The sad thing is that the looting and burning of people's businesses is really a great way to show your pain of a kid whose been killed, who when your interviewed you act like you loved him and knew him
These people are the same reason that the ob kill young men in America
In the US In 2005 most homicides involving one victim and one offender were intraracial. About 93% of black homicide victims and 85% of white victims in single victim and single offender homicides were murdered by someone of their race. Women were the offenders in about 10% of single victim and single offender homicides of both blacks and whites.
So the vast majority of murders are either black on black or white on white.
The sad thing is that the looting and burning of people's businesses is really a great way to show your pain of a kid whose been killed, who when your interviewed you act like you loved him and knew him
These people are the same reason that the ob kill young men in America
In the US In 2005 most homicides involving one victim and one offender were intraracial. About 93% of black homicide victims and 85% of white victims in single victim and single offender homicides were murdered by someone of their race. Women were the offenders in about 10% of single victim and single offender homicides of both blacks and whites.
So the vast majority of murders are either black on black or white on white.
Also, most murder victims know their murderer. The media perpetuates the notion of random homicides.
Except that those black-on-black crimes generally involve armed criminals shooting each other, not an armed black police officer shooting an unarmed black man.
If you take the race and political aspects out of this a moment and of course the absolute tragedy of a young life lost. I was on the way to work this morning and heard on the news bulletin, the judge (I assume) running through the evidence, specifically the changes in and validity of the various witness statements, this was only going to be a nightmare decision to make. Wouldn't of liked to have ruled on this, a lose lose situation all around.
In this case a grand jury decided. For the benefit of those of you in the UK a grand jury proceeding(s) are much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like. However, unlike the vast majority of trials, grand jury proceedings are kept in strict confidence. This serves two purposes: It encourages witnesses to speak freely and without fear of retaliation. It protects the potential defendant's reputation in case the jury does not decide to indict.
Except that those black-on-black crimes generally involve armed criminals shooting each other, not an armed black police officer shooting an unarmed black man who has just committed robbery and is assaulting said police officer
Assaulting a police officer? Michael Brown had his empty hands in the air and the officer continued to fire at him. As has been said, it's not even about race, an armed man in a powerful position murdered another unarmed man, and it's tragic and desperately sad that nothing will be done about it.
I don't see what the relevance of the colour is tbh,
Same as over here when Duggan died, black, white, chavs, middle class, causing carnage and mass destruction in the name of a dead young man
All sympathy to the original situation gone imo
The United States has 5 percent of the world population, yet approximately 25 percent of its prisoners.
More than 60 percent of the people in prison are people of color. For black males in their twenties, one in every eight is in prison or jail on any given day.
Assaulting a police officer? Michael Brown had his empty hands in the air and the officer continued to fire at him. As has been said, it's not even about race, an armed man in a powerful position murdered another unarmed man, and it's tragic and desperately sad that nothing will be done about it.
I don't see what the relevance of the colour is tbh,
Same as over here when Duggan died, black, white, chavs, middle class, causing carnage and mass destruction in the name of a dead young man
All sympathy to the original situation gone imo
The United States has 5 percent of the world population, yet approximately 25 percent of its prisoners.
More than 60 percent of the people in prison are people of color. For black males in their twenties, one in every eight is in prison or jail on any given day.
The people in jail are the people who commit the crimes.
I don't see what the relevance of the colour is tbh,
Same as over here when Duggan died, black, white, chavs, middle class, causing carnage and mass destruction in the name of a dead young man
All sympathy to the original situation gone imo
The United States has 5 percent of the world population, yet approximately 25 percent of its prisoners.
More than 60 percent of the people in prison are people of color. For black males in their twenties, one in every eight is in prison or jail on any given day.
The people in jail are the people who commit the crimes.
This happens all over in America every day. The police encounter a 'suspect'. He/she appears to be 'threatening'. They open fire. The gunfire isn't to maim but it's to kill. There's no firing at the kneecaps, but instead just blast away at the body. Often the suspect is black.
