18 yr old shoots at off-duty St. Louis cop, gets killed

[Mavorpen]

Oh, yes - pick at one word you don't like, and ignore everything else said. A rather cheap tactic, commonly used by people who know they have no defensible argument to make - instead they hope that by diverting the subject to talking about the appropriateness of that specific word, the larger debate falls by the wayside.

Sorry, not interested.

No, the one who is changing the subject is you (singular and plural) . All that the crowd ready to automatically accuse a cop of murder and planting evidence and framing up a black man has been able to produce thus far, have been strawman-y general rants and anecdotal evidence of racial profiling.

Mind you, proving that blacks are profiled (which is long established and no one even tried to disprove in this discussion, so your "argument" is by all means a strawman) does not grant you the right (or, rather, it does - but don't expect anyone to take you seriously when making unsubstantiated claims) to state that a cop will kill a black man deader than a white one all things being equal. Plenty of white individuals have been killed on "just the suspicion of a firearm being brandished", you just don't hear of it on the news as much (or rather, the same big fuss isn't made of it) because it doesn't play into this "murdered because black!!!!111" narrative.

Your logic is, well, devoid of logic. For starters, to reach the conclusions you have apparently reached through nothing more than your anecdotal or irrelevant "evidence", you would need to first look at the rate of police encounters ending in use of force or lethalities from a racial perspective, and then try and adjust that for stuff like racial profiling, different criminality rates among races, etc.

Before you at least try and do some of these steps don't come here and lie to us how cops will kill a black man deader than a white man. kthxbai.

So let's get this straight. You're going to call his argument a strawman (it isn't, and I doubt you know what that word even means) and say that there's no logic behind it because his evidence is anecdotal, but not only do you not try to refute his logic directly, you make a claim with no intention of backing it up? Really? At least he's given SOMETHING rather than pulling shit out of thin air.

[New Chalcedon]

Oh, yes - pick at one word you don't like, and ignore everything else said. A rather cheap tactic, commonly used by people who know they have no defensible argument to make - instead they hope that by diverting the subject to talking about the appropriateness of that specific word, the larger debate falls by the wayside.

Sorry, not interested.

No, the one who is changing the subject is you (singular and plural) . All that the crowd ready to automatically accuse a cop of murder and planting evidence and framing up a black man has been able to produce thus far, have been strawman-y general rants and anecdotal evidence of racial profiling.

Right. Because, of course, it hasn't been pointed out in this thread that white people can carry loaded firearms openly and then sass off police asking for ID without fear of the response, that the St. Louis PD have changed their story on the incident twice (including once to a version of the story that was physically impossible) and other such things.

Nooo, it's all strawmanning and ranting. Gotcha.

Mind you, proving that blacks are profiled (which is long established and no one even tried to disprove in this discussion, so your "argument" is by all means a strawman) does not grant you the right (or, rather, it does - but don't expect anyone to take you seriously when making unsubstantiated claims) to state that a cop will kill a black man deader than a white one all things being equal.

Dead is dead. But cops kill black people much more often, and often with less cause, than white people. That's simply reality.

Plenty of white individuals have been killed on "just the suspicion of a firearm being brandished", you just don't hear of it on the news as much (or rather, the same big fuss isn't made of it) because it doesn't play into this "murdered because black!!!!111" narrative.

[Citation needed]

If you're going to make a claim that out-there, you'll need to provide evidence of it.

Before you at least try and do some of these steps don't come here and lie to us how cops will kill a black man deader than a white man. kthxbai.

Whatever. I'd try to engage with you, but you're so detached from reality and isolated in your lovely little patch of white privilege that there's no point.

Bai.

True. And if and when it's revealed that the shooting was justified, the cop can be offered a new job. That's fair, right?

How is that fair? Your solution is essentially a tu quoque? Two wrongs make a right, right?

Not at all. But I suspect that subtle argumentation escapes you - as does the principle of arguing from facts and evidence. I was noting the hypocrisy involved in sacking a black public servant on the suspicion of racism (based on a doctored video), but retaining a white public servant who's suspected of murdering a black kid. And that said hypocrisy benefited, as it always seems to in public life, the white person.

[New Chalcedon]

So let's get this straight. You're going to call his argument a strawman (it isn't, and I doubt you know what that word even means) and say that there's no logic behind it because his evidence is anecdotal, but not only do you not try to refute his logic directly, you make a claim with no intention of backing it up? Really? At least he's given SOMETHING rather than pulling shit out of thin air.

