have been a good shooting. 

Plenty of black men have been shot in good shootings.  I've never taken the position that if a cop shoots a black man, that's a bad shooting, just because it's a cop shooting a black man.

I remember well a case from many years ago (man, maybe 20?), a young black man was shot by an Austin cop when he used his car to run from a traffic stop, and the cop was tangled up in his door and was being dragged.  The cop shot him.  There was some outrage that started with "but he was unarmed," but it didn't get a lot of traction....because a 4,000 pound vehicle is a weapon, AND he was actively using it in a manner that presented an immediate danger to the officer's life.  I thought at that time, and still do, that was a valid use of force.  So, there you had a case where a fleeing suspect DID present an undeniable immediate danger, and force was justified.  As just one example.

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Has anyone argued that this shooting itself was racially motivated? Y'all constantly setup this strawman argument that conflates direct racism with systemic racism. The racial problem here is that black people are more likely to be stopped and be in a situation where they could make a mistake (which this person did) that costs them their life. That doesn't require any of the officers involved to be racist. Separate from the racial problem is the general cop problem: they escalate situations rather than de-escalate, they use deadly force when not required, and the way they enforce the laws means that both cops and citizens are often put in high-stress situations where somebody can make a mistake that ends up costing a life. 

And the bolded above, with respect to this specific case.  The only race-based issue here is the raffle ticket issue: the more you buy, the more chances you have to win.  Except for black men, it's not raffle tickets they get more of, it's "encounters with cops," and they don't get more chances to win, they get more chances to lose: lose their liberty, or simply lose more of their time and peace of mind, or get roughed up, or, the ultimate loss -- their life.  Neither the guy with 10 raffle tickets nor the guy with 15 raffle tickets are guaranteed to win.  Each of them might get buy just having had that number of raffle tickets.  But the guy with 15 tickets has more chances than the guy with 10.  

Edited April 15, 2021 by Brisketexan

[BabaYaga 15,297]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Has anyone argued that this shooting itself was racially motivated? Y'all constantly setup this strawman argument that conflates direct racism with systemic racism. The racial problem here is that black people are more likely to be stopped and be in a situation where they could make a mistake (which this person did) that costs them their life. That doesn't require any of the officers involved to be racist. Separate from the racial problem is the general cop problem: they escalate situations rather than de-escalate, they use deadly force when not required, and the way they enforce the laws means that both cops and citizens are often put in high-stress situations where somebody can make a mistake that ends up costing a life. 

This whole line of reasoning about systemic racism is a giant strawman, based on the false narrative that he was "targeted" as a black man with an air freshener hanging from his mirror.  Nor is this direct racism.  Guy had expired tags and warrant for robbing someone at gunpoint.  He then fled the scene - the catalyst for the ensuing tragedy.  

[Captainant 27,667]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This whole line of reasoning about systemic racism is a giant strawman

Are you saying that 1) systemic racism doesn't exist, and 2) that black men are not stopped at a disproportionally higher rate than white folks?

Because from the totality of your posts, one could infer that you don't think racism even really exists.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This whole line of reasoning about systemic racism is a giant strawman, based on the false narrative that he was "targeted" as a black man with an air freshener hanging from his mirror.  Nor is this direct racism.  Guy had expired tags and warrant for robbing someone at gunpoint.  He then fled the scene - the catalyst for the ensuing tragedy.  

I don't think you understand the term "strawman." Or are you suggesting I'm advancing my own position (systemic racism is a thing) in order to knock it down?

At any rate, the facts here (including the video) suggest that the cops were unaware of his outstanding warrant prior to the stop, which means they didn't stop him because of that warrant. Rather, they stopped him because of the air freshener.

The fact is that black people are disproportionately more likely to be stopped by the police (and that's even after controlling for rates of criminal infractions, which itself is a separate issue relating to systemic poverty). I've posted numerous studies on this issue before (as have others), including in response to dearly departed @Kyle.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Dahobbs

[BabaYaga 15,297]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Are you saying that 1) systemic racism doesn't exist, and 2) that black men are not stopped at a disproportionally higher rate than white folks?