This is a microcosm of underlying issues with the American culture. The abuse of the gun culture and racism.
The verdict in Ferguson was no surprise and the authorities have been gearing up for a week now to handle the riots.
Are you advocating kneecapping someone as a humane intervention?! If so, don't volunteer for Amnesty anytime soon...!
With regards to your example of kneecaps; consider these facts:
- Knees and extremities are incredibly hard to hit ordinarily, let alone when being attacked. - Centre mass is easier to hit, but includes more vital organs. - The idea behind discharging your weapon is to prevent and remove any further threat; someone's who's been kneecapped may be very pissed off but can still get a shot off. Depending on any substances in their system, they may be able to do more. You're shooting as a last resort.
If I fear for my life then I will do absolutely whatever I can to put an end to whoever is causing that fear, and I expect anyone else to do the same. If you've had reason to fear for your life you'll understand that, surely? If you have a gun, end them - don't let them squeeze off that last shot; you make sure they don't have one last second to do absolutely anything to get back at you. That's good and keeps innocent people safe.. When applied properly at least.
Often racism plays a part? Ok, where are you basing that from then? Any numbers or is that a throwaway bit of bait?
If you're talking about police officers discharging their firearms whilst on duty, then give me the geographical areas and I'll give you a painfully obvious theory. Let's use London as an example...
Give London for example - 12% of men are black, 54% of street crime is believed to be carried out by black men though - and a 46% of knife crime. (1)
However, consider areas of lower crime tend to be White (Kensington, Bromley vs Southwark, Lewisham for example) then suddenly these figures mean less about race and more about geography. If there's more crime in Southwark than Kensington then there will be more black offenders, and shock horror, more black individuals stopped by the police.
Hence stop and search arguments. Go walk around Elephant and Castle and pick out anyone you have a funny feeling about. Then do the same in Bickley.. You're not racist are you? But you picked out more black people in Elephant and Castle than white people so you must be!
More realistically, the black people you saw in Bickley were the same as the whites... Hard working, respectable and not intimidating. Similarly, the White people in Elephant and Castle were as intimidating and scruffy as the black people. You know why? Because they live in the same area, colour means nothing. Because there's more white people in Bickley though, more will be stopped.. Vice versa in Elephant and Castle.
This principle works everywhere. Areas of crime have more crime, and thus a different police response. If those areas happen to be populated by a certain group then let's tackle the social issues and not fear about being called racist. Who lives there means nothing, what they're doing means everything. We've learnt that in our country.
Extrapolate what I've said to a country where gun ownership is common and the gun trade is booming. It doesn't take a genius to get a gun in a country where they're illegal after all, where they're common its a lot easier... Then think for a little.
The sooner people stop using Racism as an excuse for things and actually look at the areas effected then the sooner the world can move on. Using racism as an excuse is utterly ridiculous and, ironically, racist in itself. Regardless of the ethic make up of an area, let's make it better and let's flush out those who wish to cause mayhem.
In the US In 2005 most homicides involving one victim and one offender were intraracial. About 93% of black homicide victims and 85% of white victims in single victim and single offender homicides were murdered by someone of their race. Women were the offenders in about 10% of single victim and single offender homicides of both blacks and whites.
So the vast majority of murders are either black on black or white on white.
I've given you a like, because someone's finally bought cold hard numbers in to this. A much needed input.
However, albeit a step forward, those numbers mean nothing.
Given 10 white victims there are nearly 1.5 black offenders responsible, yet for every 10 black victims there are 9.3 black offenders. Ergo, for a population of homicide victims, equal in race, 54% of those murders were carried out by a black person.
Now I'm sure that weren't trying to make that point, however - can you now see that those stats are utterly useless?
If, forgiving my rubbish maths, 65% of murder victims are white then we can say that:
- 57.40% of murderers are white - 42.60% of murderers are black
What if we flipped that around, and said that 65% of murder victims are black?
