Quite alright. Let me bring up the stats on "people who are shot by the police who have had no altercations with the police" real quick. Huh. Zero? That's strange.

CroakandDagger I do not care how broadly you define the term altercation (which Merriam-Webster defines as "a noisy, heated, angry dispute" for the record, but I assume you are taking to mean most interactions) what you just stated is factually inaccurate. It is a lie. There have been more than zero people shot by on duty police officers who did not have alterations with the officer.

Gee how did you miss all the elderly people shot by mistake when police raid the wrong address because they didn't double check their information before they went in guns blazing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/us/mississippi-wrong-house-trnd/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475
http://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/family-compensated-for-wrong-house-police-shooting-east-atlanta/6tPHl5j8QQgIKhiVzRiMHJ/
https://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2017/06/29/sheriffs-deputies-search-wrong-house-tell-innocent-man-hes-lucky-not-to-be-shot

There's no reason to assume that I meant something more broadly than I put it so that you can "Prove" me wrong by misrepresenting what I said.

To clarify, you are sticking by the statement that zero people are killed by the police that have had no altercations with the police? That is what you are doubling down on?

Because that is a falsehood. And you should retract your comment and apologize for lying to the community.

Yes, I am sticking by that statement.

No, I will not retract my comment.

No, I have not lied.

No, I will not apologise.

Totally false.
Philando Castile
Justine Diamond
Walter Scott
That's just for starters

If you think unarmed nonviolent people aren't shot by police routinely, you clearly haven't been paying attention

Of course maybe he won't apologize because he thinks "those people have it coming"

I think we have been around enough to know where those attitudes come from. And no, they never apologize

Ogion, taking my cues from jengamaster I have to insist that you apologise and retract your statement. You have "lied to the community".

Philando Castile was armed. Your first example of "Unarmed, nonviolent people" is explicitly not.

Mary Knowlton, a 73 year old retired librarian and mother was killed by police officer Lee Cole at a citizen's police academy demonstration last August when she participated in a shoot/don't shoot scenario. An event most are treating as a tragic accident.

I guess, if she wanted to be alive, she should not have had an 'altercation' with the police. Because the police have never killed someone that they have not had an altercation with...

@croak,
Philando Castile was NOT armed. He had a firearm in the car, and explicitly told the officer that it was in the car. He was then shot, UNARMED, by that officer. Feel free to watch the police camera footage, and listen to the audio.

He wasn't in an altercation. He said he was armed specifically to keep the cop from freaking out and killing him when reaching for his ID. Just being armed doesn't make him violent. It just makes him armed

As an armed black guy, he was doomed. If he is armed, he gets shot if he reaches for his wallet. If he doesn't reach for his wallet he gets shot for not complying with orders

Also, there is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/31/georgia-police-officer-we-only-shoot-black-people

In case there were any doubt

Of course maybe he won't apologize because he thinks "those people have it coming"

I think we have been around enough to know where those attitudes come from. And no, they never apologize

CroakandDagger, you still have not responded to my example. Are you still working on a response? Or are you silently admitting your ignorance and/or dishonesty? I hope it is the first, because if you are a coward, well, I just don't think I could stand it.

Make it a great day.

I think he just admitted I am right about him

As part of the exercise they got into an altercation with a police officer, jengamaster. Any situation where someone is confronted by an officer with a weapon drawn I would count as a "Heated Dispute," but I think that it's disingenuous of you to attribute malice or police brutality or racial profiling to a genuine accident.

And no, Ogion, I am just pointing out that you clearly hate police and want them all to die.

Ah, the straw man. A classic.

Oh ,yeah. Wanting cops to be professional and not murder people is totally about hating them and wanting them all to die.

I'd say it's unbelievable, but that's pretty much the attitude of most white Americans. It's almost as if they just decided taht instead of having amateur Klan chapters they just outsourced those terrorist functions to the cops

Sweet jesus:

"Any situation where someone is confronted by an officer with a weapon drawn I would count as a "Heated Dispute,"

That is, any cop amped up on roid rage is a "heated dispute" even if the person involved is being totally calm. Riiiiight.

Well, TrPrado, you have to understand that I wasn't the first to start misrepresenting the other person's arguments and making wild unsupported assumptions about their character.

You said this:
"Let me bring up the stats on "people who are shot by the police who have had no altercations with the police" real quick. Huh. Zero? That's strange."

I quickly proved taht was false, and predicted you wouldn't retract or apologize.
I was correct. So, no one has distorted your position. And you pretty much showed your character by your response. That's not unsupported.

(And let's not even justify your bizarre definition of "altercation" as one in which a cop draws a gun, because you've just said "no one gets shot by cops unless a cop draws a gun on them." Which is pretty stupid, frankly and not what you meant, and we all know it.)

can we all at least agree that better training, body cameras, and more departmental transparency when police shootings occur are all good things we should have bipartisan support for?

because if THAT isn't common ground, then i don't know what it

But that is what I meant. Nobody gets shot* who doesn't get into a situation where the police are motivated to pull a gun on them.

If you avoid getting into situations where police draw guns on you, shockingly that means you avoid getting shot* with a 100% success rate.

*by police. I almost forgot to add this caveat but then I remembered that if I don't phrase everything just-so with you people you'll to latch onto a slightly-flawed turn of phrase like rabid dogs.

Oh, you mean avoiding by like, not driving while black?

yeah. Give it up. You've pranced around in your white hood quite enough already.

Actually, my home is predominantly arab. But thank you for making unsupported racial assumptions.

Even if you are blaming the innocent bystanders who occasionally get shot by police, which is a gross thing to do, you said that zero people get shot who are not involved in an altercation with the police. If the police is in an altercation with someone else an an innocent bystander gets shot, that bystander was not in an altercation with the police. So how do you stand by claim of zero people shot?

Also, I did not " attribute malice or police brutality or racial profiling to a genuine accident." So suggesting that I did is either an intentional misrepresenting of the facts, or you having horrific reading comprehension skills.

Alright, jengamaster. Let's summon an example out of thin air.

Let's imagine that you have known somebody for a long time. You've become good friends, so good that they invite you to their home for dinner.

You attend, and for the first couple of hours everything is pleasant. But then your friend drops a plate and starts getting beaten by their spouse.

You do nothing.

By your logic, you were not involved in an instance of domestic abuse, so why would you do anything? You're just a bystander. You weren't a part of that situation.