But of course!

...Wait, you're surprised? You shouldn't be, Mavorpen.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

No, the one who is changing the subject is you (singular and plural) . All that the crowd ready to automatically accuse a cop of murder and planting evidence and framing up a black man has been able to produce thus far, have been strawman-y general rants and anecdotal evidence of racial profiling.

Right. Because, of course, it hasn't been pointed out in this thread that white people can carry loaded firearms openly and then sass off police asking for ID without fear of the response, that the St. Louis PD have changed their story on the incident twice (including once to a version of the story that was physically impossible) and other such things.

Nooo, it's all strawmanning and ranting. Gotcha.

It is. Because it is all anecdotal evidence towards the ever-tuned factoid that black people are killed because they're black. Which is the main talking point of those who have been quick to accuse the cop of framing the kid and planting evidence.

Mind you, proving that blacks are profiled (which is long established and no one even tried to disprove in this discussion, so your "argument" is by all means a strawman) does not grant you the right (or, rather, it does - but don't expect anyone to take you seriously when making unsubstantiated claims) to state that a cop will kill a black man deader than a white one all things being equal.

Dead is dead. But cops kill black people much more often, and often with less cause, than white people. That's simply reality.

No, it is not. Until you can prove this, which no one has been able to in this discussion, it is just as bullshit as it was before. I've already explained why black people may be getting killed more often BECAUSE they are being profiled, meaning that they find themselves interacting with cops more often than white people, and BECAUSE minority crime rates are higher than white crime rates. THIS =/= "killed because black" .

Plenty of white individuals have been killed on "just the suspicion of a firearm being brandished", you just don't hear of it on the news as much (or rather, the same big fuss isn't made of it) because it doesn't play into this "murdered because black!!!!111" narrative.

[Citation needed]

If you're going to make a claim that out-there, you'll need to provide evidence of it.

Using the same logic that has been used by those attempting to prove that "blacks are getting killed because they are black", bringing one or two pieces of anecdotal evidence would suffice.

Before you at least try and do some of these steps don't come here and lie to us how cops will kill a black man deader than a white man. kthxbai.

Whatever. I'd try to engage with you, but you're so detached from reality and isolated in your lovely little patch of white privilege that there's no point.
Bai.

Oh. Oh wow. "White privilege" . Throw more guilt at me, please.

How is that fair? Your solution is essentially a tu quoque? Two wrongs make a right, right?

Not at all. But I suspect that subtle argumentation escapes you - as does the principle of arguing from facts and evidence. I was noting the hypocrisy involved in sacking a black public servant on the suspicion of racism (based on a doctored video), but retaining a white public servant who's suspected of murdering a black kid. And that said hypocrisy benefited, as it always seems to in public life, the white person.

You're sitting here telling me how the principle of arguing from facts and evidence escapes me when you have brought nothing else but anecdotal evidence to the table and acted as if this has been sufficient to draw out the conclusions that you have drawn?

[Laerod]

*Pending the completion of all investigation proceedings.

And the sky is blue, Brigadier Blatant.

Looks black to me. Also the claims of the police have been shown to be fictional in at least a few instances.

[Susurruses]

snip

What a load of bull. Until you can prove that all things being equal a cop will shot a black man deader than a white man this is but a myth. All things being equal meaning the exact same circumstances, the individual doing the exact same actions etc.

All things are not equal.
Evidence/sources/statistics were asked for, and delivered.
I am beginning to suspect that your stance in this may well be.. disingenuous.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What a load of bull. Until you can prove that all things being equal a cop will shot a black man deader than a white man this is but a myth. All things being equal meaning the exact same circumstances, the individual doing the exact same actions etc.

All things are not equal.
Evidence/sources/statistics were asked for, and delivered.
I am beginning to suspect that your stance in this may well be.. disingenuous.

No they were not.

Again, what you need to do in order to prove that blacks are getting killed because they are black, is to look at the number of police encounters ending in use of force/a death from a racial perspective, and then try and (at least roughly) account for the fact that blacks are racially profiled and thus find themselves interacting with police more than whites, the fact that crime rates are not uniform across races, and so on.

Still waiting.

[Susurruses]

I really do love how one group of people is presenting evidence that casts significant doubt upon the police story (which has been changed multiple times) and arguing using logical reasoning.
Kudos to everyone using known facts and clear evidence and refusing to take a firm stance on anything unproven whilst still conveying their personal opinions in a reasonable manner.
Very rational, and a great example of how discussions like this should go.

