Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    2. GTANet 20th Anniversary

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

That Thread about US current events


Raavi

Recommended Posts

 

he'll be lucky if he gets a bologna sandwich with  mildew on the meat and bread, let alone  organic food, starve you  idiot 

 

Edited by Craigsters
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Craigsters said:

 

he'll be lucky if he gets a bologna sandwich with  mildew on the meat and bread, let alone  organic food, starve you  idiot 

 

Don’t forget a lot of the anti government people in America are anti GMO...he probably hasn’t eaten anything not organic in a long time...I am sure they’d accommodate a more #woke dietary choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Craigsters said:

 

he'll be lucky if he gets a bologna sandwich with  mildew on the meat and bread, let alone  organic food, starve you  idiot 

 

 

What a moron lol.

 

Honestly after this I don't think Trump supporters have the balls to try anything like this against again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Halal Cyborg said:

Don’t forget a lot of the anti government people in America are anti GMO...he probably hasn’t eaten anything not organic in a long time...I am sure they’d accommodate a more #woke dietary choice.

Now with the contrived whataboutism of hypothetical, imaginary unfairness. It’s like you can’t help yourself.

 

Keep going - I’ve almost got “bad-faith dialogue” bingo with you. Papa needs a new coat!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bartleby said:

Now with the contrived whataboutism of hypothetical, imaginary unfairness. It’s like you can’t help yourself.

 

Keep going - I’ve almost got “bad-faith dialogue” bingo with you. Papa needs a new coat!

You’re so edgy be careful you don’t cut yourself 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Halal Cyborg said:

You’re so edgy be careful you don’t cut yourself 🙄

For real, though - bashing the other adds nothing productive or interesting to the conversation.

 

And if you feel the need to do it, maybe save it for somebody who didn’t commit an act of insurrection. This buffoon deserves no sympathy, defense or deflection from anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I like the voice over of the goodfellas  Henry monologue , voice actor sounded just like Henry/Ray 

Edited by Craigsters
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bartleby said:

For real, though - bashing the other adds nothing productive or interesting to the conversation.

 

And if you feel the need to do it, maybe save it for somebody who didn’t commit an act of insurrection. This buffoon deserves no sympathy, defense or deflection from anyone.

I’m not defending anyone I am calling out hypocrisy.

 

The problem with people like you is you cannot bear anyone whose not in the exact same place as you on the political spectrum...and everyone else by default becomes a far right extremist.

 

I am not the one that seeks to score points with every response to a post...the level of condescension from people like you is the exact reason stupid uneducated morons like me might end up drifting into unsavoury territory politically.

 

It is why Brexit happened and why Trump won in the first place and you’d do well to remember that the next time you’re tempted to flex your oh so superior understanding of the political landscape to put some clearly misguided and ill informed incorrect opinion holding moron in their place.

 

This isn’t just directed at you but all of the people who behave this way in this thread.

 

btw I found a really good video of the brave man that led the mob away as mentioned earlier.

 

 

 

Edited by Halal Cyborg
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I mentioned the unsanctioned war and could've mentioned the individual mandate.

I wouldn't argue that the ISRP is characteristic of authoritarianism given that countries such as Australia and the Netherlands which are far more politically and socially free than the US also use healthcare individual mandates. If I recall correctly the entire basic concept of the mandate originated from Conservative think-tanks in the eighties as a proposed alternative to single-payer healthcare; it was initially introduced, promoted and signed into law in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney with strong bipartisan support. And the only reason it was introduced as part of the ACA in the first place was because of the delusion amongst those on the political right in the US that free-at-the-point-of-access universal healthcare is "communism" which effectively prevented the Democrats from introducing proper healthcare reform, hence the chimera that the US ended up with. 

 

"Unsanctioned war" is a bit of a strange choice of words, given the authority of the President to conduct foreign policy and act as commander in chief. I assume what you're primarily referring to the intervention in Libya as that's the only traditional "war", as it were, that the US directly involved itself in that wasn't either inherited from his predecessor or continued by his successor. Can you be a bit more specific about what you're referring to here? Because whilst I would agree that Obama certainly conducted more overt overseas military intervention, I would also counter that Trump has been far more aggressive in his use of covert military capability and interventionism abroad. And yes, that includes activities such as the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, which from a comparative perspective would be akin to Russia or China assassinating General Richard D. Clarke with a car bomb in downtown DC.

 

17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

A little unfair to compare different years.

I intentionally chose the last year of each administration as I felt it would be most representative of the "direction of travel" of each leader.