- 34.30% of murderers are white - 65.70% of murderers are black
They tell two, very different, different stories don't they?
In 2011, there were 11,068 homicides in the US(1) - using the numbers above, there's a difference of 35% (or 2,553) depending on those figures above. (4,718 black offenders for 65% white victims, vs 7271 black offenders for 65% black victims
If we use the FBI statistics, then 54% of murders (strangely, 12,000+ according to them?!) are carried out by black offenders... Except we don't have figures for "unknown on unknown" murders.. Mmmm.
Once again, that tells yet another story though. Then the FBI go as far as to classify "unknown". Are Mexican, Chinese, Indian or Saudi individuals Black or White? Oh, their neither.. So these stats are meaningless.
Each set of numbers tell completely different stories though, right? It's all too easy to lie (or, perhaps more accurately, mislead) with statistics. So unless there's complete numbers, even down to area, then that simply means nothing.
Don't be misled too easily by stats. I'm drunk and laying in bed with my iPad, yet using your numbers I've given multiple stories using those figures. Even more strangely, I've got two different numbers of murder victims for the same area in the same year.. From the same government!!
If you can sell drugs to doctors, change government policy and even go to war by fiddling figures.. Don't be too surprised when people fiddle them for the public at times of outrage!
To find out the real stats you need: - total population, including immigrants - breakdown of offenders and victim (with a clear and agreed definition of White, Asian, Hispanic, Black...)
Even then, you may be able to mislead.
Personally I don't think the colour argument of gun crime will surprise at all, especially when backed up with good numbers and information on other variables. However, when you study it geographically? I think things will be much more murkier, and maybe then people will stop claiming racism and instead look at the areas, the make up of those areas and the way that those areas make the people the way they are.
Except that those black-on-black crimes generally involve armed criminals shooting each other, not an armed black police officer shooting an unarmed black man who has just committed robbery and is assaulting said police officer
Fixed that for you.
Wow.
I wonder if you'd have that attitude if that was your completely unarmed child getting shot to death in the street by a policeman.
I find your original post to which I responded way out of line, I don't really see the murder of a 17 year old child as being a matter to laugh about - clearly by posting a Meme with Kermit the Fucking Frog on it then you do.
If I recall correctly you are Jewish aren't you? How would you feel about someone posting something like that on here that said.
"2 million Armenians killed in the Turkish genocide....but at least they don't still bloody carry on about it like the Jews do."
Except that those black-on-black crimes generally involve armed criminals shooting each other, not an armed black police officer shooting an unarmed black man who has just committed robbery and is assaulting said police officer
Fixed that for you.
Wow.
I wonder if you'd have that attitude if that was your completely unarmed child getting shot to death in the street by a policeman.
I find your original post to which I responded way out of line, I don't really see the murder of a 17 year old child as being a matter to laugh about - clearly by posting a Meme with Kermit the Fucking Frog on it then you do.
If I recall correctly you are Jewish aren't you? How would you feel about someone posting something like that on here that said.
"2 million Armenians killed in the Turkish genocide....but at least they don't still bloody carry on about it like the Jews do."
Are you OK with that? Is that OK for humour too?
Your comment about the Jews is impressive. However, I think that's a route that none of us want to go down. If you wish to reconsider that statement, and I hope you will, I'll gladly edit this post.
Similarly, the poor lad in question was age 18, he was not only an adult (not a child as you suggest), he was actually old enough to go to war and fight for his country.
None of us know the true events, but a jury of citizens (of different races) have made their decisions based on the evidence provided to them. The evidence we, as outsiders, have to go on, is a spectrum of hearsay that both covers the extremes of "The officer was facing something which could've legitimately been construed as a threat to his life" to "It was cold blooded and an unarmed teenager was viciously gunned down, and his life was tragically cut short, whilst trying to surrender himself to a police officer.".
It's tough.
