CSNbbs

election fraud

I wonder who presented the ID that enabled him to vote? Or did he just use a mail-in ballot?

(06-06-2020 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 09:18 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-05-2020 07:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]better than expected

Good news for everybody except those deep in the halls of the DNC and the Biden campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...ce=twitter

When the U.S. government’s official jobs report for May came out on Friday, it included a note at the bottom saying there had been a major “error” indicating that the unemployment rate likely should be higher than the widely reported 13.3 percent rate.

The special note said that if this “misclassification error” had not occurred, the “overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported,” meaning the unemployment rate would be about 16.3 percent for May.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that puts out the monthly jobs reports, said it was working to fix the problem.

I can't figure out if the Trump Administration is the most inept one in history. Or the most corrupt.

Maybe it's both. It's certainly one or the other.

Well, if the actual rate is higher, I guess that would be good news for the Democrats. Enjoy the misery, y'all. High five for more unemployment. Party time for the DNC.

I think it hard to classify the Trump administration as inept, based on results. So what is the evidence they are corrupt? Especially, what is the evidence they are the most corrupt in history? Or the most inept, for that matter.

The evidence for most corrupt isn't there, I'll admit that. I still stick to the opinion that it's the most inept.

Just like some folks have the opinion that Obama was the worst president in history. I disagree (with that opinion) but now think it's Trump. JMHO.

(06-06-2020 11:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Just like some folks have the opinion that Obama was the worst president in history. I disagree (with that opinion) but now think it's Trump. JMHO.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I would disagree with you on both Obama and Trump.

I am pretty much indifferent on Trump--he does some things I like and some things I don't like. That puts him way ahead of Obama IMO. The best thing about Obama to me is that he is too much of a self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant a-hole to be able to get people to work with him, so in the end not much of his socialist/communist "progressive" agenda got enacted.

Good thing Obama didn't go to the Trump route then - and just executive order everything he wanted into place.

Because everything you say about Obama (self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant a-hole) is absolutely true about Trump. Even you should be able to admit that.

(06-06-2020 11:55 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Good thing Obama didn't go to the Trump route then - and just executive order everything he wanted into place.

He did way too much of that for my taste.

Quote:Because everything you say about Obama (self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant a-hole) is absolutely true about Trump. Even you should be able to admit that.

Absolutely. That's one of the things I don't like about him, although maybe it took an a-hole to turn some things around.

I guess the difference between the two is that Trump at least wants to do some things that I support. Other than trying to normalize relations with Cuba (which Trump has reversed, and I disagree with that), Obama really did nothing with which I agreed.

I don't think Obama is the worst in history. maybe not even in the Bottom Ten. Stop trying to pin that label on me.

Now let's hear how Trump is more inept than Carter.

Carter was pretty inept. But I think he's been a good ex-President.

(06-06-2020 12:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think Obama is the worst in history. maybe not even in the Bottom Ten. Stop trying to pin that label on me.
Now let's hear how Trump is more inept than Carter.

Oh, I'd put Obama in the bottom ten, easily, just because his agenda was contrary to anything that I would want to see happen.

(06-06-2020 12:23 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Carter was pretty inept. But I think he's been a good ex-President.

Much better ex-president than president.

(06-06-2020 11:55 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Good thing Obama didn't go to the Trump route then - and just executive order everything he wanted into place.

Yeah, Obama just Executive ordered vast swaths of immigration non-enforcement into place instead. That is seemingly overlooked.

Quote:Because everything you say about Obama (self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant a-hole) is absolutely true about Trump. Even you should be able to admit that.

No quarrel there with that -- for both of them.

I cannot rate out Presidents from 1 to 45 because for a lot of them I know nothing.

How do you rate Polk, Buchanan, or Arthur?

People cannot come to a consensus on even some of our prominent Presidents, such as that evil slaver Jefferson.

I tend to think of Woodrow Wilson as one of the worst. Very progressive guy who segregated our government and got us into WW I.