Meanwhile another group is making unfounded claims as if they were an eyewitness and refusing to consider the evidence presented and disregarding the clear statistics that would justify certain stances in cases like this. Not to mention complaining that someone used a mean word.
(Their poor feelings... I guess it's not acceptable for people to point out that speaking with a lack of experience &/or knowledge &/or self-awareness is likely to result in naive/ignorant views and a lack of acknowledgement of such.)


Oh, and to those that clearly did not read the evidence and statistics and studies posted... kindly read over them, or at least skim them.
Alternatively, you can look up the official statistics yourself.
You know, do a little work of your own.
Unless of course those taking that course are not in fact interested in what happened and simply wish to stir up trouble or stick to their prejudicial opinions, having no willingness to admit that they may in fact be wrong and that at least a cursory consideration of conflicting information would be wise.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I really do love how one group of people is presenting evidence that casts significant doubt upon the police story (which has been changed multiple times) and arguing using logical reasoning.
Kudos to everyone using known facts and clear evidence and refusing to take a firm stance on anything unproven whilst still conveying their personal opinions in a reasonable manner.
Very rational, and a great example of how discussions like this should go.

Meanwhile another group is making unfounded claims as if they were an eyewitness and refusing to consider the evidence presented and disregarding the clear statistics that would justify certain stances in cases like this. Not to mention complaining that someone used a mean word.
(Their poor feelings... I guess it's not acceptable for people to point out that speaking with a lack of experience &/or knowledge &/or self-awareness is likely to result in naive/ignorant views and a lack of acknowledgement of such.)


Oh, and to those that clearly did not read the evidence and statistics and studies posted... kindly read over them, or at least skim them.
Alternatively, you can look up the official statistics yourself.
You know, do a little work of your own.
Unless of course those taking that course are not in fact interested in what happened and simply wish to stir up trouble or stick to their prejudicial opinions, having no willingness to admit that they may in fact be wrong and that at least a cursory consideration of conflicting information would be wise.

Someone hasn't heard of burden of proof.

And, really, I have laid out exactly what needs to be proven in order for the conclusions which have apparently already been drawn to be actually drawn logically and based on evidence. And the evidence I am talking about needs to be overarching not anecdotal. This has yet to be done.

[Susurruses]

I really do love how one group of people is presenting evidence that casts significant doubt upon the police story (which has been changed multiple times) and arguing using logical reasoning.
Kudos to everyone using known facts and clear evidence and refusing to take a firm stance on anything unproven whilst still conveying their personal opinions in a reasonable manner.
Very rational, and a great example of how discussions like this should go.

Meanwhile another group is making unfounded claims as if they were an eyewitness and refusing to consider the evidence presented and disregarding the clear statistics that would justify certain stances in cases like this. Not to mention complaining that someone used a mean word.
(Their poor feelings... I guess it's not acceptable for people to point out that speaking with a lack of experience &/or knowledge &/or self-awareness is likely to result in naive/ignorant views and a lack of acknowledgement of such.)


Oh, and to those that clearly did not read the evidence and statistics and studies posted... kindly read over them, or at least skim them.
Alternatively, you can look up the official statistics yourself.
You know, do a little work of your own.
Unless of course those taking that course are not in fact interested in what happened and simply wish to stir up trouble or stick to their prejudicial opinions, having no willingness to admit that they may in fact be wrong and that at least a cursory consideration of conflicting information would be wise.

Someone hasn't heard of burden of proof.

And, really, I have laid out exactly what needs to be proven in order for the conclusions which have apparently already been drawn to be actually drawn logically and based on evidence. And the evidence I am talking about needs to be overarching not anecdotal. This has yet to be done.

Here you go:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... n+of+proof


Also, from earlier in this very thread:
viewtopic.php?p=22017626#p22017626

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Someone hasn't heard of burden of proof.

And, really, I have laid out exactly what needs to be proven in order for the conclusions which have apparently already been drawn to be actually drawn logically and based on evidence. And the evidence I am talking about needs to be overarching not anecdotal. This has yet to be done.

Here you go:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... n+of+proof


Also, from earlier in this very thread:
viewtopic.php?p=22017626#p22017626

Let's just glance over the titles of those studies:

1. Institutional racism, the police and stop and search: a comparative study of stop and search in the UK and USA
2. The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children
3. The Reality of Racial Profiling
4. Racial
Discrimination
in the Criminal
Justice System

..and what do you know, your allegedly relevant sources are a strawman after all. These would support the concept of racial profiling, which I never even doubted.

