Two NYPD Officers Dead After Execution-Style Ambush
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
Skewed: to make conform to a specific concept, attitude, or planned result.
That's precisely why politically-based articles that use statistics as the basis from which conclusions are drawn are virtually meaningless. People tend to draw conclusions that aren't even present in the statistics, because they see cause and effect that aren't represented, and see correlations between things that simply aren't there.
For example of that is when people look at the black arrest and conviction statistics, they see that blacks are arrested and convicted at much higher rates than whites, and conclude it's because blacks commit more crimes (or conversely, blacks commit more crimes and thus are arrested more). Yet the basis for such a conclusion is not present in the statistics, even if both crimes committed and arrest and conviction statistics are present in the same study. Those aren't cause and effect, they are effect-only. What is not present in the statistics are all the times that whites were given a pass by cops (or prosecutors in dropping charges), for minor crimes. Maybe they were merely given a stern talking or a warning to instead of being arrested, or the suspicion isn't as strong with whites so they're given the benefit of the doubt. Whereas with blacks it's just the opposite, plus additional charges are filed for good measure to where actually pleading guilty to something you didn't do is infinitely preferable to being found guilty and serving a significantly longer sentence.
There are simply too many absent variables in the statistics to draw the conclusion that blacks are arrested and convicted more because they commit more crime. That's how pseudoscience or junk science works - drawing conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence, or worse, conclusions that are supported by illusory corollary (two or more data sets that aren't related but are joined together anyway because it allows you to draw a particular conclusion).
Well, the only claim that I made was the percentages of the US population that are white and black. The rest wasn't claims, but rather to demonstrate how easy it is to draw severely flawed conclusions when using statistics as the basis for those conclusions.
In the abstract I agree with you. My philosophy is to be over-the-top cooperative, to the point where they'd have no choice but to describe me as very cooperative. It's just human nature that when someone gets on you bad side, you'll go out of your way to not give them a break on anything. Granted, I've never been harassed by the police and I haven't had very many run-ins with the police other than traffic stops. But I've had a couple, and both turned out OK, in part I'm sure because I was very cooperative.
We'd need to know a lot more information than that in order for it to mean much, not the least of which is, of the 55% and the 45%, how many of the cops were white, black or Hispanic, did any of them have a history of violence (including police brutality complaints and even domestic abuse), their ages, length of time on the force, etc. And, which cops, if any, were wearing body cameras or were on video from dash cameras. It's still early, but we've already seen some impressive evidence that shows when police are wearing body cameras the number of police brutality claims drops significantly, likely due to a combination of fewer bogus claims are filed, and the police tend to behave themselves when they know they are being recorded.
I think it can be ended. It's not much different than the example noted in the article where in some parts of the country people are no longer startled or upset with interracial relationships. The white cop - black citizen thing is just another part of the paradox. Part of the not caring much about the interracial couples thing, though, also has to do with familiarity and getting used to something. Prejudice is in part a fear mechanism, we fear what we don't know. understand, and are unfamiliar with. On that issue I disagree with the article where it says we are not born with prejudices, because we are. It's hard coded in the DNA and survival instincts. We seek out and are more comfortable with others who are most like us, who look most like us. It's inherently familiar, more comfortable, and aids in the survival of the species.
You put 500 each of Asians, Hispanics, blacks and whites into a gymnasium and it won't take long for them to largely separate and congregate into like groups. There will be a few stragglers intermixing, but not many. And it'll take a really, really long time for people of one group to become familiar and comfortable with significant numbers of the other groups because they've already coalesced into like groups. However, do the same thing with 5 of each group and there will be far less grouping, because the entire group of 20 becomes familiar and comfortable.
Whites are afraid of blacks. But, when A white person gets to know A black person one-on-one, they become familiar and comfortable. There's no reason to be afraid or wary.
