I am disgusted.

[Maniac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30339943[/QUOTE]

"41 police officers were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005 and 2011. In the same time period, the FBI recorded several thousand justifiable homicides."

Apparently you didnt understand this article.

[Riccardo]

I appears you don't understand the difference

Between murder/manslaughter and justifiable homicide

[Maniac]

Between murder/manslaughter and justifiable homicide

Don't be a moron. OJ got off. Think he was innocent?

The point of the article was that cops rarely get charged of homicide much less convicted.

[Riccardo]

Wow what a surprise

What does OJ have to do with anything. Did you ever think that perhaps cops don't usually get charged with homicide for the simple reason that they rarely go out and kill people for no reason? They have a job where they get put in situations where it's kill or be killed. Our jobs are nothing like that. Dopes like you don't seem to understand it either.

[Maniac]

Did you ever think that perhaps cops don't usually get charged with homicide for the simple reason that they rarely go out and kill people for no reason?.

Only 40 out of several thousand homicides weren't justified? Sure Bozo.

I'm sure that cafeteria dude with his tail light out and his kid in the car was gonna kill a cop for pulling him over. Right wing twit.

[Riccardo]

Hahah

So you think 40 out of 4000 seems too low? Based on what evidence? There are about 300 justifiable homicides by private citizens per year, 400 per year by police officers who get involved with violent criminals for a living sounds reasonable. You simply have no clue.

[Loki]

A rebuttal to the friend of Rush Limbaugh author

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...de-crime-wave/

[Maniac]

So you think 40 out of 4000 seems too low? Based on what evidence? There are about 300 justifiable homicides by private citizens per year, 400 per year by police officers who get involved with violent criminals for a living sounds reasonable. You simply have no clue.

Yes I think forty charges out of 4000 is low. You have no evidence to the contrary. It's no secret that district attorneys don't like pressing charges against police in these kind of cases. And I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people cops get involved with are not violent criminals. If they are too jumpy to know when not to pull the trigger, they should find a different profession.

[rdog5]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...de-crime-wave/

Are you intentionally missing the point or just so interested in winning your argument that you ignore the point. We are discussing officer shootings and the disparate amount of minority's that are affected by them. Crime wave and policies are a totally different argument. If a certain race is committing 70% percent of violent crimes but only make up 12% of the total population the argument is that their rate of death by cop would exceed their population percentage rate.

[Loki]

Are you intentionally obfuscating the point?

Or are you so sure that watching a cop assassinate a person in cold blood will lose you ANY argument?

[rdog5]

Or are you so sure that watching a cop assassinate a person in cold blood will lose you ANY argument?

Typical tactic that when you can't make an educated rebuttal you change course and say a sensationalized statement not based in fact to rile people up.

[Loki]

Typical tactic.

Blow off a well written rebuttal to your "interesting article", which was anything but, and make a personal attack. Take a break from listening to Rush today and read the article this time.

[rdog5]

Blow off a well written rebuttal to your "interesting article", which was anything but, and make a personal attack. Take a break from listening to Rush today and read the article this time.

I will do this chronologically (in order) to help you grasp the concept:

1. The basis of the discussion was the disproportionate treatment of minorities when it comes to police shootings.

2. The interesting article went into the statistical evidence about why those minorities who make up 12% of the total population are involved in shootings by police at a far greater rate than their population percentage. The statistics presented were in reference to minority involvement in violent crime at a much higher rate than their population percentage therefore are going to be involved in police shootings at a much higher rate.

3. I read your article you presented and it rebuts her assertion that there is an uptick in crime as a result of police being less likely involved in self-initiated police matters due to the critical judgement placed on them with current events.

4. Points 2 and 3 are different topics, both worthy of discussion and have some linking characteristics but the article you presented of minimal use in determining why minorities are more often involved in police shootings.

5. I listen to Howard Stern.

In review a demographic that commits the majority of crimes is more likely to have violent encounters with police and a more disproportionate amount than their population percentage. 96% of officer involved shootings involve a male and I am sure males do not make up 96% of the population, is sexism also an issue for officer involved shootings?

https://www.quora.com/96-of-cops-sho...ith-the-police

[rdog5]

I will do this chronologically (in order) to help you grasp the concept:

1. The basis of the discussion was the disproportionate treatment of minorities when it comes to police shootings.

2. The interesting article went into the statistical evidence about why those minorities who make up 12% of the total population are involved in shootings by police at a far greater rate than their population percentage. The statistics presented were in reference to minority involvement in violent crime at a much higher rate than their population percentage therefore are going to be involved in police shootings at a much higher rate.

3. I read your article you presented and it rebuts her assertion that there is an uptick in crime as a result of police being less likely involved in self-initiated police matters due to the critical judgement placed on them with current events.

4. Points 2 and 3 are different topics, both worthy of discussion and have some linking characteristics but the article you presented of minimal use in determining why minorities are more often involved in police shootings.

5. I listen to Howard Stern.

In review a demographic that commits the majority of crimes is more likely to have violent encounters with police and a more disproportionate amount than their population percentage. 96% of officer involved shootings involve a male and I am sure males do not make up 96% of the population, is sexism also an issue for officer involved shootings?

https://www.quora.com/96-of-cops-sho...ith-the-police

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/up...ings.html?_r=0

[Loki]

1. You forgot something.

RSE's disgust of the events.


That you did your typical FOP blame the victims schtick is no surprise. Obfuscate the original disgust and try and turn it to a discussion of single parents.


But at least you didn't tweet as a retired Philly cop did that "If you stop acting like fucking criminals maybe you wouldn't get shot."