That said, sure you can see that kentaddick makes a valid point? Sure, maybe Kermit may not be the most sensitive way to construct that point..
What at first may seem as post that is crass or in poor judgement, it does beg the point - why on earth aren't people rioting because nothing is done to prevent the violence that goes on everyday in deprived areas?
It does rather undermine the riots when you consider that, albeit tragically, a young man has died - but everyday there are countless more murders on the streets and no one batters an eyelid.
Reminds me of Duggan in some ways; there was a horrific spate of teenage stabbings in London (I'm willing to bet that at least 3 of the newshopper's most read articles right now involve teenagers and knives.) and it still goes on, but that a uniform was involved in an incident suddenly makes it a good time to be an animal and wreck the very place you live in.
The people of ferguson are complaining that they get treated like animals and get victimised then they act like that and tear up their own town.
I can't be the only one thinking what they are doing justifies why police can be so hard on them over there?
Michael Browns family have asked them to stop rioting and to be peaceful and work for a change so it doesn't happen again instead of wrecking everything.
The people of Ferguson aren't rioting for an injustice of Michael Brown. They're rioting cos they are scum and they don't like the police.
The people of Ferguson aren't rioting for an injustice of Michael Brown. They're rioting cos they are scum and they don't like the police.
Why don't they like the police?
The impression I get from in the UK, that deprived areas are looking for someone to blame. Who better to take it out on than the old bill. Gangs, guns, violence, theft all looked to be clamped down on by the police, so it's hardly a match made in heaven to begin with. I presume its the same in the US. If you replaced all the cops in Ferguson with all black officers, there would still be hatred towards them.
These rioters are just opportunists who are playing up against authority.
The people of ferguson are complaining that they get treated like animals and get victimised then they act like that and tear up their own town.
I can't be the only one thinking what they are doing justifies why police can be so hard on them over there?
Michael Browns family have asked them to stop rioting and to be peaceful and work for a change so it doesn't happen again instead of wrecking everything.
but Michaels step dad was filmed standing on a car calling for the town to be burned.
If you take the race and political aspects out of this a moment and of course the absolute tragedy of a young life lost. I was on the way to work this morning and heard on the news bulletin, the judge (I assume) running through the evidence, specifically the changes in and validity of the various witness statements, this was only going to be a nightmare decision to make. Wouldn't of liked to have ruled on this, a lose lose situation all around.
In this case a grand jury decided. For the benefit of those of you in the UK a grand jury proceeding(s) are much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like. However, unlike the vast majority of trials, grand jury proceedings are kept in strict confidence. This serves two purposes: It encourages witnesses to speak freely and without fear of retaliation. It protects the potential defendant's reputation in case the jury does not decide to indict.
I still don't understand the whole Grand Jury concept. Can the Grand jury's decision be overturned? If it is overturned what's the record then like for subsequent guilty verdicts? Who sits on a Grand Jury? Are they at all competent to decide whether a matter should go before a proper trial? What is their threshold for the decision? (In the UK the CPS must conclude that they have a realistic prospect of a guilty verdict which translates into meaning more than a 50% chance of success.) Could you explain more? Does any other country use it? What's the point?
It seems like just another example of some of the pretty ludicrous bureaucracy that goes on in the States.
We have the CPS here who decide if a "crime" goes through to trial---they have a JURY. It wasnt some single "middle aged white man" who decided there wasnt a case but a jury.
Diane Abbot that well known anti racist (except when its out of her gob) telling the media she will be at a protest outside the USA Embassey tonight---and just to make sure throws in her own lie of this guy being shot in the back---leing its in her Labour DNA
Comments
These people are the same reason that the ob kill young men in America
So the vast majority of murders are either black on black or white on white.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-police-officers-who-shoot-civilians-almost-never-go-to-jail/ar-BBfMV8Y?ocid=mailsignout
Same as over here when Duggan died, black, white, chavs, middle class, causing carnage and mass destruction in the name of a dead young man
All sympathy to the original situation gone imo
More than 60 percent of the people in prison are people of color. For black males in their twenties, one in every eight is in prison or jail on any given day.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/25/366507379/ferguson-docs-how-the-grand-jury-reached-a-decision
With regards to your example of kneecaps; consider these facts:
- Knees and extremities are incredibly hard to hit ordinarily, let alone when being attacked.