Truman? I like him and his no nonsense, buck stops here attitude. He also dropped the bomb on hundreds of thousands of humans, which some people do not like.

Eisenhower built the Interstates and implemented desegregation. Pretty good legacy, IMO.

Trump's legacy will be written long from now. The stuff I hear from his enemies I take as campaign rhetoric. But I like the economic moves and the foreign policy moves. I don't care so much for some of his manner. But I don't write histories.

IMO, Obama's legacy is a terrible deal with Iran and a failed attempt at national healthcare. Oh, and cash for Clunkers. I especially did not like the way he sat on his hands when there were people trying to overthrow authoritarian governments. But I still don't write histories.

(06-06-2020 10:01 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 08:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 08:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The protests are about systemic issues in our law enforcement system.

Issues? Yes, definitely. Systemic? I question that.

Police killed 235 blacks and 370 whites last year, the vast majority of them in situations where the killings were reasonably justified. The ones that weren't have been subjected to the criminal justice system. That does not justify an assertion of "systemic" issues.

Obviously from the coronavirus thread, you are familiar with the concept of per capita, so it's sad to see you frame the numbers to back the conclusion you desired.

Adjust these for the relative distribution of black (12%) and white (61-72%) residents in the US, and you'll see that blacks are significantly more likely to be killed by the police. The % of these deaths that involved an unarmed resident are higher for blacks as well. These numbers are also reflected in the general use of force by police, as Minneapolis PD used violence 7x more frequently with blacks.


And not directed at you specifically, but it is amusing how the same people who so vehemently react to being lumped with racists politically, fail to realize how those protestations lose any credibility when they feel the need to mock the obvious systemic issues of racial discrimination with our police forces.

In 2019 there were 28 police shootings of unarmed suspects. These would be the most likely to be unjustified. 19 were white, 9 were black. So no, the percentage of deaths-by-police of unarmed citizens is *not* higher for blacks than whites.

Now these totals and ratios do vary from year to year and it's not always more whites than blacks -- in 2015 it was 38 blacks, 32 whites -- but this is because these are infinitesimally small fractions of the much larger and more stable numbers of all police fatal shootings (about 1000 per year), all police gun discharges (3000 per year), all arrests (10 million per year), and all encounters (50 million per year).

But anyway, let's consider the argument that the fact that blacks consistently make up around 25% of the 1000 fatal shootings per year proves "obvious" and "systemic" police racism (ignoring the facts that nearly all the shootings are lawful, most big cities are progressive-dominated and shouldn't be hotbeds of racism, and the thorough racial integration of the police) because blacks are 13% of the population.

The inconvenient fact is that police do not shoot people randomly. It is "a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects" and in this regard, according to the last available data year, blacks were responsible for 53% of murders and 60% of robberies. Thus, they actually lose their lives at the hands of police at a far lesser rate than what the crime rate would predict.

Studies also have shown "no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police" and that white officers have been less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than black or Hispanic officers.

It's only "obvious" and "systemic" because of confirmation bias. You believe it, without sufficient evidence, and then when an outlier event happens in line with your belief, it reinforces it.

(06-06-2020 10:01 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 08:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 08:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The protests are about systemic issues in our law enforcement system.

Issues? Yes, definitely. Systemic? I question that.
Police killed 235 blacks and 370 whites last year, the vast majority of them in situations where the killings were reasonably justified. The ones that weren't have been subjected to the criminal justice system. That does not justify an assertion of "systemic" issues.

Obviously from the coronavirus thread, you are familiar with the concept of per capita, so it's sad to see you frame the numbers to back the conclusion you desired.
Adjust these for the relative distribution of black (12%) and white (61-72%) residents in the US, and you'll see that blacks are significantly more likely to be killed by the police. The % of these deaths that involved an unarmed resident are higher for blacks as well. These numbers are also reflected in the general use of force by police, as Minneapolis PD used violence 7x more frequently with blacks.
And not directed at you specifically, but it is amusing how the same people who so vehemently react to being lumped with racists politically, fail to realize how those protestations lose any credibility when they feel the need to mock the obvious systemic issues of racial discrimination with our police forces.