Hey, it's not like I totally acknowledged it and even said that it is among the factors causing a higher rate of black people to get killed. This is what I have been saying all along, unless you failed to pick it up.

The problem is, however, that proving that racial profiling exists, which no one even attempted to disprove in this particular discussion, does not equate to proving that all things being equal , and I cannot stress this enough, a cop will kill a black man quicker than they would a white one. This is a crucial difference. There is CORRELATION with race, not CAUSATION. And this correlation comes in the form of racial profiling, the fact that crime rates are not uniform among races, and so on. So, by this definition, yes, blacks are getting killed because they are black. But don't go around and imply that the cause is actually officers choosing to kill more black people because of racism, which is what many people are doing. In a lethal force scenario, danger is perceived THE SAME, a cop won't go "oh let's see what color this person is, he's black so I better kill him lol". Claiming this is the case is disingenious and still remains nothing but an unsubstantiated claim.

If you understood at least a word of what I tried explaining here and you still think there are parts within those sources that you have provided that could prove the relationship between unwarranted police killings of black people is that of CAUSATION, not CORRELATION, which again, would imply that the officers choose to kill more black people, then by all means, please point them out.

[Mavorpen]

Here you go:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... n+of+proof


Also, from earlier in this very thread:
viewtopic.php?p=22017626#p22017626

Let's just glance over the titles of those studies:

1. Institutional racism, the police and stop and search: a comparative study of stop and search in the UK and USA
2. The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children
3. The Reality of Racial Profiling
4. Racial
Discrimination
in the Criminal
Justice System

..and what do you know, your allegedly relevant sources are a strawman after all. These would support the concept of racial profiling, which I never even doubted.

Hey, it's not like I totally acknowledged it and even said that it is among the factors causing a higher rate of black people to get killed. This is what I have been saying all along, unless you failed to pick it up.

The problem is, however, that proving that racial profiling exists, which no one even attempted to disprove in this particular discussion, does not equate to proving that all things being equal , and I cannot stress this enough, a cop will kill a black man quicker than they would a white one. This is a crucial difference. There is CORRELATION with race, not CAUSATION. And this correlation comes in the form of racial profiling, the fact that crime rates are not uniform among races, and so on. So, by this definition, yes, blacks are getting killed because they are black. But don't go around and imply that the cause is actually officers choosing to kill more black people because of racism, which is what many people are doing. In a lethal force scenario, danger is perceived THE SAME, a cop won't go "oh let's see what color this person is, he's black so I better kill him lol". Claiming this is the case is disingenious and still remains nothing but an unsubstantiated claim.

If you understood at least a word of what I tried explaining here and you still think there are parts within those sources that you have provided that could prove the relationship between unwarranted police killings of black people is that of CAUSATION, not CORRELATION, which again, would imply that the officers choose to kill more black people, then by all means, please point them out.

I love that you repeatedly scream "straw man!" yet you keep insisting anyone has argued that cops are making the explicit CHOICE to go out and kill black people more than whites. No one has done so. THAT is a strawman. I was right: you have no clue what a strawman is.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Let's just glance over the titles of those studies:

1. Institutional racism, the police and stop and search: a comparative study of stop and search in the UK and USA
2. The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children
3. The Reality of Racial Profiling
4. Racial
Discrimination
in the Criminal
Justice System

..and what do you know, your allegedly relevant sources are a strawman after all. These would support the concept of racial profiling, which I never even doubted.

Hey, it's not like I totally acknowledged it and even said that it is among the factors causing a higher rate of black people to get killed. This is what I have been saying all along, unless you failed to pick it up.

The problem is, however, that proving that racial profiling exists, which no one even attempted to disprove in this particular discussion, does not equate to proving that all things being equal , and I cannot stress this enough, a cop will kill a black man quicker than they would a white one. This is a crucial difference. There is CORRELATION with race, not CAUSATION. And this correlation comes in the form of racial profiling, the fact that crime rates are not uniform among races, and so on. So, by this definition, yes, blacks are getting killed because they are black. But don't go around and imply that the cause is actually officers choosing to kill more black people because of racism, which is what many people are doing. In a lethal force scenario, danger is perceived THE SAME, a cop won't go "oh let's see what color this person is, he's black so I better kill him lol". Claiming this is the case is disingenious and still remains nothing but an unsubstantiated claim.