As part of the paradox of society, at least some portion of society realizes all this (consciously or unconsciously), and they make the decision that people are people, that we all have the same wants, needs and desires, and there's no need for prejudice when interacting with each other in our daily lives. Not everybody makes that decision, and there will be situations where the prejudice deep within us all rises to the surface.
Now back to why I think it can be ended. These things tend to come in waves, or like the pendulum swinging back and forth. It has ended before, countless times, only to happen again, of course. But for the most part each cycle tends to be a little less severe when it's bad, and a little more better when it's good. Because of the perceptions and the narratives out there, it will as always need to be the police to initiate the changes. They are usually the ones that cause things to go bad, they're the ones with power, the ones doing the abusing, the ones escalating things by their militarizations. Citizens not respecting the police, not cooperating, ambushing the police and assassinating them those are reactionary actions rather than causations.
The police have a set of principles of good policing, a code of ethics almost, that if they follow them, the general public responds accordingly. I'd be very surprised if there are any trained police officers or police departments that are unfamiliar with these principles. They are called the Peelian Principles, or the Nine Principles of Policing. Sir Robert 'peel developed these principles in the early 1800s when he attempted to codify and define an ethical police force. Take a close look at these and note which ones the police follow, and how much better things would be if they followed all of them.
PRINCIPLE 1 The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
PRINCIPLE 2 The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
PRINCIPLE 3 Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
PRINCIPLE 4 To recognize always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
PRINCIPLE 5 To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws {enforce the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law}, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
PRINCIPLE 6 To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
PRINCIPLE 7 Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
PRINCIPLE 8 To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
PRINCIPLE 9 The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. {That means no SWAT teams for collecting an unpaid property tax bill from a 92 year old man.}
Yes, in the high crime areas with a large black population. the problem will be worse. Sad irony is the police's increased presence and their proactive measures will be reduced and as a result, more black lives will be lost.
New York focused on high crime areas and took a proactive approach to policing. The murder rate went down significantly and thus LESS black lives were murdered.
It has NEVER been about "black" lives lost. It is ONLY about power for the FEW who wish to control the majority, black, white or polka dotted. They REALLY don't care about "black lives". It is all a smoke screen.
Just because you shout with all caps, it doesn't make the words true.
You're always proclaiming what "they" REALLY want, but you've never provided a shred of fact to prove it. Because the truth is, you can't. All you can do is repeat it, and you do, ad nauseum.
The same claptrap, SHOUTED, adds absolutely nothing useful to this, or any conversation.
THERE'S A LARGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHOUTING WITH ALL CAPS, THE OPERATIVE WORD BEING "ALL," and in capitalizing an individual WORD for emphasis in lieu of using italics or underline or bold or some other method of emphasizing a word. Before WYSIWYG editors came to the Internet, capitalizing a word was the best alternative for a lack of being able to use italics. It has to do with ASCII code and what you can and cannot do with it. There is no ASCII character for italics, that's done via a software layer, on the Web that usually means HTML, PHP, bbCode or some other coding language. Most smartphone apps for Web forums aren't WYSIWYG, and while they allow bbCode, that can be confusing to a lot of people. Even the WYSIWYG editors on the Web can be confusing for many. Sometimes I'll capitalize a word if I want to REALLY emphasize it in a way that other emphasizing methods just don't seem to convey. Old timers from Usenet still use <g> and <G> instead of [noparse]
and [/noparse]. Couldn't use colons much on Usenet because they triggered different functions of the Usenet News reader software.
Anyway, BE THAT AS IT MAY, he's largely correct about the people in power using the police to protect their power. None of the early police forces were public servants, they were private police forces put together by the rich elites to protect the interests, their power and their stuff. The most famous of those, of course, is the Pinkerton Detective Agency (now a subsidiary of Securitas AB), who in the 1890s had more agents than the US Army had soldiers. In addition, at least for the first few years, of bringing dowm some of the most notorious criminals in America, the Pinkertons were essentially an armed force of thugs used to enforce the will of anyone who hired them. They are most closely associated as being employed as strike breakers, but they were used by many people with money and power as muscle, as much as it took, to enforce their will.