What the statistics actually show is that NEITHER blacks nor whites are very likely to get killed by police. If you put it on a per capita basis, the 2019 numbers were 1 in every 200,000 blacks and 1 in every 500,000 whites. Yes, you can say that blacks are 2.5 times more likely to be killed. But the honest answer is that neither is even remotely likely to be killed.

As noted by Illini, there were 28 shootings of unarmed persons, 19 white and 9 black. That works out to about 1 in 10 million for whites and 1 in 5 million for blacks. Again, you could say unarmed blacks are 2 times more likely to be killed than unarmed whites, but again the more logical conclusion is that neither is even remotely likely to be killed under such circumstances.

As for your Minneapolis PD use of violence statistic, do you have a source?

That is quite the 'systemic issue' I see in those numbers.

Also, the source article noted that "The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase."

And this one leapt out -- "a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer."

I wonder if the posters who lauded the phrases 'systemic issue' and 'systemic problem' will alter that parroting in other settings. I am relatively certain that phrase, or claim, or anywhere near that claim will rear its head here again in light of that.

But the issue of a 'systemic issue' is so deeply lodged in the part and parcel of the fabric of progressivism in the United States, I am sure that WSJ piece will never be discussed honestly amongst and between the 'true believers of the faith'.

(06-06-2020 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And this one leapt out -- "a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer."

I wonder if the posters who lauded the phrases 'systemic issue' and 'systemic problem' will alter that parroting in other settings. I am relatively certain that phrase, or claim, or anywhere near that claim will rear its head here again in light of that.

But the issue of a 'systemic issue' is so deeply lodged in the part and parcel of the fabric of progressivism in the United States, I am sure that WSJ piece will never be discussed honestly amongst and between the 'true believers of the faith'.

Humor us-- what are the equivalent #'s for a white male?

Heather Mac Donald has made a nice career of going onto Rush and Tucker Carlson to provide a narrative that fits those audiences well.

(06-06-2020 11:08 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And this one leapt out -- "a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer."

I wonder if the posters who lauded the phrases 'systemic issue' and 'systemic problem' will alter that parroting in other settings. I am relatively certain that phrase, or claim, or anywhere near that claim will rear its head here again in light of that.

But the issue of a 'systemic issue' is so deeply lodged in the part and parcel of the fabric of progressivism in the United States, I am sure that WSJ piece will never be discussed honestly amongst and between the 'true believers of the faith'.

Humor us-- what are the equivalent #'s for a white male?

Heather Mac Donald has made a nice career of going onto Rush and Tucker Carlson to provide a narrative that fits those audiences well.

By “those audiences”,do you mean the Deplorables?

(06-06-2020 07:16 PM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 10:01 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 08:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 08:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The protests are about systemic issues in our law enforcement system.

Issues? Yes, definitely. Systemic? I question that.

Police killed 235 blacks and 370 whites last year, the vast majority of them in situations where the killings were reasonably justified. The ones that weren't have been subjected to the criminal justice system. That does not justify an assertion of "systemic" issues.

Obviously from the coronavirus thread, you are familiar with the concept of per capita, so it's sad to see you frame the numbers to back the conclusion you desired.

Adjust these for the relative distribution of black (12%) and white (61-72%) residents in the US, and you'll see that blacks are significantly more likely to be killed by the police. The % of these deaths that involved an unarmed resident are higher for blacks as well. These numbers are also reflected in the general use of force by police, as Minneapolis PD used violence 7x more frequently with blacks.


And not directed at you specifically, but it is amusing how the same people who so vehemently react to being lumped with racists politically, fail to realize how those protestations lose any credibility when they feel the need to mock the obvious systemic issues of racial discrimination with our police forces.