 

17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I'm not a fan of measuring something you can't define anyway, much less putting a quantitative value on it. There's implicit bias in the methodology and questions themselves. CATO measures the size of government as a measure of freedom. I'm going to assume you're further on the left than right on the political spectrum, and I'd imagine that marginal tax rates and higher government spending being implicitly 'less freedomy' isn't something you agree with, which CATO dings governments for in their index.

As a general rule I agree here; I cite these meta-analyses not because they're infallible from the perspective of informing our understanding but simply because they're all that's really out there to enable an empirical and objective way of assessing freedom over time. In specific reference to the Cato Institute methodology, I find it quite telling that despite an intrinsic methodological bias towards the "small government, low taxation" approach that's associated with the Republican party, they still consistently evaluate Democratic administrations such as Obama's as being characterised by "more" freedom.

 

17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I know why Trump was dinged on some of his ratings: his adversarial nature with the press. If you were to watch the propaganda on CNN or MSNBC you'd know why. And I have no problem with him doing that. But I'll give you that based on their methodology the HFI ranks Trump lower on average.

Drilling down on press freedom specifically, we could look at the aggregate RSF scorings across the respective years of the Trump and Obama presidencies which would, again, show significantly poorer performance under the Trump administration.

 

Average RSF Press Freedom Index scoring, 2009-2016: 15.2

Average RSF Press Freedom Index scoring, 2017-2020: 24.3

 

In that index, a lower score is better and there's a VERY marked difference between the "average" press freedom score for each administration.

Now I should caveat by saying I haven't checked to confirm that the methodology used hasn't changed in that time and I suspect something may have been tweaked around 2011/12, but even taking the last four years of the Obama administration alone it stills shows about a 10% better score than Trump's term.

 

17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Dude, again, I'm tired of this being somehow exclusive to the Trump administration

Please go back and read my specific contentions, and then explain how overriding 150 years of accepted, normalised practices as part of the changes made by the Trump administration is anything other than "exclusive". 

 

17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

You have to realize what publication you're reading. You do realize the Washington Post is an untrustworthy source of news, right? Should I link breitbart in my arguments?

Hang on, you yourself cited the WaPo earlier in one of your posts, and yet now you're taking issue with my doing the same?

If you don't consider it an authoritative or trustworthy source, why did you use it in the first place?

 

Also, WaPo:

leftcenter04.png?w=600&ssl=1

MBFCHigh.png?w=357&ssl=1

 

And Breitbart

extremeright061.png?w=600&ssl=1

MBFCMixed.png?w=355&ssl=1

 

Compare and contrast.

 

17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Your points have been about how Trump is bad and certain actions are either exclusive to his administration or have been heightened during it.

I implore you to go back and look again at the specific points I'm making. Very little of what I've highlighted is "exclusive" to Trump but his administration has been characterised by these actions in ways that recent predecessor administrations have not.

If you have specific examples to address my comments on, say, the politicisation of the civil service over the last year or so, then I'm more than happy to see them- but a general claim that these things are "unexceptional" should be supported with evidence, as you asked of me.

 

17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Apart from his phone call with the Georgia governor though, I wouldn't necessarily call it authoritarian.

Using your specific political and public influence to spread mistruths about electoral fraud?

Firing senior members of intelligence agencies because they contradict your public narratives on electoral fraud with- gasp- facts and evidence?

Threatening state legislators with legal repercussions and criminal investigation for not decertifying results? 

Asking state leaders to overrule the democratic will of the people by appointing EC voters directly?

Leveraging political appointments in the GSA to deny the incoming administration access to federal resources in support of the transition of power?

 

 

Trump's actions were inarguably an attempt at an autocoup, which is absolutely "authoritarian". How else can you describe trying to nullify the will of the electorate in the manner he did?

He made it clear over many months that he simply wouldn't accept the outcome of the election if it didn't result in a second term for him. I cannot think of another word to describe that.

 

17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

But my actual question is: did he know there were heavily armed militias coming? Because if he knew people were coming with weaponry, it gives you a level of credence. Not total credence, since people on the right showing up with guns at rally's isn't necessarily something new or extreme. But you're insinuating that Trump knew people were coming with weaponry, in organized militarty  groups, and he was telling them to take over the capital.

 

Is that what you are positing? I really want you to answer this because it's a heavy claim to make. If true, its very damaging to Trump.

Yes, that is what I'm positing.

