Charges Issued In Breonna Taylor Case

[Sope Creek]

Yes .. and no.

I can't "prove" if it is true, but I was told by a very VERY liberal friend in the legal community here that the AG spent 3 days presenting evidence to the grand jury. They can maybe keep what was SAID in the room secret, but they can't hide the room, or the cars driven to/from the building, or the people who enter and leave. Thus, I tend to believe the AG did exactly what he said he did - presented all the evidence they had received/discovered about the event, and informed them of the statutory elements of the potential crimes, and let the grand jury decide who and what to charge.

Plus, Cameron also knows that someday the whole freaking transcript will probably get leaked - or even legally published through other means.

Plus, he has a DUTY not to lie in his job as AG, and has no real interest in doing so. If he wrongly "protects" 2 cops who later are shown to have NOT fired in self-defense, his career (political and otherwise) is over.

But mostly, the boyfriend - as noted above - had already been talking out of school and publicly admitted firing at the cops first. For some reason (money? sympathy? to get charges dismissed?) he and his lawyer elected to play the "I had a permit to carry my gun" card right out of the box, even though under Kentucky law, he no longer needed a permit - no one does. (That was one of those pesky legislative amendments I mentioned above.)

So it is no surprise that every piece of actual known evidence supports exactly what the AG said.

I understand that people WANT somebody to "pay" (be held "responsible") for Taylor's death. But under THE LAW, that appears to not be appropriate or possible. And if we are "a nation of laws, not men" - all of us entitled to equal protection and due process - then we have to live with the fact that the judge isn't gonna look at the 27 8-by-10 color glossy photographs of the crime, with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence. Every single long-time, prominent local criminal defense lawyer, white and African American and otherwise, left and right and otherwise, have all said the same thing - "if he shot first, absent evidence they lied to get the warrant, the cops can't be charged. If we want our clients treated fairly under the law, we have to treat the cops the same." And these are lawyers who probably PUKED at the thought of defending the police here. But they believe in THE LAW.

As do I.

I've been thinking about this case a little bit yesterday and today, and I suspect that the GJ determination not to indict the individual police officers serves as a de facto indictment of the no-knock warrant process and the Louisville police department procedures. Clearly the public in general is unhappy that an innocent woman was killed under the facts presented . . . and if the individuals aren't culpable for her death then accountability has to lie elsewhere for it. As I understand it, no-knock warrants won't be used by Louisville police any more, and other police procedures are subject to changes as agreed in the settlement with the Taylor family . . .

. . . it's a loss all the way around . . . nobody has "won" . . . but given the facts of what happened, and short of a finding that individual police officers were culpable, it's hard to see how things could have turned out much better . . . unless the Louisville Police Department decides to take on a "learning organization" approach to law enforcement there and develops a virtuous cycle of how to improve continuously.

I hope and pray that when some new hotshot police chief comes in and wants to undo all of what has been hard-earned because of this circumstance, the mere mention of "Breonna Taylor" will dissuade the PTB and the voting public from walking that road again . . . .

 

[hoosboot]

1004 people were killed by cops. 235 were black. no manipulation. statistics. that's not racism. now how many do you think out of that 235 were unarmed or situations like taylor? maybe 5%? so maybe for an entire year out of tens of millions of contacts there are possibly 10 or 11 "questionable" deaths? and don't you think if there are 4x as many whites killed there are likely similar circumstances involving whites? again, racism exists; doubtless, but one has to stretch the living shit out of the numbers above to cry racism in these cop shooting cases.

I love you man, but it's tough to take this claim seriously when you claim "no manipulation" and then go into a bunch of hypotheticals to try to justify how you are manipulating the data.

Like I said, I agree with you on most points of this conversation and have just a few differences. All good.

 

[hoosboot]

Is misleading constituents - especially when it causes suffering and potentially violence - an offense that you don’t take seriously?

Again, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the issue that mcm and I have been discussing.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I love you man, but it's tough to take this claim seriously when you claim "no manipulation" and then go into a bunch of hypotheticals to try to justify how you are manipulating the data.

Like I said, I agree with you on most points of this conversation and have just a few differences. All good.

right back at ya. and we'll have to agree to disagree but my final parting shot is 1004 are killed and 235 are black. with zero context i don't think those numbers alone reflect systemic racism

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Again, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the issue that mcm and I have been discussing.