In 2019 there were 28 police shootings of unarmed suspects. These would be the most likely to be unjustified. 19 were white, 9 were black. So no, the percentage of deaths-by-police of unarmed citizens is *not* higher for blacks than whites.

Now these totals and ratios do vary from year to year and it's not always more whites than blacks -- in 2015 it was 38 blacks, 32 whites -- but this is because these are infinitesimally small fractions of the much larger and more stable numbers of all police fatal shootings (about 1000 per year), all police gun discharges (3000 per year), all arrests (10 million per year), and all encounters (50 million per year).

But anyway, let's consider the argument that the fact that blacks consistently make up around 25% of the 1000 fatal shootings per year proves "obvious" and "systemic" police racism (ignoring the facts that nearly all the shootings are lawful, most big cities are progressive-dominated and shouldn't be hotbeds of racism, and the thorough racial integration of the police) because blacks are 13% of the population.

The inconvenient fact is that police do not shoot people randomly. It is "a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects" and in this regard, according to the last available data year, blacks were responsible for 53% of murders and 60% of robberies. Thus, they actually lose their lives at the hands of police at a far lesser rate than what the crime rate would predict.

Studies also have shown "no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police" and that white officers have been less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than black or Hispanic officers.

It's only "obvious" and "systemic" because of confirmation bias. You believe it, without sufficient evidence, and then when an outlier event happens in line with your belief, it reinforces it.

Nowhere have I tried to convince you it is ""obvious"" and ""systemic"". Those are beliefs I have built from my life experiences and from detailed articles like these, but obviously nothing I say is going to change yours, #'s, or anyone else's opinion, especially when Heather Mac Donald is there to provide a more comforting narrative. My only point was to: 1) convey how it looks-- if you're not a racist in the same way that blacks being on the receiving end of police violence 7x more frequently than whites (source, NYT) is not racist, then, uh..; and 2) if you are going to throw out numbers to dismiss the anger/concerns of the black community and justify the LAW AND ORDER !!!1! status quo, then don't pick ones that directly counter your conclusion.

(06-06-2020 11:28 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 07:16 PM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 10:01 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 08:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 08:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The protests are about systemic issues in our law enforcement system.

Issues? Yes, definitely. Systemic? I question that.

Police killed 235 blacks and 370 whites last year, the vast majority of them in situations where the killings were reasonably justified. The ones that weren't have been subjected to the criminal justice system. That does not justify an assertion of "systemic" issues.

Obviously from the coronavirus thread, you are familiar with the concept of per capita, so it's sad to see you frame the numbers to back the conclusion you desired.

Adjust these for the relative distribution of black (12%) and white (61-72%) residents in the US, and you'll see that blacks are significantly more likely to be killed by the police. The % of these deaths that involved an unarmed resident are higher for blacks as well. These numbers are also reflected in the general use of force by police, as Minneapolis PD used violence 7x more frequently with blacks.


And not directed at you specifically, but it is amusing how the same people who so vehemently react to being lumped with racists politically, fail to realize how those protestations lose any credibility when they feel the need to mock the obvious systemic issues of racial discrimination with our police forces.

In 2019 there were 28 police shootings of unarmed suspects. These would be the most likely to be unjustified. 19 were white, 9 were black. So no, the percentage of deaths-by-police of unarmed citizens is *not* higher for blacks than whites.

Now these totals and ratios do vary from year to year and it's not always more whites than blacks -- in 2015 it was 38 blacks, 32 whites -- but this is because these are infinitesimally small fractions of the much larger and more stable numbers of all police fatal shootings (about 1000 per year), all police gun discharges (3000 per year), all arrests (10 million per year), and all encounters (50 million per year).

But anyway, let's consider the argument that the fact that blacks consistently make up around 25% of the 1000 fatal shootings per year proves "obvious" and "systemic" police racism (ignoring the facts that nearly all the shootings are lawful, most big cities are progressive-dominated and shouldn't be hotbeds of racism, and the thorough racial integration of the police) because blacks are 13% of the population.

