[One Degree]

An on-duty police officer shoots and kills about 1,000 people each year in the United States,

@Pants-of-dog

You realize the US has 1500 cites over 25,000 and another 1500 from 10,000 to 25,000.
With a population of 320,000,000 then your odds are 1 out of 320,000.
You might then look at the number of dangerous armed criminals we have in the US.
You might consider it is the police job description to apprehend these armed criminals.
Don't you see how small that 1,000 actually is?
A responsible citizen need not have any fear of being shot by the police. It is an irrational fear.
You are simply creating a major problem when all we really have are rare instances when things go wrong.

Edit: 1 in 320,000 is your yearly odds. On any given day, your odds are 1 in 116,800,000

[Pants-of-dog]

@One Degree

Sure, but that does not, in any way, mean that cops are routinely arrested for shooting unarmed people.

Thus, maz's claim is still wrong.

[Hindsite]

@One Degree

Sure, but that does not, in any way, mean that cops are routinely arrested for shooting unarmed people.

Thus, maz's claim is still wrong.

That is because the cops do not routinely shoot unarmed people. Only the bad cops would do that and even they must be given due process according to the legal system in place.

[maz]

I am certain there are more as well.

How many is this compared to the number of police shootings each year?

Don't know. That wasn't my point.

I'm sure that in the past some white officers have not been charged for unjustly shooting unarmed black men. But isn't the onus on you to prove that?

If this is five out of, let's say, a thousand shootings by cops each year, then this is still just 0.5% of all shootings. This means that 99.5% of cops do not get arrested when cops shoot people.

This means that cops are not routinely arrested for such things. If the number of shootings is about 1000 each year.

That's not necessarily true. I'm sure that there are many police officers who have shot a person for one reason or another, but you would have to break down those shootings to justified vs unjustified.

But here's were it gets tricky.

I would will admit that I am not aware of any legal precedent that would determine a justified shooting vs an unjustified shooting. We probably couldn't even identify the parameters of a justified shooting vs an unjustified shooting anyways, and you could probably find some examples of police shootings that would go either way. And it is further complicated by some people, based on their bias, would not see an incident the way that another group of people with a different set of biases would.

But again, the onus is on you to prove that a white officer would not have been arrested for shooting any unarmed black person.

Keep in mind Pants, that there has been no evidence to support that the officer in this incident was under threat like other incidents so we have to assume that this was an unjustified shooting.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is because the cops do not routinely shoot unarmed people. Only the bad cops would do that and even they must be given due process according to the legal system in place.

This is not relevant to the discussion I am having with maz. Please read the entire discussion in order to understand the context, and then hopefully you can add something.

------------

Don't know. That wasn't my point.

Somwhen you said they were routinely arrested, did you mean that a very tiny percentage of them got arrested?

That is not how most people define "routinely". Most of us tend to think of it as describing those actions that almost always happen as a matter of course.

I'm sure that in the past some white officers have not been charged for unjustly shooting unarmed black men. But isn't the onus on you to prove that?

If we accept that hundreds of such shootings occur each year, and the evidence indicayes that is the case, and if we accept that less than ten people get charged for a crime because of it, simple math tells us that almost all cops do not get arrested.

One could even say that they routinely do not get arrested for shooting unarmed people.

That's not necessarily true. I'm sure that there are many police officers who have shot a person for one reason or another, but you would have to break down those shootings to justified vs unjustified.

But here's were it gets tricky.

I would will admit that I am not aware of any legal precedent that would determine a justified shooting vs an unjustified shooting. We probably couldn't even identify the parameters of a justified shooting vs an unjustified shooting anyways, and you could probably find some examples of police shootings that would go either way. And it is further complicated by some people, based on their bias, would not see an incident the way that another group of people with a different set of biases would.

But again, the onus is on you to prove that a white officer would not have been arrested for shooting any unarmed black person.

Keep in mind Pants, that there has been no evidence to support that the officer in this incident was under threat like other incidents so we have to assume that this was an unjustified shooting.

Sorry, but are you now changing your claim to say that cops routinely get arrested for justified shootings?

[Suntzu]

A little late . . . but I was wondering why the title of the thread wasn't "Black Cop Shoots Unarmed White Woman!"?

[maz]

Somwhen you said they were routinely arrested, did you mean that a very tiny percentage of them got arrested?

I was obviously referring to the most recent of occurrences, which appear to have been shootings that were not deemed justified.

One could even say that they routinely do not get arrested for shooting unarmed people.

Sorry, but are you now changing your claim to say that cops routinely get arrested for justified shootings?

The shooting incident of Justine Damond is comparable to the other incidents I posted, meaning that it appears that the shooting were carried out for no apparent, or justified reason. In other incidents, some "officials" had deemed to have been justified.

Of the incidents of officers involved in shootings, how do they decide which officers to charge and which officers not to charge?