- Centre mass is easier to hit, but includes more vital organs.
- The idea behind discharging your weapon is to prevent and remove any further threat; someone's who's been kneecapped may be very pissed off but can still get a shot off. Depending on any substances in their system, they may be able to do more. You're shooting as a last resort.
If I fear for my life then I will do absolutely whatever I can to put an end to whoever is causing that fear, and I expect anyone else to do the same. If you've had reason to fear for your life you'll understand that, surely? If you have a gun, end them - don't let them squeeze off that last shot; you make sure they don't have one last second to do absolutely anything to get back at you. That's good and keeps innocent people safe.. When applied properly at least.
Often racism plays a part? Ok, where are you basing that from then? Any numbers or is that a throwaway bit of bait?
If you're talking about police officers discharging their firearms whilst on duty, then give me the geographical areas and I'll give you a painfully obvious theory. Let's use London as an example...
Give London for example - 12% of men are black, 54% of street crime is believed to be carried out by black men though - and a 46% of knife crime. (1)
However, consider areas of lower crime tend to be White (Kensington, Bromley vs Southwark, Lewisham for example) then suddenly these figures mean less about race and more about geography. If there's more crime in Southwark than Kensington then there will be more black offenders, and shock horror, more black individuals stopped by the police.
Hence stop and search arguments. Go walk around Elephant and Castle and pick out anyone you have a funny feeling about. Then do the same in Bickley.. You're not racist are you? But you picked out more black people in Elephant and Castle than white people so you must be!
More realistically, the black people you saw in Bickley were the same as the whites... Hard working, respectable and not intimidating. Similarly, the White people in Elephant and Castle were as intimidating and scruffy as the black people. You know why? Because they live in the same area, colour means nothing. Because there's more white people in Bickley though, more will be stopped.. Vice versa in Elephant and Castle.
This principle works everywhere. Areas of crime have more crime, and thus a different police response. If those areas happen to be populated by a certain group then let's tackle the social issues and not fear about being called racist. Who lives there means nothing, what they're doing means everything. We've learnt that in our country.
Extrapolate what I've said to a country where gun ownership is common and the gun trade is booming. It doesn't take a genius to get a gun in a country where they're illegal after all, where they're common its a lot easier... Then think for a little.
The sooner people stop using Racism as an excuse for things and actually look at the areas effected then the sooner the world can move on. Using racism as an excuse is utterly ridiculous and, ironically, racist in itself. Regardless of the ethic make up of an area, let's make it better and let's flush out those who wish to cause mayhem.
(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7856404/Police-statistics-shed-fresh-light-on-link-between-crime-and-race.html I've given you a like, because someone's finally bought cold hard numbers in to this. A much needed input.
However, albeit a step forward, those numbers mean nothing.
Given 10 white victims there are nearly 1.5 black offenders responsible, yet for every 10 black victims there are 9.3 black offenders. Ergo, for a population of homicide victims, equal in race, 54% of those murders were carried out by a black person.
Now I'm sure that weren't trying to make that point, however - can you now see that those stats are utterly useless?
If, forgiving my rubbish maths, 65% of murder victims are white then we can say that:
- 57.40% of murderers are white
- 42.60% of murderers are black
What if we flipped that around, and said that 65% of murder victims are black?
- 34.30% of murderers are white
- 65.70% of murderers are black
They tell two, very different, different stories don't they?
In 2011, there were 11,068 homicides in the US(1) - using the numbers above, there's a difference of 35% (or 2,553) depending on those figures above. (4,718 black offenders for 65% white victims, vs 7271 black offenders for 65% black victims
If we use the FBI statistics, then 54% of murders (strangely, 12,000+ according to them?!) are carried out by black offenders... Except we don't have figures for "unknown on unknown" murders.. Mmmm.