Because from the totality of your posts, one could infer that you don't think racism even really exists.

A few posts up where I addressed this:

Certain groups being pulled over more than others is of course "a problem".  Nobody is disputing this.  But it's not "this" problem of a stop on a suspect with an outstanding warrant.  

[gmr548 16,580]

It took about 3 seconds. It's not a sick burn, it's just helping you out when you go on one of your tirades where you try to pretend you're smart.

Wait until he shifts from smart to alpha he man. Hoooo boy.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 hour ago, Jkwellborn said:

Does foolishly calling them insurrectionists make you feel better? Because if it were the same situation and a white lady shot a black dude, you be making the same arguments you are now.

Why is it foolish to call them insurrectionists? 

 

[Dahobbs 17,534]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

A few posts up where I addressed this:

Certain groups being pulled over more than others is of course "a problem".  Nobody is disputing this.  But it's not "this" problem of a stop on a suspect with an outstanding warrant.  

But, as I said above, that doesn't appear to be why they stopped him. The greater problem here is general policing problem I mentioned previously. Their methods put both themselves and citizens in unnecessarily high stress situations where a mistake by either party can lead to a loss of life. We need to correct that. 

[BabaYaga 15,297]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

At any rate, the facts here (including the video) suggest that the cops were unaware of his outstanding warrant prior to the stop, which means they didn't stop him because of that warrant. Rather, they stopped him because of the air freshener.

You need a freshener on what "facts" are then, as this is not the case - his tags were out.  That'll get you most every time unless they just expired.  Tags + mirror stuff = 100% you're getting stopped.  Upon which 100% of LEOs will run your plates, finding for this exact reason, the outstanding warrant for aggravated assault.  

The only one "conflating" anything here is you.

[BabaYaga 15,297]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

But, as I said above, that doesn't appear to be why they stopped him. The greater problem here is general policing problem I mentioned previously. Their methods put both themselves and citizens in unnecessarily high stress situations where a mistake by either party can lead to a loss of life. We need to correct that. 

Your entire weak point hinges on the assumption that it was the mirror, and solely the mirror items that caused the pullover.....not the expired tags (MUCH, MUCH  more likely and the outstanding warrant)

[lmao 178]

12 hours ago, cattail said:

Lol wut? You mean the chick from the insurrection who tried to storm a secure area after being warned not to at gunpoint? She fucked around and found out.

People support state power when they believe it is being used against their political enemies. I'm sure that woman's political views were abhorrent, but that does not mean she should have been murdered. She was unarmed and iirc she was standing next to security or an officer before she was shot. Police shouldn't murder unarmed people. Full stop.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

You need a freshener on what "facts" are then, as this is not the case - his tags were out.  That'll get you most every time unless they just expired.  Tags + mirror stuff = 100% you're getting stopped.  Upon which 100% of LEOs will run your plates, finding for this exact reason, the outstanding warrant for aggravated assault.  

The only one "conflating" anything here is you.

While I question your assertion that "tags + mirror stuff = 100% you're getting stopped" (I know this not to in fact be true), do you now admit that the warrant played no role in the initial stop? In fact, it appears the warrant played no role in the arrest either, as they didn't appear to know about it until after they started to arrest him. 

[Dahobbs 17,534]

6 minutes ago, lmao said:

People support state power when they believe it is being used against their political enemies. I'm sure that woman's political views were abhorrent, but that does not mean she should have been murdered. She was unarmed and iirc she was standing next to security or an officer before she was shot. Police shouldn't murder unarmed people. Full stop.

She was part of a mob breaking through a barricade into a secure area that contained members of Congress that the officers were charged with protecting. She herself was attempting to enter the secure area (through busted glass) when she was shot. She wasn't a passive observer. 100% it was a justified shooting, and I'd say the exact same thing if it had been BLM protest. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Poe It Up 126]

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Gotta show up for your hearing if you want to do that

Holy shit, this is so fucking good. Bravo. 
 

