NinerSickness wrote:CrimsonCrew wrote:NinerSickness wrote:There's no incentive to cut him because his salary is guaranteed. After making himself look like to world's biggest ja***ss, I don't know if he has any trade value any more; but if Denver goes 1-3, who knows? Maybe they'd come calling. The Vikings could use a QB right about now...
As far as his non-beef with police,
Kaepernick has proven, once again, that he's physically incapable of reading. A defense, a book, FBI statistics, whatever. Blacks are killed in confrontations with police at a
LOWER RATE than non-blacks are. Not just lower totals;
at lower percentages. If the guy and his like-minded sheep were willing to try some 6th-grade math, they would see that he's provably wrong.
It's like trying to get a cat in water convincing these people to look up table 43 of the FBI database:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
I'm admittedly very late in responding to this, but I was glancing over the thread and I know Sick is still tuning in. Sick, nothing in these tables supports your contention that black people are killed by police at a lower rate than white people. These tables deals with arrest rates for particular crimes. Am I missing something here?
You'd also have to get the number of blacks & whites who were killed by police guns in the same year, respectively. Source:
https://www.mrconservative.com/2014/12/53328-new-reports-reveal-cops-killed-more-whites-in-a-year-than-blacks/Table 43 of the FBI database has total arrests by race. So the number killed divided by the total arrests is the rate of being shot by cops in total confrontations with them.
326 whites shot dead by cops in 2012. Call that A.
6,214,197 whites arrested in 2012. Call that B.
123 blacks shot dead by cops in 2012; Call that C.
2,549,655 blacks arrested in 2012. Call that D.
A/B > C/D
The lie that's being repeated is that blacks are being shot while whites are being cuffed, but the data doesn't support that.
Call me crazy, but I'm going to view with some skepticism an article from mrconservative.com that begins "Take THAT race baiters!" and doesn't provide the name of the study or a link to a more reputable source. You probably should, too. Everything that I've seen or heard on this topic has indicated that it is extremely difficult to find accurate figures for police shootings. But your numbers seem low. The Washington Post started tracking these types of shootings recently and logged 991 last year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/ As you can see, of those, 495 were white and 430 were black or Hispanic (258 and 172, respectively).
And as far as the equation, your arrest numbers are from 2013, and the killings by cop numbers are from 2012. Beyond that, there are serious problems with just looking at the number of arrests and extrapolating shootings. A lot of police encounters don't result in arrests. And you're much less likely to get shot if, for instance, you are either not engaged in criminal activity or are engaged in less serious criminal activity. I don't see this likelihood of police contact resulting in death figure as being all that relevant to the protestors' complaints particularly because someone is much likelier to experience police contact if they are a racial minority. And killings aside, as the Harvard study you mentioned indicated, minorities are apparently markedly more likely to experience the application of force. That's problematic.
Frankly, regardless of the racial component, I think everyone should be troubled by some of the things we've seen lately. I work in law enforcement, and am very sympathetic to the challenges of police work, but I have a big problem with a number of the videos I have reviewed, as well as with how these cases are often handled by the justice system. You mentioned the Michael Brown case, and I'll acknowledge that to the extent that I followed the case, it does not appear to have been the "hands up, don't shoot" scenario that some portrayed it as. But the prosecution of that case made the situation significantly worse, IMO. Darren Wilson, a criminal defendant, was called to testify at the grand jury. And he was allowed to testify more or less in the narrative. I've never heard of another case where the prosecution called a defendant at a grand jury at all - in most cases, a defendant wouldn't even know he was being indicted until after the fact. And I've never heard of a prosecutor who had a defendant under oath and didn't aggressively cross examine that person. Other than the rare case where the defendant admits on the stand - which, yes, I have seen at least once. That's a bad look regardless of who the involved parties are, and it smacks of either prosecutorial incompetence, or collusion with the police. I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's certainly how it looked to me.
To the extent that these protests are raising awareness of some officers' excessive use of force and disparities in how prosecutors pursue the cases after the fact, I think they're a good thing.