Then I’m confused. Obviously. Your discussion admits you’re not happy with her use of the term murder, but you then rank it as a lowly offense and not one that would cause you to question her judgment (my words - not yours).

I think the issue is that if there were not such racially charged ions floating about our nation right now it might just be a simple gaffe. But I find that to be an unreasonable position given such ions. She is an AA woman and one that is an expert on the law. To pander (or your word cater) to the side that believes Taylor was murdered (despite the evidence to the contrary) and give them a crop duster full of gasoline to pour into a fire is at best woefully irresponsible and at worst disqualifying.

 

[hoosboot]

right back at ya. and we'll have to agree to disagree but my final parting shot is 1004 are killed and 235 are black. with zero context i don't think those numbers alone reflect systemic racism

Those numbers reflect that 1004 people were killed and 235 of those were black. That's ALL they say. On their own, they don't say ANYTHING about systemic racism. It takes "data manipulation" to do that.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Appreciated, but the obvious response is that it's pretty obvious that it isn't necessary.

I do not know the answer to this, but why did law enforcement switch to the no knock warrants to begin with? They did not seem to be all that common up to a point. I am sure there is some reasoning behind why they were implemented.

I could see them being safer than trying to apprehend some of these people in public. If the person is known to be armed, grabbing them in the street or at the store could be more dangerous to the public. I am for revisiting them, but maybe they are the least worst option. Just because bad things happen sometimes when they are used is not really compelling evidence that they need replaced. Bad things happen on traffic stops. Bad things happen when the police knock. Bad things can happen when you try to apprehend on the street or at a store. I think we would need a description of how these should go and also try to do some comparative analysis between tactics.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Those numbers reflect that 1004 people were killed and 235 of those were black. That's ALL they say. On their own, they don't say ANYTHING about systemic racism. It takes "data manipulation" to do that.

AND ALSO THE USWNT ARE ALREADY OVERPAID!!!!!

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

It's possible that there are white offsets for all of those examples I mentioned and ones that I don't. Those would be data points to examine.

That said, the "sides" thing continues to be a problem for me. I'm not really into sides because I don't see the sides purity that you claim exists. I respect the heck out of you and mcm, but you're as committed to a narrative as anybody. And I continue to struggle with mcm's contention that there is racial disparity in policing outside of the use of force.

If you are translating “sides” to be racial lines, then that’s incorrect. It’s sides of the issue - but I think I’ve said in the past the right term is spectrum. There are those who have their minds made up from day one on each “side” of the spectrum and those in the middle are the ones who await the evidence and data to come in and analyze it all critically and with skepticism. That’s where I live on this issue as I’ve been researching it for years and years. I started on the side of “holy shit man the numbers are crazy - police have to be targeting AA’s” and I’ve come to find it to follow the arrests of violent crimes along racial lines at a high correlation. It’s not statistical manipulation - it’s statistics. There are always outliers in the data - and those outliers like Rice and Castile and Shaver are the ones to focus on and deal with.

 

[ulrey]

a jury cleared oj after a long protracted trial. here there wasn't even enough evidence to bring a case. apples to oranges to the extreme.

Kamala Harris
@KamalaHarris
·
Jul 21
It's been 130 days since Breonna Taylor was murdered by police in her own home. After they shot her, they left her there to die.

hoosboot the vp candidate saying "murdered by police" without knowing the facts is pathetic. murder is an unlawful, premeditated killing. people, regular folks in louisville reviewed the facts involved in this case and brought zero charges against these cops related to breonna. nothing. kamala's post is shameful pandering that does nothing but incite. and she's our hope to mend fences. good grief.

If I had a daughter she'd look like Breonna...

 

[hoosboot]

Then I’m confused. Obviously. Your discussion admits you’re not happy with her use of the term murder, but you then rank it as a lowly offense and not one that would cause you to question her judgment (my words - not yours).

I think the issue is that if there were not such racially charged ions floating about our nation right now it might just be a simple gaffe. But I find that to be an unreasonable position given such ions. She is an AA woman and one that is an expert on the law. To pander (or your word cater) to the side that believes Taylor was murdered (despite the evidence to the contrary) and give them a crop duster full of gasoline to pour into a fire is at best woefully irresponsible and at worst disqualifying.

Did my discussion admit that?

Here's what I actually said:

"While I think her wording could have been better. I don't think the difference between my wording and hers substantially changes thoughts on the issue outside of lawyers. So, on my list of issues with Senator Harris, that one is pretty far down the list. I might call it slightly disappointing, but I wouldn't label her a "disappointment" because of it."