 

The media, investigative journalists and citizens journalists identified numerous individual who expressed armed revolutionary intent for weeks preceding the march on the Capitol. The storming of the Capitol and use of violence to disrupt the confirmation had been openly planned by perpetrators for more than a month. As I said before, it is simply unconscionable that this information was not privy to domestic intelligence agencies, law enforcement and the Secret Service, and therefore to the president himself. In fact, the FBI issued notifications to local law enforcement and to political figures in late December outlining specific armed, violent threats to state and federal legislatures aimed at disrupting political processes...the threat from the very same people that Trump rallied on the 6th.

 

It is infeasible given the volume of intelligence available even to private risk management companies who predicted exactly the outcome we saw, let alone the intelligence community, that Trump was not made aware of the makeup and intent of groups within that crowd. He gave the speech he did in full awareness that individuals there were intending to using violence to achieve the political aims to which he was speaking. He made no attempt to defuse the prospect of violence, to redirect militant supporters, or to call for peaceful actions alone. 

 

17 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Go read my original post; I think you think that I somehow support the riots on capitol hill and am defending them by citing the approval of prior riots

That's not what I think at all. What I do think, though, is that you're falsely suggesting that the role of senior Republican figures in inciting these events is equivalent to that of Democratic figures in inciting riots in the summer...even though neither the events themselves, nor the roles of the political figures in question in instigating them, are anything alike. Not only is it an appeal to hypocrisy, but what it highlights isn't even hypocrisy- you've so far been entirely unable to provide a single instance of a prominent Democrat even acting as an apologist for violence, let alone inciting it. 

  

4 hours ago, Halal Cyborg said:

I’m not defending anyone I am calling out hypocrisy.

Hang on, you took issue with me describing your previous contributions as a tu quoque and here you are basically agreeing that they are?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

What I do think, though, is that you're falsely suggesting that the role of senior Republican figures in inciting these events is equivalent to that of Democratic figures in inciting riots in the summer...even though neither the events themselves, nor the roles of the political figures in question in instigating them, are nothing alike. Not only is it an appeal to hypocrisy, but what it highlights isn't even hypocrisy- you've so far been entirely unable to provide a single instance of a prominent Democrat even acting as an apologist for violence, let alone inciting it. 

I don't really feel like going through tl;dr monoliths of text, but I do think this point is the one where you are most wrong. BLM riots that happened in the summer and what happened at the Capitol are two events that are just a different side of the general disintegration of political trust. It's all action and reaction, and intimately connected.

 

It is sometimes exaggerated how divided the country is though, as a large majority of US citizens condemn all types of rioting, looting and political intimidation. It's often a loud minority and a lawless horde of deranged extremists that cause these events to happen. Merely scapegoating the toxic parts of the right wing is not a solution though. If one side of the spectrum is going to riot other extremists will respond and do the same.

Edited by Eutyphro
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Halal Cyborg said:

I’m not defending anyone I am calling out hypocrisy.

Yes - imagined hypocrisy you made up on the spot to take a shot at imaginary people, as if it were actual political commentary. That's patently absurd.

 

Quote

The problem with people like you is you cannot bear anyone whose not in the exact same place as you on the political spectrum...and everyone else by default becomes a far right extremist.

I think you'll find my issue isn't with any position you hold itself, it's that your reasoning is fallacious. It's not about what you say, it's how you say it (or more specifically, how you arrive at these conclusions).

 

By the way that takes care of "beating on a straw man". Plus the free space that's a vertical row - off to Amazon I go.

Edited by Bartleby
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

I don't really feel like going through tl;dr monoliths of text, but I do think this point is the one where you are most wrong. BLM riots that happened in the summer and what happened at the Capitol are two events that are just a different side of the general disintegration of political trust. It's all action and reaction, and intimately connected.

I think you probably tool the "tl;dr" a little far here given the point you cite as "most wrong" is one that I never made. My point, which is fairly obvious if you look back across my previous posts, is that an armed insurrection against a legitimate government isn't really comparable to more "typical", if I can use that word, violent protest. Very few people would draw moral equivalence between the two, and the actions of senior Republican figures and particularly Trump's inner circle in instigating events at the Capitol is worlds away from anything Democrats did vis-a-vis the protests through the summer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

I think you probably tool the "tl;dr" a little far here given the point you cite as "most wrong" is one that I never made. My point, which is fairly obvious if you look back across my previous posts, is that an armed insurrection against a legitimate government isn't really comparable to more "typical", if I can use that word, violent protest.

