> when the right asks, “how do we know that racism and not crime rates belies police shooting disparities?”
This question isn't asked in good faith.
Besides, it's actually irrelevant; those deaths are statistics. What was demanded was prosecutions of specific police for specific shootings of specific, named people such as Breonna Taylor.
It's up to the white community to decide if police shootings of white people are too frequent, not frequent enough, or whatever. That is irrelevant to the BLM question.
Prosecutions aren't something that should be done by mob demand. In the case of Breona Taylor the police were returning fire. You can question whether they should have served that warrant, but you will never in a million years convict someone of murder when they were returning fire.
> but you will never in a million years convict someone of murder when they were returning fire.
If you break into my home with a gun, I shoot at you and miss, and you shoot me and kill me, you would absolutely be convicted of murder or manslaughter.
The defense, in this case, relies on two claims:
1. The intruders were police officers (this doesn't, or shouldn't, give them carte blanche to shoot people)
2. The police announced themselves as police before entering, which is in dispute.
Further, the opportunity to bring manslaughter charges was never provided. The prosecutor declined to present murder or manslaughter to the Grand Jury.
> but you will never in a million years convict someone of murder when they were returning fire.
The USA seems to have got itself in a very peculiar place with regards to discharge of firearms by representatives of authority. Certainly in the UK and I think on most other western countries, you don't just shoot wildly into a property because someone inside has discharged a firearm.
It just wouldn't have happened in anything like this way in most other developed countries.
Agreed, but excessive use of force is an altogether different problem than the cited 'race' issues. Indeed, something like 90% of Americans support some kind of policing reform according to a Gallup survey last year. Unfortunately, in America, we have only a ~30% chance of passing a reform that 90% of Americans want passed unless the corporations also want it passed.
> you will never in a million years convict someone of murder when they were returning fire
Sure you would, if somebody was returning fire after having been the initial aggressor. Suppose I were to break down your door. In many states, you would be justified in defending yourself (Castle doctrine). If I return fire and kill you, I would be guilty of murder. You had a right to defend yourself, and I did not have a right to return fire.
That's the a huge point of the outrage, that whether or not the police announced themselves is in question, and witness reports vary. If the police didn't announce themselves, then there is no way for somebody in the house to determine whether it is a valid warrant being served or a violent home invasion. (Or both.)
Why not? It seems like a perfectly reasonable question. You have a lot of people who are protesting and some who are even rioting on the pretense that racism is driving police to kill blacks in greater proportion than other races--surely they must have a good reason to think that it's racism and not crime rates or some other factor that correlates with race? It doesn't seem unreasonable to want some assurance that there's a good reason our cities are being burned and looted.
> Besides, it's actually irrelevant; those deaths are statistics. What was demanded was prosecutions of specific police for specific shootings of specific, named people such as Breonna Taylor.
Nope, "racial disparities in police killings" was frequently and ubiquitously cited as a motivation for the protests and riots. There was some back pedaling from some people that this isn't actually about race, but Black lives matter is actually just a generic movement against police brutality; however, that's plainly a farce.
> It's up to the white community to decide if police shootings of white people are too frequent, not frequent enough, or whatever. That is irrelevant to the BLM question.
What "white community"? Why should other people who have nothing but pigmentation in common with me decide the likelihood of me being killed by police? Why should we want 'race' to be a factor (as opposed to a correlation) in police killings at all? What is "the BLM question" if not "why are blacks killed disproportionately than whites"?
The "but what about these stats" question has been asked a million times. Any population-level stats for crime rate, income, education, etc, are affected by unequal starting positions, and in the US those unequal starting positions were enforced by racism in leadership for decades. And in some places still are.
You can't punch someone constantly until they're covered in bruises and then say "look, they aren't in pain because of anything bad anyone did, they just have more bruises."
> The "but what about these stats" question has been asked a million times. Any population-level stats for crime rate, income, education, etc, are affected by unequal starting positions, and in the US those unequal starting positions were enforced by racism in leadership for decades. And in some places still are.
Agreed, but frontend disparities are an entirely different cause than the "police are racist thus more black people are killed by police" argument that conservatives (and others) are pushing back against. Notably, a hypothetical police force that is perfectly unbiased and which never ever uses force inappropriately would still kill more blacks than whites for the simple fact that, provided that blacks commit more crimes (even though the reason blacks commit more crimes is a history of systemic racism).
Despite the account name, that particular user has been here for over three years, and has 3900 karma. They're not just some drive-by troller.
Also, you should judge their comments by the comments, not by the username. Those were some fairly thoughtful comments, even if you don't agree with them.
> Also, you should judge their comments by the comments, not by the username.
Partly yes and partly no. I spotted what appeared to be a throwaway. That led me to believe the poster had less "skin in the game" and that influenced me to some degree. Was that unreasonable?
"To some degree"? Surely. It could have influenced you to spend a few seconds checking whether the account was a throwaway. I think that would have been entirely reasonable.
But it didn't influence you "to some degree". We can be more specific than that. It influenced you to accuse the account of being a throwaway without spending a few seconds to check.
I do think that was mildly unreasonable. Not super unreasonable, but mildly.
It's just a username. I'm probably every bit as active on this forum as you are. Is there something in this thread that makes you think I'm posting in bad faith?
I don’t feel super strongly, but I kind of like that people don’t know which “throwaway” I am. They don’t recognize my username from prior conversations, so they’re less likely to think, “Oh that guy agreed with me last time, I’ll give him an upvote or an agreeable comment” or the inverse. People are more likely to consider my arguments on merit, the GP notwithstanding.
This question isn't asked in good faith.
Besides, it's actually irrelevant; those deaths are statistics. What was demanded was prosecutions of specific police for specific shootings of specific, named people such as Breonna Taylor.
It's up to the white community to decide if police shootings of white people are too frequent, not frequent enough, or whatever. That is irrelevant to the BLM question.