You find more outrage in the difference between "murdered by police" and "needlessly and tragically killed by police" than I do. The officers who killed Tamir Rice and Philandro Castille were not charged with murder, but if someone said they had been "murdered by police", I wouldn't rush to make the correction that they were "killed by police who didn't appropriately follow procedure" because I'm not sure the distinction means a ton to the people you say Senator Harris is "pandering" to. And please note that I said "addressing the needs of constituents", not "cater". Maybe understanding that distinction might help you understand my opinion on Senator Harris as opposed to yours.

 

[Sope Creek]

right back at ya. and we'll have to agree to disagree but my final parting shot is 1004 are killed and 235 are black. with zero context i don't think those numbers alone reflect systemic racism

I dunno, mac . . . Blacks represent about 13.4% of the US population and represent about 23.4% of those killed by police. To my feeble math mind that's about a 72% higher chance of dying at the hands of police than other races . . .

. . . that doesn't necessarily conclusively proves that systemic racism does exist, but it's plenty of reason to ask the question. Context will matter - it may be that Blacks represent 23.4% or higher of the interactions that police have with the general public, which might explain or militate against that stat being the indicator of systemic racism. But then you'll have to investigate why Blacks represent an outsized percentage of those interactions . . .

. . . when it comes down to it, I think a 72% higher chance of dying represents a pretty good indicator that systemic racism likely exists . . . and further study is needed to understand why. We've already batted around the potential, even likely, why's on this board a good bit. IMHO, it's time to pull our heads out of the sand and figure this out . . . .

[edited to correct errors in my math ]

 

[hoosboot]

If you are translating “sides” to be racial lines, then that’s incorrect.

I'm not. I find that most people talking about "sides" tend to be most interested in opposition. I'm not really into that so much. I sometimes struggle with my baser instincts, but I'm more interested in taking where we agree and moving forward or trying to move where we disagree to places where we can agree. That's all.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I dunno, mac . . . Blacks represent about 13.9% of the US population and represent about 23.4% of those killed by police. To my feeble math mind that's about a 68% higher chance of dying at the hands of police than other races . . .

. . . that doesn't necessarily conclusively proves that systemic racism does exist, but it's plenty of reason to ask the question. Context will matter - it may be that Blacks represent 23.4% or higher of the interactions that police have with the general public, which might explain or militate against that stat being the indicator of systemic racism. But then you'll have to investigate why Blacks represent an outsized percentage of those interactions . . .

. . . when it comes down to it, I think a 68% higher chance of dying represents a pretty good indicator that systemic racism likely exists . . . and further study is needed to understand why. We've already batted around the potential, even likely, why's on this board a good bit. IMHO, it's time to pull our heads out of the sand and figure this out . . . .

Yeah I disagree. 235 and according to wsj citing wapo most were armed. I don’t know what most means. Regardless I think you’re dealing with a pretty small figure. I think some are desperate to find racism....hell even in this case at issue the cops were cleared.

 

[Sope Creek]

AND ALSO THE USWNT ARE ALREADY OVERPAID!!!!!

OK, that's a conclusory statement . . . make your case. 🍻

 

[Sope Creek]

I think some are desperate to find racism....

Really? I've been to SEMO and St. Louis . . . I thought I'd already found more than enough of it.

 

[mcmurtry66]

OK, that's a conclusory statement . . . make your case. 🍻

Lmao!!

 

[hoosboot]

I think some are desperate to find racism....

Are you able to elucidate why you think racism exists at low-level police interactions but doesn't exist when using force? I've tried to more passively get you to explain your thoughts, but I'd love to understand your thought process on that. How do police have a wall between those disparate reactions in your thinking?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Really? I've been to SEMO and St. Louis . . . I thought I'd already found more than enough of it.

For sure. As I’ve shared I think you find it way more often in profiling, stops, etc. I just don’t see it in the shooting cases in any systemic way

 

[mcmurtry66]

Are you able to elucidate why you think racism exists at low-level police interactions but doesn't exist when using force? I've tried to more passively get you to explain your thoughts, but I'd love to understand your thought process on that. How do police have a wall between those disparate reactions in your thinking?

Too busy at the moment to write cogently but I will respond later. Sometime. Part of it is I’m not sure if the lion’s share is even racism or disparate impact (and if that itself is racism).