The Trumpist 'coup' attempt is qualitatively worse than the summer BLM riots, true. The scale of left wing riots over the summer was quantitatively far far greater though.
 

Quote

Very few people would draw moral equivalence between the two, and the actions of senior Republican figures and particularly Trump's inner circle in instigating events at the Capitol is worlds away from anything Democrats did vis-a-vis the protests through the summer. 

I think I agree with this. Trump and the Republicans have definitely through their rhetoric been more directly causally responsible for what happened at the Capitol, than the Democrats were concerning the BLM riots that happened during the summer. What has to be pointed out though is that the Democrats actually condemning the BLM riots was usually rare and/or late. The actors whitewashing these riots were the mainstream media, who are allied to the Democratic establishment.

Edited by Eutyphro
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 8:13 AM, E.A.B. said:

I do wanna know how Im "acting" though. Please, tell me. How am I acting? I wanna know.

I've told you multiple times how you've been acting. Like a gaslighting, dismissive, arrogant, sorry excuse for a debater who chooses to completely disregard anyone's perspective and isn't really bothering to contribute to the discussion anyway. I think you just want to argue for the sake of arguing and have nothing actually solid to provide whenever someone calls you out on your bullsh*t.

 

You try to tell people what they've experienced, or what the real problem is without being a part of that group to begin with. I don't care what race you are but if you're trying to tell another what they go through, you're full of sh*t. And if you're black and dismissing what black people go through, then yes you are being an Uncle Tom. One of those sorry ass black men who wears MAGA hats and brags about how they can think for themselves because they aren't sucked into "the left's" narrative while they continue to ignore or dismiss what happens around them.

 

It's sad, really. I think you've really derailed the discussion of this thread. I think you're acting like a child. That's how you're acting.

 

Oh and as sivis pointed out about, I've always condemned the violence of what happened in July. I was pretty big on that actually. But to completely invalidate BLM as a group because of it and compare it to what these clowns did January 6th is just wrong. There was a lot of bullsh*t I saw that made my stomach flip back in the summer. But I don't actually think that's what BLM stands for to begin with. And those protests were not spurred on by false information to the extent that these recent riots were. You have people who refuse to accept the outcome of the election vs people who see what happens to their people and the injustice that follows. It isn't comparable.

 

And I feel like people are only comparing it to try and downplay how bad what just happened was. And the reasons why it happened.

Edited by ddarko12
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

The Trumpist 'coup' attempt is qualitatively worse than the summer BLM riots, true.

That's basically all I've been saying, and I really don't know why so many people in the thread have taken issue with it.

 

22 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

The scale of left wing riots over the summer was quantitatively far far greater though.

They're also incomparable in general scale. The BLM protests over the summer involved, by some estimates, 26 million people. That's nearly ten percent of the US population, across five months. Conversely, we've seen a few thousand to low tens of thousands total across the various MAGA and stop-the-steal events post-election. I would hazard that the latter have seen a substantially higher instance of violence per capita than the summer BLM protests did, especially given that the spat the Proud Boys seem to be in with law enforcement at the moment. 

 

22 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

What has to be pointed out though is that the Democrats actually condemning the BLM riots was usually rare and/or late.

I'm not actually all that convinced this is true. Many Democrat figures were explicit in their statements that, although they broadly support the ideological cause of BLM (as do a significant majority of Americans generally) they don't condone violence perpetrated in their name.

As an aside, I'm a big fan of the "Y'all Qaeda" term that seems to be doing the rounds to describe the militia movement, white supremacist and other assorted far right extremists who have advocated and perpetrated violence in support of Trump's false narratives.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

They're also incomparable in general scale. The BLM protests over the summer involved, by some estimates, 26 million people. That's nearly ten percent of the US population, across five months.

It's also important to note that BLM protests exist because of a genuine problem that's been fermenting for decades and that has been proven as true in numerous studies that show a definitive link between race and police treatment, not on a bunch of lies and conspiracy theories. Nothing about those two events is comparable aside from the fact that both involve a large number of people who are unhappy with some of the authority figures.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say the BLM narrative is nearly as false as the 'stolen election' narrative, which is 100% false, but the ideas pushed by BLM in my experience are also very often false. The data does not back up the idea that an officer is more likely to shoot a black suspect. It's simply not the case. Young African American men are responsible for over 50% of violent crime in the United States, and suffer more violent police incidents proportionally to this contribution. An overwhelming majority of black shooting victims are killed by other black Americans. Everyone here who has seen the figures knows this is true.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I accept all views from POC and don’t feel there is a correct way to react to BLM.

