thavoice;1803205 wrote:Maybe I am thinking the wrong guy but there was one that would make everything into race.

He did discuss race 90% of the time, but he was usually against the normal black narrative. Stephen A, Adande, or any of those other clowns (most of which show up on around the horn) would do though.

iclfan2;1803200 wrote:Yea, he also had this brilliant quote "We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than to get his hands on a computer or even a book." How on earth can a president speak so carelessly, with nothing close to facts, just hyperbole.

It can be a matter of opinion of where hyperbole ends and bald-faced despicable lie begins. This one isn't close.

Hey gut, how bout this take on profiling

http://cnn.it/29Retgr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

iclfan2;1803200 wrote:Yea, he also had this brilliant quote "We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than to get his hands on a computer or even a book." How on earth can a president speak so carelessly, with nothing close to facts, just hyperbole.

He's said some stupid shit over the years, but this one ranks right up there.

Also, still waiting for the outrage on this shooting? Or is it literally only if a black person gets shot by the police it matters?

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article89431417.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

iclfan2;1803248 wrote:Also, still waiting for the outrage on this shooting? Or is it literally only if a black person gets shot by the police it matters?

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article89431417.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point and time, Yes. That is all that matters. People will say this kid was acting out toward the police and the police did what was necessary. The mother is suing, there will be a settlement and you will never hear anything about it.

Oh I'm not defending that kid, I don't care just like I don't care about the Louisiana guy, just find it humorous that almost no one has mentioned this since he didn't have a gun and wasn't really "threatening". But there are easy ways to not get shot by police, and acting like he did isn't one of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

iclfan2;1803248 wrote:Also, still waiting for the outrage on this shooting? Or is it literally only if a black person gets shot by the police it matters?

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article89431417.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No outrage. White guy.

End of story.

Obamas speech the other day was terrible and very unpresidential

Everything about him seems to be. I don't want this to get moved to the Political forum, but who invites the BLM people who try to block traffic and stir up violence to the White House? Deray Mckesson is a clown.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf

Pretty interesting research article about bias in police shootings.

TLDR: There is bias in police shootings and its against whites.

Tell me more about BLM though!

White people, UNITE!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fresno-police-shooting_us_57873e20e4b03fc3ee4f5806?section=

sleeper;1803272 wrote:http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf

TLDR: There is bias in police shootings and its against whites.

I admittedly didn't read the full article, but I don't see anything that suggests bias against whites anywhere in it.

GOONx19;1803303 wrote:I admittedly didn't read the full article, but I don't see anything that suggests bias against whites anywhere in it.

Using data from Houston, Texas – wherewe have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions withpolice where lethal force may have been justified – we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites.

Page 5.

sleeper;1803304 wrote:Page 5.

Not statistically significant. Did they meet power? Not trying to be argumentative. It certainly appears to show no bias against blacks. Just don't want people to make claims using the article as support if it doesn't actually back those claims.

GOONx19;1803307 wrote:Not statistically significant. Did they meet power? Not trying to be argumentative. It certainly appears to show no bias against blacks. Just don't want people to make claims using the article as support if it doesn't actually back those claims.

Forward all your complaints about the study to Roland G. Fryer Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer,_Jr.

sleeper;1803320 wrote:Forward all your complaints about the study to Roland G. Fryer Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer,_Jr.

I have no complaints about the study, only about your analysis. The author points out statistical insignificance in the paragraph you cited. Roland G. Fryer Jr made no claims of bias against whites in that paper.

GOONx19;1803307 wrote:Not statistically significant. Did they meet power? Not trying to be argumentative. It certainly appears to show no bias against blacks. Just don't want people to make claims using the article as support if it doesn't actually back those claims.

I did not read the whole article, but 23.8% is not statistically significant? Seriously?

GOONx19;1803322 wrote:I have no complaints about the study, only about your analysis. The author points out statistical insignificance in the paragraph you cited. Roland G. Fryer Jr made no claims of bias against whites in that paper.

Check page 34.

The only statistically significantdifferences by race demonstrate that black officers are more likely to shoot unarmed whites, relativeto white officers.

Again, please forward all inquiries to Roland G. Fryer Jr.

jmog;1803325 wrote:I did not read the whole article, but 23.8% is not statistically significant? Seriously?

Statistical analysis of the difference showed that the p-value was greater than alpha. Thus, the probability is high that this difference happened by chance and could not be recreated. The author of the study freely admits this. He only claims that there is no bias against blacks when extreme force is used (taser or gun). He actually found that blacks are 21% more likely to endure some form of force when including non-extreme force, and this was statistically significant. They are significantly more likely to be hit, pushed against a wall, handcuffed, drawn upon, pushed to the ground, aimed at with a weapon, and pepper-sprayed or batoned according to this data. Only when fired upon or tazed are included in analysis does the difference become statistically insignificant for increased use of force against blacks.

To sleeper's credit, the study's secondary outcomes also found that black officers are more likely to shoot unarmed white men than white officers are.

Another nutjob just shot 7 cops and killed 3 of them and is still on the loose.

At what point does this become an actual serious concern for police officers to go to work? At what point do they just...stop going?

Still waiting to see details, but it appears the cops were called out because the guy had a gun. So it isn't as if they weren't prepared. Are they too afraid to put people down that this is the outcome? They should have put one through his forehead and gone back to work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Getting way out of hand. I'm not savvy on the training of cops on how to handle situations but I'm good if they all start going Martin Riggs on these idiots.

This will never be harshly condemned by the President, particularly since he'd like to see a federal police force. Whatever comments he makes will be overshadowed by "tougher gun laws" propaganda as we've already seen. This is the kind of thing that the current administration thrives on, unfortunately :/

*EDIT TO ADD*

I stand corrected! The President has just recently issued a short statement (I don't have a copy of it). It was short, succinct and much to the point - deeply criticizing the basic train of thought behind such events. There was no propaganda bullshit in it, he left his agenda out of it.
I'm glad he's finally done this.

CenterBHSFan;1803439 wrote:This will never be harshly condemned by the President, particularly since he'd like to see a federal police force. Whatever comments he makes will be overshadowed by "tougher gun laws" propaganda as we've already seen. This is the kind of thing that the current administration thrives on, unfortunately :/

*EDIT TO ADD*

I stand corrected! The President has just recently issued a short statement (I don't have a copy of it). It was short, succinct and much to the point - deeply criticizing the basic train of thought behind such events. There was no propaganda bullshit in it, he left his agenda out of it.
I'm glad he's finally done this.

I guess I don't understand the obsession with what Obama is/isn't saying. And I especially don't think whichever bum takes over in six months is going to do any better.