 

[Sope Creek]

I just don’t see it in the shooting cases in any systemic way

So you're talking about the shooting cases per se, e.g., other than the circumstances leading up to the shooting cases . . . you know, the profiling, stops, etc. . . .

. . . I gotta say, if that's the argument then I'm not convinced there's no systemic racism in the shootings because the circumstances leading up to the shootings are part and parcel with the shootings. +72% tells me that I'm on the right track . . . .

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I dunno, mac . . . Blacks represent about 13.4% of the US population and represent about 23.4% of those killed by police. To my feeble math mind that's about a 72% higher chance of dying at the hands of police than other races . . .

. . . that doesn't necessarily conclusively proves that systemic racism does exist, but it's plenty of reason to ask the question. Context will matter - it may be that Blacks represent 23.4% or higher of the interactions that police have with the general public, which might explain or militate against that stat being the indicator of systemic racism. But then you'll have to investigate why Blacks represent an outsized percentage of those interactions . . .

. . . when it comes down to it, I think a 72% higher chance of dying represents a pretty good indicator that systemic racism likely exists . . . and further study is needed to understand why. We've already batted around the potential, even likely, why's on this board a good bit. IMHO, it's time to pull our heads out of the sand and figure this out . . . .

[edited to correct errors in my math ]

Stick to the law, nerd, leave the statistics to us.

Statistics tell you that AA violent criminals are actually less likely to be shot by police than whites. That’s what the 23% is really saying.

It doesn’t make the Rice’s or the Castille’s any less egregious and awful - but it sure does drive a stake into the heart of the systemic-racism-leading-to-death argument. Cities are burning and people are killing each other because they don’t know how math works. We have an education problem.

 

[Sope Creek]

Too busy at the moment to write cogently but I will respond later. Sometime. Part of it is I’m not sure if the lion’s share is even racism or disparate impact (and if that itself is racism).

Whether or not disparate impact is racism (an interesting, but not very meaningful discussion), disparate impact is discriminatory unless there's a statistically demonstrable reason for the discriminatory practice . . . an example in an employment context would be that it is statistically demonstrable that having Reading teachers who can read is a basis for a discriminatory practice. How that translates to law enforcement . . . I'd have to rely on some real expertise that isn't present on this board.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I've been thinking about this case a little bit yesterday and today, and I suspect that the GJ determination not to indict the individual police officers serves as a de facto indictment of the no-knock warrant process and the Louisville police department procedures. Clearly the public in general is unhappy that an innocent woman was killed under the facts presented . . . and if the individuals aren't culpable for her death then accountability has to lie elsewhere for it. As I understand it, no-knock warrants won't be used by Louisville police any more, and other police procedures are subject to changes as agreed in the settlement with the Taylor family . . .

. . . it's a loss all the way around . . . nobody has "won" . . . but given the facts of what happened, and short of a finding that individual police officers were culpable, it's hard to see how things could have turned out much better . . . unless the Louisville Police Department decides to take on a "learning organization" approach to law enforcement there and develops a virtuous cycle of how to improve continuously.

I hope and pray that when some new hotshot police chief comes in and wants to undo all of what has been hard-earned because of this circumstance, the mere mention of "Breonna Taylor" will dissuade the PTB and the voting public from walking that road again . . . .

I think this is spot on

 

[mcmurtry66]

So you're talking about the shooting cases per se, e.g., other than the circumstances leading up to the shooting cases . . . you know, the profiling, stops, etc. . . .

. . . I gotta say, if that's the argument then I'm not convinced there's no systemic racism in the shootings because the circumstances leading up to the shootings are part and parcel with the shootings. +72% tells me that I'm on the right track . . . .

Actually the opposite. Given that more blacks commit higher percentages of violent crimes the circumstances leading up to contact would predict more deaths among blacks

 

[hoosboot]

Stick to the law, nerd, leave the statistics to us.

Statistics tell you that AA violent criminals are actually less likely to be shot by police than whites. That’s what the 23% is really saying.

It doesn’t make the Rice’s or the Castille’s any less egregious and awful - but it sure does drive a stake into the heart of the systemic-racism-leading-to-death argument. Cities are burning and people are killing each other because they don’t know how math works. We have an education problem.

Were Rice and Castille engaged in violent crime when they were shot?

 

[Sope Creek]

Statistics tell you that AA violent criminals are actually less likely to be shot by police than whites. That’s what the 23% is really saying.