Allan Pinkerton was an immigrant in Chicago who discovered a group of counterfeiters and had them arrested. He was then made a deputy sheriff and later a special detective of the Post Office. In 1850 he founded Pinkerton's National Detective Agency and did mostly legitimate police and detective work until his death in 1884. Their motto was "We Never Sleep" and their logo was an unblinking eye. It's why even today private detectives are called "private eyes." Now you know.
But when his sons took over the agency grew at an astounding rate and they became out of control. Their absolute power corrupted them absolutely. To the point where Congress passed into law the Anti-Pinkerton Act which prohibited the government from hiring them, and nearly every state has laws on the books preventing outside agents from being brought in during labor disputes.
With the formation of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies the Pinkertons were largely sidelined insofar as law enforcement and detective work, so they moved into private security. But those with money and power will still use whatever influence they can to use the police to protect their interests, power and control.
and [/noparse]. Couldn't use colons much on Usenet because they triggered different functions of the Usenet News reader software. Anyway, BE THAT AS IT MAY, he's largely correct about the people in power using the police to protect their power. None of the early police forces were public servants, they were private police forces put together by the rich elites to protect the interests, their power and their stuff. The most famous of those, of course, is the Pinkerton Detective Agency (now a subsidiary of Securitas AB), who in the 1890s had more agents than the US Army had soldiers. In addition, at least for the first few years, of bringing dowm some of the most notorious criminals in America, the Pinkertons were essentially an armed force of thugs used to enforce the will of anyone who hired them. They are most closely associated as being employed as strike breakers, but they were used by many people with money and power as muscle, as much as it took, to enforce their will.
Allan Pinkerton was an immigrant in Chicago who discovered a group of counterfeiters and had them arrested. He was then made a deputy sheriff and later a special detective of the Post Office. In 1850 he founded Pinkerton's National Detective Agency and did mostly legitimate police and detective work until his death in 1884. Their motto was "We Never Sleep" and their logo was an unblinking eye. It's why even today private detectives are called "private eyes." Now you know.
But when his sons took over the agency grew at an astounding rate and they became out of control. Their absolute power corrupted them absolutely. To the point where Congress passed into law the Anti-Pinkerton Act which prohibited the government from hiring them, and nearly every state has laws on the books preventing outside agents from being brought in during labor disputes.
With the formation of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies the Pinkertons were largely sidelined insofar as law enforcement and detective work, so they moved into private security. But those with money and power will still use whatever influence they can to use the police to protect their interests, power and control.
And the hits just keeepon comin',,,
No word on whether the 18-year old, and very dead, Antonio Martin "feared for his life" when the police officer approached to confront him for what is being described as "standing there minding his own business in public."
But, the police are investigating themselves, so everything will turn out as predicted. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Police: Officer in Missouri shot, killed man who pulled gun
Fatal Cop Shooting of Antonio Martin in Berkeley, Missouri Sparks Clashes - NBC News
No word on whether the 18-year old, and very dead, Antonio Martin "feared for his life" when the police officer approached to confront him for what is being described as "standing there minding his own business in public."
But, the police are investigating themselves, so everything will turn out as predicted. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Police: Officer in Missouri shot, killed man who pulled gun
Fatal Cop Shooting of Antonio Martin in Berkeley, Missouri Sparks Clashes - NBC News
If I were to be approached by an officer I don't believe my first reaction would be to pull a gun. I would, according to the law, first inform the officer that I have a CPL and that I am carrying, assuming that I am, or that I am not carrying, assuming that I am not. I also would not fear for my life if just approached by an officer. I would also not refuse to answer any legal question and if I thought that things were being taken to far I would politely ask to speak with a lawyer before answering any more questions.
The above is how a sane, rational person, handles encounters with law enforcement officers.
Idiots pull guns on them and get killed.
The above is how a sane, rational person, handles encounters with law enforcement officers.
Idiots pull guns on them and get killed.
