I figure it's your fault for living in a country where there are armed police.

Not quite sure how to respond to that, I was simply trying to illustrate the absurdity of your altercation with police argument.

To quote you: "Nobody gets shot* who doesn't get into a situation where the police are motivated to pull a gun on them."

Are you going to stick to that statement?

this is why we need better training, but to pretend such a hypothetical situation is systemic in policing is simply wrong, they're unfortunate accidents that don't occur regularly.

there were what, 963 fatal shootings in 2016? most of these are actually justified shootings, but let's assume ALL 963 shootings are unjustified police acts of violence

there are approximately 1,100,000 police in the united states. over 365 days a year...


this means there are about 2.6 shootings a day in a country whose population is 323,100,000

these shootings are perpetrated by .0875% of the entire police population



in 2015 there were 15,696 murders, 90,185 rapes and 327,375 robberies (robbery charges imply threat of force used)

by comparison, police shootings are not a significant problem in America, when compared to the .13% rate of these violent crimes (excluding other specific crimes) perpetrated in America yearly.

the police force is not more violent than the general populous, they are about 34% LESS violent, and that's a HIGH end estimate, not taking into account all other various violent crimes the public perpetrates.


Do we need reform in our police department? Yes, there is always room to improve. Is this the number 1 crime problem facing our nation? no, it is not

Yeah, i'm going to stand by it. Obviously accidents can happen but I don't believe any sane person is going to hold an ambulance accountable for knocking someone over in the course of trying to save a life.

My apologies, I just wanted to highlight the absurdity of CroakandDagger's statement with a single example. I did not mean to represent the position that I believe my hypothetical is representative of a systemic issue, I certainly agree with you police reform and better training is necessary.

I will admit that by "zero" I may have meant "as close to zero as to make no significant statistical difference" but I didn't assume i'd get jumped by a gaggle of hyperliberalised sociopaths on a forum for board game hobbyists.

I stand corrected I guess.

James I don't think anyone would disagree with much of what you said obviously criminal justice and policing in general need reforms. But the issue that chef and I are most interested in is daggers contention that zero people get shot without having been involved in an altercation. That is obviously blatantly false.

While chefs example was a hypothetical there have been similar circumstances where innocent bystanders have been shot. Even using daggers now extended expanded definition for altercation I don't see how it is applicable. I do enjoy that he expanded the definition after telling me explicitly that he did not want to see the definition expanded though.

Lastly the dinner party example is a bizarre jump and frankly I really want to know more about how daggers brain works so I might ask some more questions to get to the bottom of that.

I apologize for any errors grammatically I am using dictation while walking right now

Sorry I added that post not seeing daggers. I appreciate him admitting that he lied thanks dagger. Make it a great day

I didn't lie, though. I was speaking loosely because I wasn't aware of the obsessive, nitpicking nature of your so-called "debate".

Thank you jenga, I was simply aiming to point out his categorically false assertion that nobody gets shot by police unless they are in an "altercation" with them. I still disagree with the contention that the amount is statistically insignificant but I appreciate you clarifying dagger

Yeah, that might be the case if you didn't explicitly double down on it. If you speak in absolutes expect to look foolish because you will. Make it a great day.

That is fair to disagree with Chef because it is not statistically insignificant. But what are you going to do

This kind of arrogance is precisely why i'd prefer to see literal nazis in power in America than Democrats.

Hahaha. My wife last night, after seeing this thread, told me "be careful or people might start thinking you are a liberal." She will be pleased to know that she was right. I may be arrogant, and get a cheap thrill educating the ignorant, but I am no democrat.

Although I for one would rather have democrats in power than literal nazis. Call me crazy.

You're crazy.

Pro tip, Croakanddagger:
If you sput racist memes and demonstrably false statement that denigrate the real issues minorities face, you're going to give the impression that you're at minimum horribly ignorant and insensitive. That's not an "unsupported assumption" but rather an inference supported by the statemetns you've made. I know this is a tough concept, but yes, people will judge you by your words. I know in conservative snowflake world, "free speech" means "having zero consequeces from behaving like a total ass" but that's not what it means. It only means "the government can't lock you up just for saying it. Other citizens can go to town on you, though."

This isn't a liberal v conservative issue. It's a decent human being v psychopath issue.

You don't have to be a liberal to think that it is unjust for people to be pulled over and then shot for being black.

And you don't have to be conservative to think that it's a good idea to respect armed police. They're a lot less likely to shoot you if you don't get in their faces.

Respecting the police is irrelevant if they're out to abuse you and maybe shoot you because you're black. It isn't the civilians that are the problem here, it's the cops and prosecutors

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/31/officer-gun-motorcyclist-zw-orig.cnn

If you were in the above video's situation what would you think and do? Note how the armed gunman is dressed and how long into the video it takes before he identifies himself as a police officer. In this era of road rage incidents what makes you think he's police and not just looking to justify his stand my ground actions before he opens fire.

Right, I was forgetting how there were no "Cops of colour" and that all police who kill are a part of white supremacy. My bad, Ogion, my bad.

More duck and weave. So what if 10% are cops of color if 90% are abusive white cops?

Way to bring a logically irrelevant item to try (and fail) to argue racism isn't an issue.

The more you try to defend obvious racism the more obvious it is you're a racist

Sure, I guess. I suppose it's lucky for me "Racist" has been overused so much it doesn't mean anything any more, then.

"Racist" is not over-used.

It's used frequently, for sure. But that is because a lot of people are racists.

Not like it every did. If it did, you wouldn't spout racist shit.

If anything racist is underused, because too many people don't want to hurt the delicate fee-fees of conservative snowflakes.

I mean withalm these people taking a look at you and leaping to negative assumptions about you, it is almost like you were a black man! Except of course, it doesn't result in you being murdered or denied a job or treated like shit, so it isn't even remotely similar.

Thinking racism is confined to conservatism lmao

Did I say that anywhere? Nope. Of course, conservativism is the main home of it and it is the ideology based on it. There are racists all over of course, but it is nowhere near the concentration among liberals as among conservatives nor is it as virulent and it isn't socially acceptable among liberals. You do have the "kill all the white people" types and racism between minority groups for sure but they don't have whole rallies and they don't get support from the party leaders the way white supremacists do. That's the difference

If you don't want to be murdered or denied a job try not having a criminal record. Race doesn't have as much to do with anything as some people think.

It is a handy excuse for the criminal, the lazy and the incompetent, though!