You're gonna have to explain that conclusion to me . . . when AAs make up 13.4% of the population but 23.4% of those killed by police, that jumps to me out as a statistical anomaly indicating police are shooting AAs at a higher rate than with the general population . . . tell me how that translates into AAs being less likely to be shot than whites . . .

. . . BTW, I've done a fair amount of statistical analysis related to race discrimination in other contexts. You're gonna have to explain how this context is "different".

 

[mcmurtry66]

Were Rice and Castille engaged in violent crime when they were shot?

But hoosboot you can find similar circumstances for whites shot. You can’t look at this in a vacuum that presupposes racism

 

[Sope Creek]

Actually the opposite. Given that more blacks commit higher percentages of violent crimes the circumstances leading up to contact would predict more deaths among blacks

Objection . . . the argument assumes facts not in evidence.

Your argument assumes that we know that Blacks commit higher percentages of violent crimes . . . you haven't shown that work. You used only the 1004/235 data in your prior posts . . . I provided the 13.4% data as a comparator to help determine whether there was reason to explore this issue further . . . i.e., not for the purpose of concluding the higher percentage of Blacks killed than Black's percentage of the general population = systemic racism.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You're gonna have to explain that conclusion to me . . . when AAs make up 13.4% of the population but 23.4% of those killed by police, that jumps to me out as a statistical anomaly indicating police are shooting AAs at a higher rate than with the general population . . . tell me how that translates into AAs being less likely to be shot than whites . . .

. . . BTW, I've done a fair amount of statistical analysis related to race discrimination in other contexts. You're gonna have to explain how this context is "different".

so sope to know definitively we'd have to vet the circumstances of each and every case. the presumption of the elevated black crime rate is that blacks commit 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies despite only being 13% of pop and that police shootings are a function of how often cops encounter armed and violent suspects. i haven't been articulate but how often these killings involve armed and violent suspects

 

[mcmurtry66]

Objection . . . the argument assumes facts not in evidence.

Your argument assumes that we know that Blacks commit higher percentages of violent crimes . . . you haven't shown that work. You used only the 1004/235 data in your prior posts . . . I provided the 13.4% data as a comparator to help determine whether there was reason to explore this issue further . . . i.e., not for the purpose of concluding the higher percentage of Blacks killed than Black's percentage of the general population = systemic racism.

sustained. i'll rephrase. we do know that. 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies are committed by blacks

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Were Rice and Castille engaged in violent crime when they were shot?

Nope. Had no right to die. Was Daniel Shaver engaged in violent crime when he was shot? Was Ariel Roman? Or do their cases not matter?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

You're gonna have to explain that conclusion to me . . . when AAs make up 13.4% of the population but 23.4% of those killed by police, that jumps to me out as a statistical anomaly indicating police are shooting AAs at a higher rate than with the general population . . . tell me how that translates into AAs being less likely to be shot than whites . . .

. . . BTW, I've done a fair amount of statistical analysis related to race discrimination in other contexts. You're gonna have to explain how this context is "different".

Because your way of using statistics means I have a 4% chance of dying of COVID-19. I don’t. I don’t because I don’t live in an urban dense area and I’m not older with other conditions.

AAs commit ~50% of violent crimes (using arrests as the proxy variable). That still doesn’t mean that 50% of AAs are violent criminals. It means they have more violent encounters with policefor which they are responsible. That only 23% of police shootings are of AAs means it trials the violent crime rate.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Objection . . . the argument assumes facts not in evidence.

Your argument assumes that we know that Blacks commit higher percentages of violent crimes . . . you haven't shown that work. You used only the 1004/235 data in your prior posts . . . I provided the 13.4% data as a comparator to help determine whether there was reason to explore this issue further . . . i.e., not for the purpose of concluding the higher percentage of Blacks killed than Black's percentage of the general population = systemic racism.

It’s all over this board. Not in this thread but it’s been posted a bajillion times.

 

[Sope Creek]

. . . to know definitively we'd have to vet the circumstances of each and every case.

Yep.

In the race discrimination in mortgage lending class action I was involved with, we used 128 data points from each of over 3000 loan files for the statistical analysis. I can tell you definitively that everybody in this thread is spitballing in favor of their preferred position . . . ain't nobody got the data to prove anything. I am content with the 13.4%/23.4% discrepancy gives us reason to question that result . . . all of the rest of the points you're making would be data that might - might - support a law enforcement equivalent of the "business necessity" defense in a civil context . . .