The inconvenient fact is that police do not shoot people randomly. It is "a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects" and in this regard, according to the last available data year, blacks were responsible for 53% of murders and 60% of robberies. Thus, they actually lose their lives at the hands of police at a far lesser rate than what the crime rate would predict.

Studies also have shown "no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police" and that white officers have been less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than black or Hispanic officers.

It's only "obvious" and "systemic" because of confirmation bias. You believe it, without sufficient evidence, and then when an outlier event happens in line with your belief, it reinforces it.

Nowhere have I tried to convince you it is ""obvious"" and ""systemic"". Those are beliefs I have built from my life experiences and from detailed articles like these, but obviously nothing I say is going to change yours, #'s, or anyone else's opinion, especially when Heather Mac Donald is there to provide a more comforting narrative. My only point was to: 1) convey how it looks-- if you're not a racist in the same way that blacks being on the receiving end of police violence 7x more frequently than whites (source, NYT) is not racist, then, uh..; and 2) if you are going to throw out numbers to dismiss the anger/concerns of the black community and justify the LAW AND ORDER !!!1! status quo, then don't pick ones that directly counter your conclusion.

Simplistic comparisons to raw population numbers are not statistically sound (but they're useful for advancing a "narrative," I"ll give you that). Crime rates matter - violent crime rates especially so when we are talking about police use of deadly force. The crime rate isn't made up...victims can't be invented just to support a narrative. The police are disproportionately going to be where the crime disproportionately is (the victims are disproportionately black, too; should we ask them if they're in favor of less policing in their neighborhoods?), and that has to inform drawing conclusions from the data.

Or you can form the equivalent of an unassailable religious belief about the collective behavior of hundreds of thousands of police officers from anecdotes, and then scream "RACIST!!!" at anyone who disagrees. You're right -- it's not convincing.

(06-06-2020 11:28 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]Nowhere have I tried to convince you it is ""obvious"" and ""systemic"". Those are beliefs I have built from my life experiences and from detailed articles like these, but obviously nothing I say is going to change yours, #'s, or anyone else's opinion, especially when Heather Mac Donald is there to provide a more comforting narrative. My only point was to: 1) convey how it looks-- if you're not a racist in the same way that blacks being on the receiving end of police violence 7x more frequently than whites (source, NYT) is not racist, then, uh..; and 2) if you are going to throw out numbers to dismiss the anger/concerns of the black community and justify the LAW AND ORDER !!!1! status quo, then don't pick ones that directly counter your conclusion.

Based upon the empirical data, you're just wrong.

And WTF does Heather McDonald have to do with it? Who is Heather McDonald, anyway?

(06-07-2020 12:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2020 11:28 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]Nowhere have I tried to convince you it is ""obvious"" and ""systemic"". Those are beliefs I have built from my life experiences and from detailed articles like these, but obviously nothing I say is going to change yours, #'s, or anyone else's opinion, especially when Heather Mac Donald is there to provide a more comforting narrative. My only point was to: 1) convey how it looks-- if you're not a racist in the same way that blacks being on the receiving end of police violence 7x more frequently than whites (source, NYT) is not racist, then, uh..; and 2) if you are going to throw out numbers to dismiss the anger/concerns of the black community and justify the LAW AND ORDER !!!1! status quo, then don't pick ones that directly counter your conclusion.

Based upon the empirical data, you're just wrong.

And WTF does Heather McDonald have to do with it? Who is Heather McDonald, anyway?

Heather McDonald is the wicked witch of the West whom authored the piece in the Wall Street Journal that noted the statistics that illini noted.

She has written quite extensively on the subject of race and the criminal justice system.

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

In this portion, I was tempted to write a real 'jam it down the craw' note to some. On reflection, I would prefer to convey to some here who broadcast so quite grandiosely about the 'systemic issue' and the 'systemic problem' that perhaps they may wish to not accept such grandiose pablum at face value on prospective basis.

