But to compare police shooting rates across racial boundaries you wouldn’t actually need crime stat numbers to be accurate, arrest/stop stats being accurate would be sufficient.

You Know what else is wrong with that encounter?

They violated his -4th amendment rights when they patted him down.

Officers are only allowed to pat someone down for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person was presently armed and dangerous.

This was a man who was sleeping in a car. The officers had no reason to think he was armed and dangerous. The pat down was unconstitutional.

@Beelady - look at the NYT video compilation. Both SK and I linked it earlier in response to the same question from Daniel.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
But to compare police shooting rates across racial boundaries you wouldn’t actually need crime stat numbers to be accurate, arrest/stop stats being accurate would be sufficient.

the arrest stats and stops stats are also imbued with racism.

If it can be proven that officers stop blacks on less suspicion than whites, the stops data is tainted.

Google hit rate analysis to better understand this. I’m going to bed.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Shooting a man (in the back) while running for his life because he was drunk?

I never get these types of comments. He was shot because he assaulted the officers and shot his taser at them. Whatever one thinks of the justification, the causal chain is pretty clear.

. If that is why they shot him, it is retaliatory force.

Right, the point is those numbers could be full of racial bias and it wouldn’t bias the particular calculation we’re discussing, as long as they properly recorded the race of the guy they stopped. We’re talking about the odds of a guy getting shot by police *conditional* on having been stopped by the police.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Shooting a man (in the back) while running for his life because he was drunk?

I never get these types of comments. He was shot because he assaulted the officers and shot his taser at them. Whatever one thinks of the justification, the causal chain is pretty clear.

. If that is why they shot him, it is retaliatory force.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Shooting a man (in the back) while running for his life because he was drunk?

I never get these types of comments. He was shot because he assaulted the officers and shot his taser at them. Whatever one thinks of the justification, the causal chain is pretty clear.

. If that is why they shot him, it is retaliatory force.

In the moment? Seems like a stretch. Had the taser shot been the day before, sure, or even some time before.

I just checked the tape again. Brooks is still aiming at him when the cop is shooting. In fact the taser is still lit up.

If Brooks was out of taser range, that makes no difference.

I’m also not sure you are correct. You’re saying that Brooks shot wildly over his shoulder, then maintained enough control with the second cartridge to paint the officer with the red aiming light?

Nah. I’m a little rusty on these details, but what more likely happened is that he shot and held the trigger down or arced it or something. He was running, not aiming.

Let me know if you hear anything definitive about that. I haven’t.

No o wasn’t implying he had the bead on him. Just that he was still aiming it at him. The threat hadn’t subsided.

John, retaliatory force is the force used to punish someone for prior behavior. There is no requirement that the prior behavior have taken place in the distant past. So if I slap an officer, and his partner immediately pushes me away, and the officer I slapped punches me immediately, that is prohibited retaliatory force.

What the slapped officer should do is arrest me for assault on a police officer. He cannot strike me because there is no longer a threat once his partner intervened.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
No o wasn’t implying he had the bead on him. Just that he was still aiming it at him. The threat hadn’t subsided.

if it were a gun, you would be right. The gun retains the ability to kill at that distance.

If it is a rock, you’re not right because there was no imminent threat of serious bodily harm.

Same result for a taser. Especially when the officer was 100% it was a taser and not a gun.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Roland Fryer at Harvard has spent years studying it.

The popular press reports it the other way around but they’re comparing police shootings to overall population rather than criminal population.

you realize that who is deemed the criminal population is itself soaked in racism, right? That there has been selective enforcement in policing for decades? If you patrol black areas, harass black peoples, and criminalize black drugs but not white drugs, the measure you are using is already tainted.

You can’t measure racism using a yardstick dipped in racism.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by BeeLady:

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Shooting a man (in the back) while running for his life because he was drunk?

I never get these types of comments. He was shot because he assaulted the officers and shot his taser at them. Whatever one thinks of the justification, the causal chain is pretty clear.

. If that is why they shot him, it is retaliatory force.

+1

+2