If you understood at least a word of what I tried explaining here and you still think there are parts within those sources that you have provided that could prove the relationship between unwarranted police killings of black people is that of CAUSATION, not CORRELATION, which again, would imply that the officers choose to kill more black people, then by all means, please point them out.

I love that you repeatedly scream "straw man!" yet you keep insisting anyone has argued that cops are making the explicit CHOICE to go out and kill black people more than whites. No one has done so. THAT is a strawman. I was right: you have no clue what a strawman is.

If this is not what has been essentially implied, or that racial profiling extends to lethal use of force, explain to me why I have been contradicted so many times, and the argument of "racial profiling" continuously shouted about as if I had not already acknowledged it or was trying to disprove it, when I very clearly was not.

[Mavorpen]

I love that you repeatedly scream "straw man!" yet you keep insisting anyone has argued that cops are making the explicit CHOICE to go out and kill black people more than whites. No one has done so. THAT is a strawman. I was right: you have no clue what a strawman is.

If this is not what has been essentially implied, or that racial profiling extends to lethal use of force, explain to me why I have been contradicted so many times, and the argument of "racial profiling" continuously shouted about as if I had not already acknowledged it or was trying to disprove it, when I very clearly was not.

The latter claim is what is being made, not "COPS GO PATROLLING FOR BLACKS TO KILL ALL DAY!" I suspect I know the issue here, but I'd need to explain that in a different post once I get access to a computer. Because, the evidence you're looking for doesn't exist in the form you want it. The evidence indirectly supports their claim rather than directly. That doesn't mean It Isn't valid.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

If this is not what has been essentially implied, or that racial profiling extends to lethal use of force, explain to me why I have been contradicted so many times, and the argument of "racial profiling" continuously shouted about as if I had not already acknowledged it or was trying to disprove it, when I very clearly was not.

The latter claim is what is being made, not "COPS GO PATROLLING FOR BLACKS TO KILL ALL DAY!" I suspect I know the issue here, but I'd need to explain that in a different post once I get access to a computer. Because, the evidence you're looking for doesn't exist in the form you want it. The evidence indirectly supports their claim rather than directly. That doesn't mean It Isn't valid.

Frankly, stating that blacks are getting killed because they are black (which has been literally done numerous times in this very topic) is as honest as stating that blacks are more likely to be criminals because they're black.

[Mavorpen]

The latter claim is what is being made, not "COPS GO PATROLLING FOR BLACKS TO KILL ALL DAY!" I suspect I know the issue here, but I'd need to explain that in a different post once I get access to a computer. Because, the evidence you're looking for doesn't exist in the form you want it. The evidence indirectly supports their claim rather than directly. That doesn't mean It Isn't valid.

Frankly, stating that blacks are getting killed because they are black is as honest as stating that blacks are more likely to be criminals because they're black.

Sure, you could make that argument. Which is why no one has said anything close to "blacks are getting killed because they are black."

[Ifreann]

True. And if and when it's revealed that the shooting was justified, the cop can be offered a new job. That's fair, right?

How is that fair? Your solution is essentially a tu quoque? Two wrongs make a right, right?

Turnabout is fair play.

[Mavorpen]

The latter claim is what is being made, not "COPS GO PATROLLING FOR BLACKS TO KILL ALL DAY!" I suspect I know the issue here, but I'd need to explain that in a different post once I get access to a computer. Because, the evidence you're looking for doesn't exist in the form you want it. The evidence indirectly supports their claim rather than directly. That doesn't mean It Isn't valid.

Frankly, stating that blacks are getting killed because they are black (which has been literally done numerous times in this very topic) is as honest as stating that blacks are more likely to be criminals because they're black.

Do you not know what "literally" means?

The only person that has said "blacks are getting killed because they are black " is, well, you. You're the one who insists upon replacing the claims and arguments made by other people with the one you WANT them to make. And, frankly, that's intellectually dishonest.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Perhaps a more constructive debate would be to find solutions to police abuse.

For a long time now I have been proposing the mandatory wearing of personal cameras permanently while on duty.

• Do not incorporate an on/off switch ; if cost allows it record continuously ; if not, find a way to record not based on officer interaction
• Make the cameras as tamper proof as possible, both hardware and software
• Make officers directly responsible for the well-functioning of their cameras and they shall see to it that they always have a good view of what is being recorded ; it will be illegal to attempt to disable, obstruct or in any other way attempt to impair the camera's ability and quality to record.
• If cost allows, back-up in real time to HQ, if not, as often as possible
• Streamline and strictly regulate access to recordings ; automatically back-up and upload ; deleting will be impossible before a set amount of time ; any missing files will be thoroughly investigated
• Files will be embedded with information such as date, time, camera/cop ID, and possibly geographical information ; this shall be made as tamper proof as possible so that it cannot be modified
• All recordings will be made available to the public on request with no exceptions or delays

[Ifreann]

Perhaps a more constructive debate would be to find solutions to police abuse.

