(06-09-2020 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Politifact does a good job dissecting the 9 number that Tanq keeps parroting (and misrepresenting as total black deaths, and not the more narrowly defined unarmed black people shot and killed by police) from the WSJ op-Ed.

I have noted several times it is unarmed black deaths. I suggest please stop misrepresenting what I say. For once. Good fing grief. I think that number has been noted that way by me at least on a number of occasions.

But it isn't unarmed black deaths. It is unarmed blacks killed by on-duty police officers using a firearm.

See: "shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian," as the Washington Post describes its data."

So again, George Floyd would not be counted in this, since he wasn't killed by a firearm.

Yes, great. That doesnt change the fact that you misrepresented that I said "total deaths", does it?

And, think of *why* the distinction is made between 'on-duty' and 'off-duty'. Given that the shotgun slayings of a cops wife and her lover by a cop are now thrown into the mix. Doesnt seem indicative of the present issue of 'police brutality', given that we are specifically talking about the left pulling the pin on the go apeshit grenade based on cops acting in their official duties. Does it?

Great, lets look at the 'inflated' numbers you jump up and down and now scream about. Just north of death by dog mauling, and still much, much less than by lightning. Yeah, that makes a giant fing difference.

You're right, I was wrong about what your misrepresented this number as.

But big picture, you and Owl#s were still misrepresenting the number by not explaining what it is, in totality. It's a segment of a segment of a segment.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

When you look at the total number of UNARMED people killed by police, you see that 28 unarmed blacks were killed by police - almost a 3-fold increase from the 9 being bandied about. If you want to diminish that number, it's your prerogative. But that seems way to high to me, given that the people were unarmed (and that's not even talking about the other races, for a total of 114 unarmed per year).

The only good news is that if you look at the trend, we've seen a decreasing trend in not only black, unarmed deaths per year since 2013, but overall unarmed deaths per year.

Lad, when the inclusion or non-inclusion of an off-duty cop shotgunning his wife and lover when off duty means literally a 10% change in the numbers, this is a pretty good indication of the definition of a non-problem.

When that number of 28, or 51, is stacked up against a number of 200 million police encounters, some say those numbers fail to show a trend of any sort.

Since you are 'Mr Objective' what exactly is the number that is derived by the simple formula of 79 divided by 200 fing million? Seems I forgot my calculator today.

And, to note again, great, lets look at the 'inflated' numbers you jump up and down and now scream about. Just north of death by dog mauling, and still much, much less than by lightning. Yeah, that makes a giant fing difference.

The funny thing is that you are still literally trying to gin up some 'systemic injustice' bull**** with something that occurs *less* than death by lightning, by a long margin.