Helpful reminder: you are much more likely to be killed by police than terrorists

[Spartanmack]

link. since 9/11, 45 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists, 48 by Right wing terrorists.

Including 9/11 in this context - namely what we should fear; what we should be hysterical about - fails for a different reason: it took a presidential Administration & Intelligence agencies that were completely negligent in their duties to even allow such an extreme attack to occur. I do not understand - looking at it objectively here - how any sane person could criticize Obama for the San Bernardino shootings as some have done, yet the 9/11 attacks get a pass. same attacks where the CIA reported Cheney dismissed their warnings by saying al qaeda was "bluffing"... and certain agenicies knew mohammad atta et al were in the country and did nothing???

so yes, we should've been outraged by terrorism and held the right people accountable for that: Bush, Cheney, George Tenet, etc

and, yeah even including 9/11... youre still more likely to be shot and killed by a cop

This must be some offshoot of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Or maybe is some independent but equally dumb leftist propaganda machine. Dylann Roof, Michael Paige and Frazier Glenn Cross were all white supremacists who espoused the ideology of racist southern Democrats who opposed every piece of civil right legislation. To call them "right wing" extremists is nonsense. They account for 18 of the 48 deaths. Also, the Las Vegas cop killers were a couple of deranged, paranoid, meth heads who voted for Obama in 2008. They were indeed anti-government but then again, so was Bill Ayers - nobody accuses him of being a right wing extremist. It appears that's all this site has to go on when adding them to the list of right wing extremist murderers. So now we're down to 27. And we still don't have a motive or background on the Colorado PP shooter so that's another 3 you can subtract for now. Now the number is 24 and since virtually every single one I've looked at from the list of "right wing" terrorists is not actually a right wing terrorist, I think it's safe to say the number is a lot less than 24. and since it appears a number of the killings were committed as part of other crimes like bank robberies, it's probably safe to say a bunch of them weren't even actually terrorist acts.

You are the most gullible dumbfuck I know.

 

[Spartanmack]

the number of unjustified police shootings is obviously difficult to calculate, because according to the police, EVERY shooting is justified, and in some cases the entire record and only witnesses are the cops. and even beyond that, what the police consider "justifiable" is subjective. don't carry any object in your hands... don't "reach for your waistband" etc, or you'll be shot 64 times, and end up a "justifiable" police shooting statistic.


see here: link. if these numbers are even half accurate, that still means 100's of police killings are unjustified every year.

according the to the Washington post, it's not that hard. They say 95% are justified.

 

[Spartanmack]

Not what I said at all.

I just think there are far too many variables to comfortably say "YOU are (much) more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist (and vice versa)."

I flew in an airplane 72 times last year. Do you still think my odds of being struck by lightning were better than being in a plane crash? Probably not. Same goes for people of different ethnicity, social standing, etc. being killed by a police officer and/or terrorist. I don't like blanket statements passed off as fact and that's how I took the original post.

you must be unfamiliar with the rules of the politics board. That was in fact what you said because by disagreeing with michchamp, you are by default racist and you necessarily believe all the words he puts in your mouth.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yes I am, in the context of you repeatedly accusing me of it.

one difference is you actually do it regularly. I'm not arguing the definition of "justified". I'm making an important distinction between justified killings by police, which are not indicative of police brutality and unjustified killings by police. It should be obvious that only the latter should be considered when comparing the threat posed by terrorist to the threat posed by police or when determining whether or not there is an epidemic of police murders in America.

 

[Michchamp]

Not what I said at all.

I just think there are far too many variables to comfortably say "YOU are (much) more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist (and vice versa)."

I flew in an airplane 72 times last year. Do you still think my odds of being struck by lightning were better than being in a plane crash? Probably not. Same goes for people of different ethnicity, social standing, etc. being killed by a police officer and/or terrorist. I don't like blanket statements passed off as fact and that's how I took the original post.

it wasnt in response specifically to you

 

[Gulo Blue]

one difference is you actually do it regularly. I'm not arguing the definition of "justified". I'm making an important distinction between justified killings by police, which are not indicative of police brutality and unjustified killings by police. It should be obvious that only the latter should be considered when comparing the threat posed by terrorist to the threat posed by police or when determining whether or not there is an epidemic of police murders in America.

I try to get specific when I want more clarity. You add qualifiers to muddy the water.

You said the stat depended on whether or not you counted 9/11. When I challenged that, you added this 'unjustified' condition to muddy the water.

 

[Spartanmack]

I try to get specific when I want more clarity. You add qualifiers to muddy the water.

You said the stat depended on whether or not you counted 9/11. When I challenged that, you added this 'unjustified' condition to muddy the water.

wrong. including justified shootings is what muddies the water. It's an important distinction, not a pedantic nit pick.

I didn't add it then, I was always talking about the 5% from the beginning. If you don't believe me, here is my first post of the day on this thread:

Do you have any proof of this? Seems odd given most high profile mass shooters have either been not politically motivated or leftists. And it's worth mentioning that the San Bernardino shooter, in addition to holding radical Islamist views, was also a hardcore leftist.

You do realize that 500-1000 deaths by cops is pretty low and in case you're unaware, the overwhelming majority are justified (95% according the uber liberal Washington Post). So in the extreme case, if 50 deaths by police are questionable, while tragic and unacceptable, you have .000015% chance of being unjustly killed by a cop. But worrying and blogging endlessly about that isn't hysteria, it's good political activism because of course, it's indicative of institutionalized racism in America.