 

I saw a tiktok where a guy claimed white leftists tried to weaponise his skin colour...thats incredibly condescending and racist to try and tell someone they have to support a particular cause because of their race.

 

I would never do this and it’s amazing how quiet people become that call themselves anti racism activists when a person doesn’t fit their narrative...I guess they’re an inconvenience 😂 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good article on the Parler scraping.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/01/parlers-amateur-coding-could-come-back-to-haunt-capitol-hill-rioters/?amp=1

 

It even in includes the script that was used.  Neat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Craigsters said:

 

he'll be lucky if he gets a bologna sandwich with  mildew on the meat and bread, let alone  organic food, starve you  idiot 

 

 

Or not.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

The data does not back up the idea that an officer is more likely to shoot a black suspect. 

Per capita, black Americans are something like three and a half times as likely as white Americans to be killed by police.

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Young African American men are responsible for over 50% of violent crime in the United States, and suffer more violent police incidents proportionally to this contribution. 

There's a few issues here.

 

Firstly, the fact that minorities are over-represented in crime, or violent crime, doesn't implicitly justify a higher rate of police shooting. It's noteworthy in my view that unarmed black Americans are something like 3 times as likely to be killed by law enforcement that white Americans.

 

Secondly, it's unreasonable not to consider the reasons for disparity in rates of violence. Socioeconomic factors that disproportionately affect minorities are a key driver behind criminality. When added to the fact that multiple studies show that the "barrier for intervention" (that is, the point at which an officer will instigate an interaction with a potential suspect) is significantly lower for minorities overall and particularly African-Americans, then higher levels of recorded criminality aren't exactly surprising.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raavi said:

 

Or not.

 

 

Oh that little whiney bitch should get the same food all the other inmates get

 

 

dUelKML.jpg

Edited by Craigsters
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember studies that showed that black suspects resist arrest significantly more often. And we all see that most of the suspects that make the media had done some dumb sh*t right before, like shoot an officer with a taser. And I remember other studies that showed that white officers were more prone to pulling the trigger on a white suspect than a black suspect. I think it was one of those conservative police forum members that everyone hates that brought up some of those studies. And regardless of how wrong that guy was about many things, about these matters I knew he was mostly right. 

The media and BLM push the narrative "WHITE POLICE OFFICERS ARE MURDERING BLACKS IN THE STREETS AS MODERN LYNCHINGS" and an honest look at the data quite easily indicates this has no basis in reality at all, In fact, black officers are more likely to shoot a black suspect than a white officer is. But the media has the power to create an alternate view of reality, especially if it makes a powerful headline.

If we want to talk about mass incarceration, this is a different subject, but it is the one that is ignored by mass media. Mass incarceration is horrific and a problem with a genuine basis in reality. But white police gangs looking for unarmed blacks to shoot is not a thing, regardless of how good of a headline that spook story makes.

I'm not an expert on these statistics though, and I don't feel like spending a whole day digging into them to prove these points. I have studied them in the past though, and challenge anyone to look at them and see how well media narratives hold up, not at all.

Edited by Eutyphro
  • excuseme 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zello said:

 

It's gotten so crazy that king crazy himself has told people not to act crazy lmao.

He’s saying something pretty batsh*t though as the reason they shouldn’t go.

 

Speaking of deplatforming he was too wasn’t he?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Halal Cyborg said:

He’s saying something pretty batsh*t 

That's literally Alex Jones schtick.

 

39 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

I remember studies that showed that black suspects resist arrest significantly more often...And I remember other studies that showed that white officers were more prone to pulling the trigger on a white suspect than a black suspect

The first one of these I'd like to see evidence for. The latter is a claim Burblade made which falls foul of the same issues I pointed to before (IE the only justification for shootings being the specific circumstances of the arrest). A lot of this may well boil down to the nature of an approach (IE a higher proportion of interactions with white suspects being as a result of blue-light emergencies versus a higher proportion of black suspects being subject of interaction during patrol activities or other proactive rather than reactive policing).

 

46 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

In fact, black officers are more likely to shoot a black suspect than a white officer is. 

This doesn't preclude there bring intrinsic bias in the way the police handles approaches to different ethnicities, though. It's more readily explained by the fact minority officers are more likely to work the beat in economically deprived areas where s higher proportion of the population are themselves minorities.

  • Like 2
  • Best Bru 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 3 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 3 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.