Once again, that tells yet another story though. Then the FBI go as far as to classify "unknown". Are Mexican, Chinese, Indian or Saudi individuals Black or White? Oh, their neither.. So these stats are meaningless.
Each set of numbers tell completely different stories though, right? It's all too easy to lie (or, perhaps more accurately, mislead) with statistics. So unless there's complete numbers, even down to area, then that simply means nothing.
Don't be misled too easily by stats. I'm drunk and laying in bed with my iPad, yet using your numbers I've given multiple stories using those figures. Even more strangely, I've got two different numbers of murder victims for the same area in the same year.. From the same government!!
If you can sell drugs to doctors, change government policy and even go to war by fiddling figures.. Don't be too surprised when people fiddle them for the public at times of outrage!
To find out the real stats you need:
- total population, including immigrants
- breakdown of offenders and victim (with a clear and agreed definition of White, Asian, Hispanic, Black...)
Even then, you may be able to mislead.
Personally I don't think the colour argument of gun crime will surprise at all, especially when backed up with good numbers and information on other variables. However, when you study it geographically? I think things will be much more murkier, and maybe then people will stop claiming racism and instead look at the areas, the make up of those areas and the way that those areas make the people the way they are.
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
(2) http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
I wonder if you'd have that attitude if that was your completely unarmed child getting shot to death in the street by a policeman.
I find your original post to which I responded way out of line, I don't really see the murder of a 17 year old child as being a matter to laugh about - clearly by posting a Meme with Kermit the Fucking Frog on it then you do.
If I recall correctly you are Jewish aren't you? How would you feel about someone posting something like that on here that said.
"2 million Armenians killed in the Turkish genocide....but at least they don't still bloody carry on about it like the Jews do."
Are you OK with that? Is that OK for humour too?
Similarly, the poor lad in question was age 18, he was not only an adult (not a child as you suggest), he was actually old enough to go to war and fight for his country.
None of us know the true events, but a jury of citizens (of different races) have made their decisions based on the evidence provided to them. The evidence we, as outsiders, have to go on, is a spectrum of hearsay that both covers the extremes of "The officer was facing something which could've legitimately been construed as a threat to his life" to "It was cold blooded and an unarmed teenager was viciously gunned down, and his life was tragically cut short, whilst trying to surrender himself to a police officer.".
It's tough.
That said, sure you can see that kentaddick makes a valid point? Sure, maybe Kermit may not be the most sensitive way to construct that point..
What at first may seem as post that is crass or in poor judgement, it does beg the point - why on earth aren't people rioting because nothing is done to prevent the violence that goes on everyday in deprived areas?
It does rather undermine the riots when you consider that, albeit tragically, a young man has died - but everyday there are countless more murders on the streets and no one batters an eyelid.
Reminds me of Duggan in some ways; there was a horrific spate of teenage stabbings in London (I'm willing to bet that at least 3 of the newshopper's most read articles right now involve teenagers and knives.) and it still goes on, but that a uniform was involved in an incident suddenly makes it a good time to be an animal and wreck the very place you live in.
I can't be the only one thinking what they are doing justifies why police can be so hard on them over there?
Michael Browns family have asked them to stop rioting and to be peaceful and work for a change so it doesn't happen again instead of wrecking everything.
The people of Ferguson aren't rioting for an injustice of Michael Brown. They're rioting cos they are scum and they don't like the police.
These rioters are just opportunists who are playing up against authority.
It seems like just another example of some of the pretty ludicrous bureaucracy that goes on in the States.
Diane Abbot that well known anti racist (except when its out of her gob) telling the media she will be at a protest outside the USA Embassey tonight---and just to make sure throws in her own lie of this guy being shot in the back---leing its in her Labour DNA