And I said Turds stupid argument was dependent on leaving out the nearly 3k people killed on September 11 to make the point that you were more likely to be killed by a cop or a "right wing" terrorist. Including September 11 matters - a lot. And it was also pointed out that 9/11 happening and our response to it is a big part of the reason there haven't been more. And I also debunked his claim about the number of deaths from "right wing" terrorism.

If turd wants to change his statement to something like "beginning 9/12/01, if you are a dangerous criminal, you have a very small but greater chance of being shot by a cop than dying in an islamic terror attack but if you go back beyond September 12, the odds, while still very small are about the same but if you are not a dangerous criminal, you really have nothing to worry about because the odds of a cop shooting your are negligible" I'll concede that point.

 

[tinselwolverine]

If turd wants to change his statement to something like "since 9/12/01, if you are a dangerous criminal, you have a very small but greater chance of being shot by a cop than dying in an islamic terror attack but if you go back beyond September 12, the odds, while still very small are about the same but if you are not a dangerous criminal, you really have nothing to worry about because the odds of a cop shooting your are negligible" I'll concede that point.

There was actually two black kids shot to death by white cops on 9/11/01 itself; one was in New Brunswick NJ and the other was in Seattle WA.

But nobody was really paying a lot of attention to that at the time.

 

[Gulo Blue]

wrong. including justified shootings is what muddies the water. It's an important distinction, not a pedantic nit pick.

You're still muddying the water. Wrong? What do you think I'm wrong about?

SM:"You do realize that 500-1000 deaths by cops is pretty low"
GB:"If 500-1000 is low and worrying and blogging about it is hysteria, and the number caused by terrorists is less, then how big should our reaction be to terrorism?"
SM:"The number caused by terrorists is only less if you buy into the bullshit argument that starts with "Since 9/11". That is a completely illogical and misleading argument. I'm really surprised that you would fall for it"
GB:"Are you sure about that? I'm not sure it swings it enough to impact the statement. Including 9/11 would boots the average by ~250. Was it that close?"

Go ahead be pedantic, that's fine, but what do you think I got wrong?

 

[Gulo Blue]

There was actually two black kids shot to death by white cops on 9/11/01 itself; one was in New Brunswick NJ and the other was in Seattle WA.

But nobody was really paying a lot of attention to that at the time.

I feel like I've read that before...did you post that here previously?

 

[sggatecl]

it wasnt in response specifically to you

I get that a lot lately. My B.

 

[Spartanmack]

You're still muddying the water. Wrong? What do you think I'm wrong about?

SM:"You do realize that 500-1000 deaths by cops is pretty low"
GB:"If 500-1000 is low and worrying and blogging about it is hysteria, and the number caused by terrorists is less, then how big should our reaction be to terrorism?"
SM:"The number caused by terrorists is only less if you buy into the bullshit argument that starts with "Since 9/11". That is a completely illogical and misleading argument. I'm really surprised that you would fall for it"
GB:"Are you sure about that? I'm not sure it swings it enough to impact the statement. Including 9/11 would boots the average by ~250. Was it that close?"

Go ahead be pedantic, that's fine, but what do you think I got wrong?

nice selective editing. well done.

 

[Spartanmack]

There was actually two black kids shot to death by white cops on 9/11/01 itself; one was in New Brunswick NJ and the other was in Seattle WA.

But nobody was really paying a lot of attention to that at the time.

I bet michturd thinks cops thought that was the best thing about 9/11 - they could go around shooting black people and nobody would notice.

 

[Gulo Blue]

nice selective editing. well done.

If you think something was unfair, post it. As I read it, that was the core of it, without the muddying.

 

[Spartanmack]

If you think something was unfair, post it. As I read it, that was the core of it, without the muddying.

I've already said it 3 times now - you can't compare justifiable killings by cops to deaths by acts of terrorism. It's not a difficult concept and it's been my point since the beginning. You've accused me of muddying the waters by adding that tidbit after the fact, which I demonstrated was completely false and you still ignore the distinction and the fact that my message has been consistent. It's your MO - you did the same w/ the Pride argument, except that time when I proved I said from the beginning what you insisted I didn't say, you just walked away from the thread. This time you continue to ignore it and make the apples and oranges comparison of murders by terrorists to justified shootings by cops. I know you have this knee jerk reaction and need to disagree with everything I say and defend every nonsensical stupid thing michturd says. But your consistent pattern of pedantic nit picking, distorting or lying about what I've said and taking the other side 100% of the time kinda kills your credibility. Maybe not with turd but he has even less credibility so that's pretty much meaningless.

 

[Michchamp]

I get that a lot lately. My B.

I guess I'm trying to say, "Really you fucks??? In light of all the shit that's cone to light from videos this year, you think most shootings are justified? holy shit."

 

[tinselwolverine]

I bet michturd thinks cops thought that was the best thing about 9/11 - they could go around shooting black people and nobody would notice.

It was like they were the quarterback and the defense was offsides. A free play, why not throw the home run ball, right?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I bet michturd thinks cops thought that was the best thing about 9/11 - they could go around shooting black people and nobody would notice.

It was like they were the quarterback and the defense was offsides. A free play, why not throw the home run ball, right?

 

[sggatecl]

I guess I'm trying to say, "Really you fucks??? In light of all the shit that's cone to light from videos this year, you think most shootings are justified? holy shit."

And that's why I'm so adamant about police using body/vehicles cameras. It helps protect citizens from shitty cops and it helps protect good cops from shitty citizens. I don't really see the downside.

 

[tomdalton22]

And that's why I'm so adamant about police using body/vehicles cameras. It helps protect citizens from shitty cops and it helps protect good cops from shitty citizens. I don't really see the downside.

I certainly wouldn't want my boss to put a camera in my office and record every minute of my day.