Kneelers and the NFL

[B/W Photodude]

Interesting article on the NFL, Kapernick, and the whole issue of shootings of blacks by police. The author demonstrates very well that it is not as the protesters claim when it comes to police shootings and how it is more dangerous to be white in a confrontation with the police than to be black.

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2017/10/20/the-kneelers

[Bravus]

Side point: pretty sure your Einstein quote is apocryphal. 

[Bravus]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/24/albert-einstein-estate-corrects-ivanka-trump-tweet-no-he-didnt-say/504692001/

[Gregory Matthews]

I can not believe that anyone would actually believe that Einstein said that!

 

[B/W Photodude]

4 hours ago, Bravus said:

Side point: pretty sure your Einstein quote is apocryphal. 

What difference does it make?  --  Hillary Clinton

I think this one is correct.

[Bravus]

'The truth matters' - me

[Bravus]

https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police

[B/W Photodude]

Truth is sometimes difficult to get to when you start throwing around studies. Hence, someone even wrote a book onetime called "how to lie with statistics." But, I did start out the thread with one person quoting multiple different studies from different authors

Quote

 

Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer (who is black) analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across America; his 2016 study concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings.  Fryer found that in Houston, the nation’s fourth largest city, black suspects were 23.8% less likely than whites to be shot by police officers, even when the suspects were armed or violent.

A recent study by Lois James of Washington State University found that officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic suspects in simulated threat scenarios.

Death at the hands of law enforcement is a greater threat to white civilians than blacks—three times greater.  A Washington Post analysis of federal crime statistics revealed that twelve percent (12%) of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were at the hands of police officers, but cops caused only four percent (4%) of black homicide deaths. 

The lack of evidence of bias against blacks in police shootings and homicides is remarkable given that blacks commit crime far out of proportion to their numbers.  Although blacks compose only 15% of the population of America’s 75 most populous counties, blacks account for 62% of charged robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in those counties. 

Police work is dangerous.  In 2016, 118 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty, up 37% from 2015.  52 of the 118 police deaths were accidental but 66 were intentional homicides.  Police officers are 18 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.  In their encounters with black suspects, most officers demonstrate professionalism, good judgment, and restraint in the use of lethal force.    

We know who is killing blacks, and it is not police officers: of 2,491 blacks murdered in 2013, the killer was also black in 2,245 of those cases—ninety percent (90%) of the cases.  In the first half of 2016, over 2,300 people were shot in Chicago.  During that same period, the police shot 12 suspects, so police shootings constituted about half of one percent of all the shootings in Chicago.  Among all the other problems in the black community—poverty, illegitimacy (74%), high crime, etc.—being shot by the police does not rank as a significant risk.

 

So, if truth matters, it helps to actually have studies that have numbers and evaluate the numbers and not just report someones opinion of their impression of the numbers. 

[CoAspen]

Thanks Bravus, we are living in a time where 'truth' is defined by those in power, more so than in the past, at least in this country. That is probably more apparent because of the attempts to control media and to have one group more firmly on you side, ie FOX. I am not saying this hasn't happened before, just that it is now more obvious and a tool to quash descent.

One thing I learned from statistics class, you can design your use to support any type of bias. Also true of research which is why I spend the time checking out both. With Google, today it is relative easy to check out 'facts' from  'bias' and 'opinions'. 

Truth is important, now more than ever because of the quick dessimination of events and comments surrounding them. Less time is spent in verify the truth. 

[CoAspen]

Reading through the comments on the article by David Read, I find this rather illuminating, "Unfortunately, public television is run by communists for communists." Now that is his opinion, but no data or facts to support such. Why is that interesting? Unfortunately that and other comments of his lead me to doubt the resoning behind his article.  

Truth is important, so the continued use of a proven falsehood quote also leads me to doubt the veracity of one contiueing to use such.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

Truth is important, so the continued use of a proven falsehood quote also leads me to doubt the veracity of one contiueing to use such.

I will change my sig line when I get to it and I am not obligated to jump to it to please you.

The quote is not a falsehood, because someone did say it at some point in time. Just who said it is up for discussion.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I like "off the wall" quotes in signatures.... someone complained about mine, once upon a time.   I nicely told the person to girdle up her loins and carry on...

[JoeMo]

"Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup.

If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony.

on Women's Ordination:  The world is starving for lack of bread. We have the bread, and we are arguing about who will serve it..."

I love all of your sign-off quotes - especially the one about dragons.