A little late . . . but I was wondering why the title of the thread wasn't "Black Cop Shoots Unarmed White Woman!"?

The identity of the shooter wasn't known at the time the OP was made. The media sat on the name and identity of the offending officer, even after reports of the shooting had been published

[Pants-of-dog]

I was obviously referring to the most recent of occurrences, which appear to have been shootings that were not deemed justified.

Well, looking at the bigger picture, it would seem that this recent pattern of not assuming they were justified is far from routine.

The shooting incident of Justine Damond is comparable to the other incidents I posted, meaning that it appears that the shooting were carried out for no apparent, or justified reason. In other incidents, some "officials" had deemed to have been justified.

Of the incidents of officers involved in shootings, how do they decide which officers to charge and which officers not to charge?

Usually by looking at the body cams and seeing for themselves if it was justified. It seems that when we look at body cams, instead of just taking the cop's word for it, we get a much higher rate of unjustified shootings. What a surprise.

The identity of the shooter wasn't known at the time the OP was made. The media sat on the name and identity of the offending officer, even after reports of the shooting had been published

Yes, it is a conspiracy by news agencies to destroy white people. That makes so much sense.

[Hindsite]

This is not relevant to the discussion I am having with maz. Please read the entire discussion in order to understand the context, and then hopefully you can add something.

Yeah, the cop was black. He was also a Muslim.

See:
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/86 ... amas/page6

The Somali-born Minnesota police officer alleged to have shot and killed an unarmed Australian woman on Saturday had been lauded by Minneapolis’ mayor and feted by the local community when he joined the force in 2015.

“I want to take a moment to recognize Officer Mohamed Noor, the newest Somali officer in the Minneapolis Police Department,” Mayor Betsy Hodges wrote in a Facebook post when Noor began serving the city. “Officer Noor has been assigned to the 5th Precinct, where his arrival has been highly celebrated, particularly by the Somali community in and around Karmel Mall.”

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, the cop was black. He was also a Muslim.

See:
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/86 ... amas/page6

The Somali-born Minnesota police officer alleged to have shot and killed an unarmed Australian woman on Saturday had been lauded by Minneapolis’ mayor and feted by the local community when he joined the force in 2015.

“I want to take a moment to recognize Officer Mohamed Noor, the newest Somali officer in the Minneapolis Police Department,” Mayor Betsy Hodges wrote in a Facebook post when Noor began serving the city. “Officer Noor has been assigned to the 5th Precinct, where his arrival has been highly celebrated, particularly by the Somali community in and around Karmel Mall.”

Please see my previous reply to you. Thank you.

[Zagadka]

A little late . . . but I was wondering why the title of the thread wasn't "Black Cop Shoots Unarmed White Woman!"?

Ideally, why doesn't it say "Minneapolis Police Shoot Unarmed Woman To Death"

[Hindsite]

Ideally, why doesn't it say "Minneapolis Police Shoot Unarmed Woman To Death"

Maybe because race and/or religion may have played a part in these deaths.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Ideally, why doesn't it say "Minneapolis Police Shoot Unarmed Woman To Death"

To cause all the more outrage of course! Who cares if a black person is shot?/s (as if it wasn't blatantly obvious)

[Zagadka]

Maybe because race and/or religion may have played a part in these deaths.

But did it in this story? Why include extraneous details to play to an outrage demographic? Oh right, media isn't about reporting, it is about profits. For both sides.

[Hindsite]

But did it in this story? Why include extraneous details to play to an outrage demographic? Oh right, media isn't about reporting, it is about profits. For both sides.

I suppose it will take an investigation to find out for sure. But the details matter in any investigation to help determine motive. The cop was from Somail. He was black and a Muslim. The victim was a white woman from Australia and she was unarmed and there is no claim that she was attacking the police at this point in time.

[Zagadka]

I suppose it will take an investigation to find out for sure. But the details matter in any investigation to help determine motive.

Yea, people tend to do investigations when they think something illegal is underway. Robbery, treason with Russia, etc.

The cop was from Somail. He was black and a Muslim. The victim was a white woman from Australia and she was unarmed and there is no claim that she was attacking the police at this point in time.

And was the shooting in any way connected to either race? How about their sex? Hair color?

[Hindsite]

And was the shooting in any way connected to either race? How about their sex? Hair color?

As I said before, all these things must be considered in the investigation. However, from what we know so far, it appears the cop is going down as did the Police Chief. But the cop will probably also face prison time. He is definitely not going to return as a Minneapolis Police Officer. We don't need a full investigation to know that.

[Zagadka]

As I said before, all these things must be considered in the investigation.

And as I said, there are a billion differences they could put in the headline. There was no obvious reason to include that. You are making it identity politics as much as anyone else.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, racist people did invent identity politics.

[One Degree]

Slowly we turn step by step till we get to the other side.