For a long time now I have been proposing the mandatory wearing of personal cameras permanently while on duty.

• Do not incorporate an on/off switch ; if cost allows it record continuously ; if not, find a way to record not based on officer interaction
• Make the cameras as tamper proof as possible, both hardware and software
• Make officers directly responsible for the well-functioning of their cameras and they shall see to it that they always have a good view of what is being recorded ; it will be illegal to attempt to disable, obstruct or in any other way attempt to impair the camera's ability and quality to record.
• If cost allows, back-up in real time to HQ, if not, as often as possible
• Streamline and strictly regulate access to recordings ; automatically back-up and upload ; deleting will be impossible before a set amount of time ; any missing files will be thoroughly investigated
• Files will be embedded with information such as date, time, camera/cop ID, and possibly geographical information ; this shall be made as tamper proof as possible so that it cannot be modified
• All recordings will be made available to the public on request with no exceptions or delays

Making the recordings available to the public on request would essentially make it impossible to convict police officers of any crime.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Perhaps a more constructive debate would be to find solutions to police abuse.

For a long time now I have been proposing the mandatory wearing of personal cameras permanently while on duty.

• Do not incorporate an on/off switch ; if cost allows it record continuously ; if not, find a way to record not based on officer interaction
• Make the cameras as tamper proof as possible, both hardware and software
• Make officers directly responsible for the well-functioning of their cameras and they shall see to it that they always have a good view of what is being recorded ; it will be illegal to attempt to disable, obstruct or in any other way attempt to impair the camera's ability and quality to record.
• If cost allows, back-up in real time to HQ, if not, as often as possible
• Streamline and strictly regulate access to recordings ; automatically back-up and upload ; deleting will be impossible before a set amount of time ; any missing files will be thoroughly investigated
• Files will be embedded with information such as date, time, camera/cop ID, and possibly geographical information ; this shall be made as tamper proof as possible so that it cannot be modified
• All recordings will be made available to the public on request with no exceptions or delays

Making the recordings available to the public on request would essentially make it impossible to convict police officers of any crime.

What? Why?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Frankly, stating that blacks are getting killed because they are black (which has been literally done numerous times in this very topic) is as honest as stating that blacks are more likely to be criminals because they're black.

Do you not know what "literally" means?

The only person that has said "blacks are getting killed because they are black " is, well, you. You're the one who insists upon replacing the claims and arguments made by other people with the one you WANT them to make. And, frankly, that's intellectually dishonest.

Thought virtually and typed literally.

That is the only logical conclusion when you continuously claim there is correlation and still get contradicted. And, causation would essentially mean blacks are getting killed because they are black.

[Ifreann]

Making the recordings available to the public on request would essentially make it impossible to convict police officers of any crime.

What? Why?

Because releasing a key piece of evidence like that would prejudice the jury pool, and give any officer's attorney a free pass to have a mistrial declared. That's why juries are forbidden from talking to people about the trial while it's ongoing and sequestered if they're serving on a very publicised case.

[Mavorpen]

Do you not know what "literally" means?

The only person that has said "blacks are getting killed because they are black " is, well, you. You're the one who insists upon replacing the claims and arguments made by other people with the one you WANT them to make. And, frankly, that's intellectually dishonest.

Thought virtually and typed literally.

That is the only logical conclusion when you continuously claim there is correlation and still get contradicted. And, causation would essentially mean blacks are getting killed because they are black.

No, it isn't. Causation, for me, is that "a significant amount of the disproportionate killing of blacks by cops can be attributed to racism in some form." That doesn't necessarily mean that any black person that is killed by a cop was done so because they were black. That can mean a number of things. You'd have to specifically ask the individual you're talking to. Otherwise, you're just erecting erroneous straw men.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What? Why?

Because releasing a key piece of evidence like that would prejudice the jury pool, and give any officer's attorney a free pass to have a mistrial declared. That's why juries are forbidden from talking to people about the trial while it's ongoing and sequestered if they're serving on a very publicised case.

What is the reasoning behind that?