The police chief stated he had expired tags, what is all of this stuff about air fresheners? 

[Dahobbs 17,534]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Your entire weak point hinges on the assumption that it was the mirror, and solely the mirror items that caused the pullover.....not the expired tags (MUCH, MUCH  more likely and the outstanding warrant)

No it doesn't. He wasn't pulled over for the warrant, we know that. Whether he was being pulled over for expired tags or the mirror, or some combination of both, makes no difference to me. As a blackman he had a elevated chance of getting pulled over for those things versus a white man. That's just a fact, backed by decades of research and statistics. As I said, I don't think it is necessary to relitigate the existence of systemic racism in this thread. The primary problem with this particular stop was the general policing issue I've mentioned many times at this point. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Dahobbs

[BabaYaga 15,297]

2 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Holy shit, this is so fucking good. Bravo. 
 

The police chief stated he had expired tags, what is all of this stuff about air fresheners? 

But air fresheners......

[BabaYaga 15,297]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

No it doesn't. He wasn't pulled over for the warrant, we know that. Whether he was being pulled over for expired tags or the mirror, or some combination of both, makes no difference to me. As a blackman he had a elevated chance of getting pulled over for those things versus a white man. That's just a fact, backed by decades of research and statistics. 

Jesus you are so desperate to conflate these two.  I got pulled over this year for expired tags.  That you are so desperate to tie this to a racist angle is telling.....

[Dahobbs 17,534]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus you are so desperate to conflate these two.  I got pulled over this year for expired tags.  That you are so desperate to tie this to a racist angle is telling.....

I wasn't conflating anything. And I don't think you understand statistics or chance. I never said that white people with expired tags don't get pulled over. I know they do. I said black people with expired tags are more likely to be pulled over than white people with expired tags. That's it. And, how have I've been "desperate to tie this to a racist angle?" I've already said that the shooting itself doesn't appear to be racially motivated. And I've already said that the primary issue with this stop is the broader problem of police enforcement. You're the one that keeps bringing up racism and denying the existence of systemic racism. I'm just responding to your assertions. I'd be perfectly happy if this conversation stayed focused on the general problems with policing. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Carl Spackler 3,483]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

In fact, it appears the warrant played no role in the arrest either, as they didn't appear to know about it until after they started to arrest him. 

Yeah, that's one of the questions I've had for a while now.  It appears that the male cop was already attempting to cuff the subject when the female officer returned from the cruiser to the subject's car with the information that there was a warrant for his arrest, so I've been wondering why the subject was in the process of being cuffed prior to that time.  Maybe the cops had some information about the existence of a warrant but wanted or needed to confirm?  Not sure.  But it's a question that needs to be answered by the PD.

That said, it would appear that the existence of the warrant did play a part in the incident, because the subject didn't try to escape until after the female cop announced he had a warrant.

 

[Dahobbs 17,534]

1 minute ago, Carl Spackler said:

Yeah, that's one of the questions I've had for a while now.  It appears that the male cop was already attempting to cuff the subject when the female officer returned from the cruiser to the subject's car with the information that there was a warrant for his arrest, so I've been wondering why the subject was in the process of being cuffed prior to that time.  Maybe the cops had some information about the existence of a warrant but wanted or needed to confirm?  Not sure.  But it's a question that needs to be answered by the PD.

That said, it would appear that the existence of the warrant did play a part in the incident, because the subject didn't try to escape until after the female cop announced he had a warrant.