I am sure they felt safe in noting this, since to a massive extent the progressive infrastructure is coupled tightly to the concept, and most media went out of their way to broadcast it as such.

But the objective numbers are fundamentally stark --- more people die of lightning on average per year than the sum total of unarmed people killed by the police; and dog attacks killed 4x more people than the number of unarmed African Americans killed by police in 2019.

And for this, look what the last week has brought on us? No, I am not 'happy' that the raw numbers bear out the paucity of basis for the orgy of protest and violence --- given the fact that an enormous numbers of people's lives have been shattered, the literal 100's of millions of dollars (if not billions) of damage, the businesses ruined (because remember, most insurance does not cover acts of riot) --- for that I in warped way somewhat wish there was a basis for that orgy of mayhem.

At the end of the day think of the enormous cost to the country in economics, not to mention the social structure. I dont mean to demean 9 African American lives, nor the 28 total lives. But the ledger of what that has borne is disgusting. The ledger of expectations that were even so apparent here over the 'enormity and pervasiveness' of 'police violence against blacks' turns out to be........... 9 lives last year. 9 lives.

And just remember how incorrect the issue that you re-broadcast was. No, there is no 'systemic issue', nor any 'systemic problem' with police brutality directed expressly at blacks. And the numbers that are borne out make a mockery of the quote 'Black Lives Matter' -- that is to the extent that it 'says' that blacks are expressly targeted.

(06-06-2020 11:28 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]Nowhere have I tried to convince you it is ""obvious"" and ""systemic"". Those are beliefs I have built from my life experiences and from detailed articles like these, but obviously nothing I say is going to change yours, #'s, or anyone else's opinion, especially when Heather Mac Donald is there to provide a more comforting narrative. My only point was to: 1) convey how it looks-- if you're not a racist in the same way that blacks being on the receiving end of police violence 7x more frequently than whites (source, NYT) is not racist, then, uh..; and 2) if you are going to throw out numbers to dismiss the anger/concerns of the black community and justify the LAW AND ORDER !!!1! status quo, then don't pick ones that directly counter your conclusion.

As for 2), I think the orgy of violence and vengeful activity *is* proof positive of *anger*.

But the raw numbers are absolutely stark in the regard.

There are really only 2 explanations for that disparity between the numbers and the actions we just saw.

1) The raw numbers are total fabrications; or
2) The African American populace has been led to believe an expectation that isnt borne out by the objective numbers.

Whack a Mole -- I will do something here that I am sure will never cross your mind to do:

I will absolutely state that I believe that the enforcement of low level crime against blacks *is* disproportionate.

If I am on my porch sparking a doob, I probably wont be jacked and arrested. At most I will be handed a ticket, and told to keep in low profile.

Earlier in my legal career, I represented pro bono more than a few blacks, actually quite a number, that had that exact situation. And they were jacked and arrested. And more than that that had situations that were minor in scope 'blown up' into arrests.

But, that disparity in enforcement on a 'zero error' basis for low level misdemeanors (which I believe actually is real) simply *does not* come even fing close to 'GRAVE DISPARITY' in the force used. Not even in the same galaxy.

And, the relative rates of force are different --- the 19 year old bird brain cracker kid, when he gets those bracelets snapped on, typically walks meekly to the cruiser defeated and deflated.

The 19 year old bird brain black kid is far more likely than the cracker bird brain to try and thrash when the bracelets come out. And, when there is even such low level 'resistance' at arrest, by definition more force will be used. The use of force really is color blind --- it is not 'arrestee action' blind mind you.

So in ending, whack a mole, maybe there is area for agreement between us. My guess, from the tone of your missive above, is that you are so far down the 'the other side is evil track' that it may be pissing into the wind with that.

But, you have a crapload of time and effort invested in your hate avenue, so to be honest your diatribe above is what I have come to expect.