Well, so far, the only person to corroborate that the dead guy pointed a gun at the cop is, the cop.Yeah, the police office never should have shot the man for pointing a gun at him. He should have waiting until the man actually shot him, or at least shot at him, before doing anything.
But it's certainly not hard to imagine, especially in the current climate, that the dead guy legitimately feared for his life as the cop approached, and thus pulled out to gun in self defense. The difference is, of course, he hesitated to fire and the cop didn't.
That's what YOU would do. But you're not young and black and therefore scary, and you do not have a reasonable fear that the police are going to kill you.
No reasonable person, who is not breaking a law, fears for his/her/it's life, if approached by an officer who does not have a gun drawn. Even when I have had a LEO put his hand on his weapon while talking with me, it has taken place on 3 occasions, did I fear I would be shot. Why not? Because I am a calm, reasonable person, who knows how to de-escalate a problem and lower the chances of being harmed.
I know, and have worked, with large numbers of members of different minority groups, many different races, colors, etc, and not one has ever been killed by a LEO. Not one has ever been harassed by one. Not one has ever been arrested. It is unlikely that any of the ever will be. Why? Because they conduct themselves in a reasonable, proper, manner. They don't break laws. They don't project an image that would lead a LEO to believe that they were.
It is really simple. I would be willing to bet a large coffee, with whipped cream, that the vast majority of people in this country, who are members of any number of minority groups(s), never have a serious encounter with LEO's. I would also be that the reason for that is they know they are doing nothing wrong and they know how to handle themselves in stressful situations. Behaving in a reasonable manner, reacting in a reasonable and not putting yourself into questionable situations, is, not only simple, but is the solution.
That may be true, but for many black people these are extraordinary times that are outside reason.
I had a Border Patrol agent (3 of them simultaneously, actually) draw their weapons and point them right at me. I absolutely feared of being shot. And it wasn't because I had escalated it, either. It was because of what they heard the officer to whom I was speaking said. They reacted quickly, to what turned out to be absolutely nothing, and it was the officer I was dealing with that calmed everybody down.
My experience has been somewhat different than yours.
Vast majority. OK. Serious encounter. OK. That still leaves a whole lot of vast minorities in relatively non-serious situations.
Cops Escape Charges For Killing Walmart Shopper Holding A BB Gun Sold At The Store
"My experience has been somewhat different than yours."
I guess it's all about who one associates with, and where.
I have never had a gun drawn on me, just a few times have I had a LEO put his hand on his weapon. Twice were by Border LEO types, one US and one Canadian. Once in NYC where a minority, and quite young, LEO put his hand on his.
I was able, in both cases with the Border dudes, to de-escalte the situation myself, by just remaining calm, and not doing anything to provoke further action.
The NYC cop was brought under control by his much older partner. After it was over, the older cop and I, had a good laugh at the younger cop's expense.
I did have a Mountie try to tell me that his dog had found "drugs" on my truck, which of course was not correct. He said his dog was never wrong. He was a real smart butt, but he was forced to admit that his dog was wrong, and that the dog was a pup in training, which was obvious, and was prone to excitement.
It is quite easy to avoid trouble.
I guess it's all about who one associates with, and where.
I have never had a gun drawn on me, just a few times have I had a LEO put his hand on his weapon. Twice were by Border LEO types, one US and one Canadian. Once in NYC where a minority, and quite young, LEO put his hand on his.
I was able, in both cases with the Border dudes, to de-escalte the situation myself, by just remaining calm, and not doing anything to provoke further action.
The NYC cop was brought under control by his much older partner. After it was over, the older cop and I, had a good laugh at the younger cop's expense.
I did have a Mountie try to tell me that his dog had found "drugs" on my truck, which of course was not correct. He said his dog was never wrong. He was a real smart butt, but he was forced to admit that his dog was wrong, and that the dog was a pup in training, which was obvious, and was prone to excitement.
It is quite easy to avoid trouble.