 

Yup, I agree with this. He panicked once he realized the warrant was an issue and did something exceedingly stupid. And, it is unfortunate for him and for the cop that she was also put in a position to make the further mistake that cost him his life.  And, to be clear, I don't see anything malicious in what happened here. It is all just tragic. And it is a tragedy that has unnecessarily repeated itself many time and in many ways. So, let's fix it so these things are a lot less likely to happen. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No it doesn't. He wasn't pulled over for the warrant, we know that. Whether he was being pulled over for expired tags or the mirror, or some combination of both, makes no difference to me. As a blackman he had a elevated chance of getting pulled over for those things versus a white man. That's just a fact, backed by decades of research and statistics. As I said, I don't think it is necessary to relitigate the existence of systemic racism in this thread. The primary problem with this particular stop was the general policing issue I've mentioned many times at this point. 

Young people also get fucked with and pulled over more than older people.  As do males compared to females. The fact is younger men are likely to get pulled over for an expired tag than my grandmother would be.

Police target higher crime demographics.  They profile.

 

[BabaYaga 15,297]

29 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Yeah, that's one of the questions I've had for a while now.  It appears that the male cop was already attempting to cuff the subject when the female officer returned from the cruiser to the subject's car with the information that there was a warrant for his arrest, so I've been wondering why the subject was in the process of being cuffed prior to that time.  Maybe the cops had some information about the existence of a warrant but wanted or needed to confirm?  Not sure.  But it's a question that needs to be answered by the PD.

That said, it would appear that the existence of the warrant did play a part in the incident, because the subject didn't try to escape until after the female cop announced he had a warrant.

 

They often won't just yell out "he's got a warrant" or "he's wanted for a crime" as it spooks them as it did here.  Often, they try to get the individual away from the vehicle, others, and into a place that they can control the scenario.  

When you get pulled over, that pause when they are still in the car, they are calling in the stop and running your plates

[Enchubben 5,510]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

When you get pulled over, that pause when they are still in the car, they are calling in the stop and running your plates

Really? reading this thread I figured they were doing melanin level analysis before the check for warrants.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

35 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Young people also get fucked with and pulled over more than older people.  As do males compared to females. The fact is younger men are likely to get pulled over for an expired tag than my grandmother would be.

Police target higher crime demographics.  They profile.

 

I'll ignore the fact that you see nothing improper in racial, age, or gender profiling when deciding whether to stop someone suspected of a criminal violation.

However, even after accounting for propensity for crime (which is generally a poverty issue, itself an artifact of systemic racism), black people get pulled over more, receive harsher sentences, and generally get the short end of the stick in the justice system. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'll ignore the fact that you see nothing improper in racial, age, or gender profiling when deciding whether to stop someone suspected of a criminal violation.

However, even after accounting for propensity for crime (which is generally a poverty issue, itself an artifact of systemic racism), black people get pulled over more, receive harsher sentences, and generally get the short end of the stick in the justice system. 

So do males, and compared to the racial disparity by an order of magnitude.  You ever bitch about that?

I did not make a judgment on it.  I am just saying it is what they do. And the only thing anyone ever complains is about the racial disparity.  Not age.  Not sex.

Starr from University of Michigan Law School found that, controlling for the crime, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are… twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted", also based on data from US federal court cases.

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

 

[GringoSalado 1,651]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'll ignore the fact that you see nothing improper in racial, age, or gender profiling when deciding whether to stop someone suspected of a criminal violation.

source?

[Dahobbs 17,534]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So do males, and compared to the racial disparity by an order of magnitude.  You ever bitch about that?

I did not make a judgment on it.  I am just saying it is what they do. And the only thing anyone ever complains is about the racial disparity.  Not age.  Not sex.

Starr from University of Michigan Law School found that, controlling for the crime, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are… twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted", also based on data from US federal court cases.

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

 

Sure, I'll complain about it right now. It is unjust. And, there are numerous studies that address that issue, just like there are studies that address the racial issue. The only reasons you see more complains about the racial issue is 1) it affects an historically disadvantaged community (can't say that about men), and 2) certain people not only resist acknowledging its existence, but actively dispute it is even a problem, necessarily engendering a forceful response. I don't know of anyone saying we should ignore the disparity in treatment between men and women in the justice system or that such a disparity doesn't exist. Do you?  

Edited April 15, 2021 by Dahobbs