. . . but that said, we still have to understand why Blacks "commit" violent crimes at such higher rates than others (assuming the data you provided is accurate). Unless you're arguing that Blacks are inherently more prone to commit those crimes - and I don't think you're saying that - to get to the root problem we have to understand the basis for the statistical differences. And that's where folks generally believe that systematic racism's headwaters are.

To me, that's the challenge we have . . . none of the data points you've provided absolves us from pursuing this to a successful conclusion. If slavery is the US' "original sin", then this work is necessary for a full and complete reconciliation and "forgiveness" of the sin.

 

[Sope Creek]

Because your way of using statistics means I have a 4% chance of dying of COVID-19. I don’t. I don’t because I don’t live in an urban dense area and I’m not older with other conditions.

AAs commit ~50% of violent crimes (using arrests as the proxy variable). That still doesn’t mean that 50% of AAs are violent criminals. It means they have more violent encounters with policefor which they are responsible. That only 23% of police shootings are of AAs means it trials the violent crime rate.

I stopped reading at "using arrests as the proxy variable". Your assumptions are putting blinders on your otherwise considerable reasoning abilities.

Besides, this 50% stat is not in evidence with my conversation with mac . . .

. . . and assuming that this 50% statistic is accurate for argument's sake, it doesn't explain the "why" of AAs committing more violent crimes. Unless you're arguing that violence is an inherent characteristic of AAs - and I don't read you to be making this argument - the "why" of AAs committing more violent crimes very well could be systemic racism that results in disparate impacts in the police shootings data.

 

[Sope Creek]

It’s all over this board. Not in this thread but it’s been posted a bajillion times.

Along with your assumption that arrest data accurately reflects actual crimes committed?

Spare me the lecture.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

And that's where folks generally believe that systematic racism's headwaters are.

Sure they do, because it’s the easy way out. If no introspection is warranted it must be someone else’s fault!

You’re right in the statement that why AAs commit violent crimes at such a rate is where the real discussion should be. But to stand by that the 13%\23% is evidence that there’s systemic racism is preposterous after being shown that the violent crime trend dwarfs that 23%.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yep.

In the race discrimination in mortgage lending class action I was involved with, we used 128 data points from each of over 3000 loan files for the statistical analysis. I can tell you definitively that everybody in this thread is spitballing in favor of their preferred position . . . ain't nobody got the data to prove anything. I am content with the 13.4%/23.4% discrepancy gives us reason to question that result . . . all of the rest of the points you're making would be data that might - might - support a law enforcement equivalent of the "business necessity" defense in a civil context . . .

. . . but that said, we still have to understand why Blacks "commit" violent crimes at such higher rates than others (assuming the data you provided is accurate). Unless you're arguing that Blacks are inherently more prone to commit those crimes - and I don't think you're saying that - to get to the root problem we have to understand the basis for the statistical differences. And that's where folks generally believe that systematic racism's headwaters are.

To me, that's the challenge we have . . . none of the data points you've provided absolves us from pursuing this to a successful conclusion. If slavery is the US' "original sin", then this work is necessary for a full and complete reconciliation and "forgiveness" of the sin.

I'm totally with you. Fixing the why blacks commit more violent crimes is the discussion we should be having with an eye towards remedying all of the needs whether they be education/opportunity/training blah blah bah. but that's not the discussion i hear. i hear we're killing blacks and let's defund the police. that's not the root of anything. and while we're doing that figure out how to improve the professionalism or lack thereof of certain cops

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I stopped reading at "using arrests as the proxy variable". Your assumptions are putting blinders on your otherwise considerable reasoning abilities.

Besides, this 50% stat is not in evidence with my conversation with mac . . .

. . . and assuming that this 50% statistic is accurate for argument's sake, it doesn't explain the "why" of AAs committing more violent crimes. Unless you're arguing that violence is an inherent characteristic of AAs - and I don't read you to be making this argument - the "why" of AAs committing more violent crimes very well could be systemic racism that results in disparate impacts in the police shootings data.

What? Sorry mate, that’s dumb. What other possible variable would you use to count violent crimes? 911 calls? Word of mouth? The lady on the stoop? Sheesh. If you don’t want to have a fruitful discussion fine, but don’t stop reading after I used the only variable that makes sense.

Again - we agree the real discussion has to be on why they’re committing more violent crimes - even though you seem to not believe that they are despite all evidence from FBI to the contrary.