Last edited:
Yeah. I managed a restaurant in Nashville and had a lot of black employees, mostly in their teens and early 20s, many of whom lived over in the projects across the interstate from the football stadium. I can't recall a single one of the black males that talked about it saying they had never been stopped and harassed by the cops. Rather, it was an frequent occurrence in the projects and the surrounding area. I have witnessed such encounters. On two separate occasions employees failed to show up for work because they had been killed by the police. In both cases they were unarmed, and walking home from work, and in both cases the police feared for their lives because they thought they saw a gun.
I admit that I was a little shocked that something like that could happen two times in two years to people I knew, but I had employees just shrug their shoulders and tell me it happens all the time, is just part of everyday life in the projects. And that shocked me, too.
So yeah, I guess it's who you associate with, and where.
"So yeah, I guess it's who you associate with, and where."
I associated with professionals. Well dressed and well spoken. They lived in various parts of the suburban and urban areas around Ft. Meade, MD, including the DC area. Not one ever expressed having a problem with LEO's.
A number of them had come from less than fortunate back rounds, poor and disadvantaged. All had pulled themselves out on their own through their own hard work and drive.
In this area there is a much smaller population of minorities, although it is growing. As that population grows, the crime rate increases in direct proportion to the increase. Why? I am sorry to say that the majority of those moving in tend to be involved in, shall we say less that legal ways of supporting one's self, such as heroin and human trafficking. It is safe to say that when they have interactions with our LEO's in this area it is often on less than ideal manners.
This influx of, what is primarily a criminal minority, has had detrimental effects on Monroe. It has become so bad in one part of town that the Kroger now has security people there at all times. It is no longer safe to go there at night, thanks to the drug dealing that goes on.
It just is what it is.
I associated with professionals. Well dressed and well spoken. They lived in various parts of the suburban and urban areas around Ft. Meade, MD, including the DC area. Not one ever expressed having a problem with LEO's.
A number of them had come from less than fortunate back rounds, poor and disadvantaged. All had pulled themselves out on their own through their own hard work and drive.
In this area there is a much smaller population of minorities, although it is growing. As that population grows, the crime rate increases in direct proportion to the increase. Why? I am sorry to say that the majority of those moving in tend to be involved in, shall we say less that legal ways of supporting one's self, such as heroin and human trafficking. It is safe to say that when they have interactions with our LEO's in this area it is often on less than ideal manners.
This influx of, what is primarily a criminal minority, has had detrimental effects on Monroe. It has become so bad in one part of town that the Kroger now has security people there at all times. It is no longer safe to go there at night, thanks to the drug dealing that goes on.
It just is what it is.
Yeah, the police office never should have shot the man for pointing a gun at him. He should have waited until the man actually shot him, or at least shot at him, before doing anything.
There is a video in this case.
Video shows officer shooting armed teen near Ferguson
Turtle: 'preciate the history lesson, but I already know about Allen Pinkerton and his work, and I disagree that the police are used to protect the "they" the OP refers to. [Because they can afford their own security forces, and they certainly have them.] The US military, absolutely, but not the city police departments, who are mostly the ones making headlines.
Either way, I don't believe that comments such as "It is ONLY about power for the few who wish to control the masses" & "They REALLY don't care about black lives, it is all a smokescreen" add anything useful to the conversation. Particularly when the generic "they" is never specified, so we can decide if we agree or not.
Using all caps to emphasize is effective - if it's used rarely. [Like swearing]. When it's used regularly, it's just an annoying habit, more likely to bring the conversation to a halt than further it.
Either way, I don't believe that comments such as "It is ONLY about power for the few who wish to control the masses" & "They REALLY don't care about black lives, it is all a smokescreen" add anything useful to the conversation. Particularly when the generic "they" is never specified, so we can decide if we agree or not.
Using all caps to emphasize is effective - if it's used rarely. [Like swearing]. When it's used regularly, it's just an annoying habit, more likely to bring the conversation to a halt than further it.