Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Any And All Things T-Wolves Related
User avatar
Camden [enjin:6601484]
Posts: 18065
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by Camden [enjin:6601484] »

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:
bleedspeed177 wrote:
SameOldNudityDrew wrote:
I find it hard to understand how anyone can be more upset at people protesting against police killing black people disproportionately than at the police for actually doing it.


Define disproportionately?


Fair question. You can cut the numbers in various ways, but most of the studies I've seen suggest that police kill black people are around 3 times the rate of whites based on the population.

Here's a study that pegs the number at 2.8.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

In the aftermath of the Floyd killing, research into police statistics in Minnesota suggested police use force against black people at 7 times the rate that they do against whites. This is not just killing but other uses of force.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/03/minneapolis-police-are-7-times-more-likely-to-use-force-against-black-people/#2de8cbb61321

Here's a full database of the numbers of fatal police encounters in Minnesota.
https://www.startribune.com/fatal-police-encounters-since-2000/502088871/

There are a lot of different ways to look at it and a lot of other studies out there, but the stats suggest it's pretty clear that police are significantly more likely to use violence against and kill black people than white people.


None of these studies account for crime rate. To use the population of different races would also indicate that all races commit the same amount of crime, and therefore equal amounts of police encounters. It won't take you very long to discover that that is not the case.
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 24067
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by Monster »

[
Camden wrote:
SameOldNudityDrew wrote:
bleedspeed177 wrote:
SameOldNudityDrew wrote:
I find it hard to understand how anyone can be more upset at people protesting against police killing black people disproportionately than at the police for actually doing it.


Define disproportionately?


Fair question. You can cut the numbers in various ways, but most of the studies I've seen suggest that police kill black people are around 3 times the rate of whites based on the population.

Here's a study that pegs the number at 2.8.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

In the aftermath of the Floyd killing, research into police statistics in Minnesota suggested police use force against black people at 7 times the rate that they do against whites. This is not just killing but other uses of force.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/03/minneapolis-police-are-7-times-more-likely-to-use-force-against-black-people/#2de8cbb61321

Here's a full database of the numbers of fatal police encounters in Minnesota.
https://www.startribune.com/fatal-police-encounters-since-2000/502088871/

There are a lot of different ways to look at it and a lot of other studies out there, but the stats suggest it's pretty clear that police are significantly more likely to use violence against and kill black people than white people.


None of these studies account for crime rate. To use the population of different races would also indicate that all races commit the same amount of crime, and therefore equal amounts of police encounters. It won't take you very long to discover that that is not the case.


Cam does systemic racism exist in some way in the USA?
User avatar
thedoper
Posts: 11008
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by thedoper »

Camden0916 wrote:
thedoper wrote:
Camden0916 wrote:
thedoper wrote:
Camden0916 wrote:"According to the release, Blake admitted to investigators that he did have a knife at the time and a knife was recovered from the driver's side floorboard of his vehicle. No other weapons were found, the report said."

NBC Chicago


Yes he told them he had a knife in the car.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/5639429002


Witnesses at the scene claim they heard officers verbally command him to "drop the knife." That would mean he had a knife prior to being shot. But if that's the conclusion you come to, then that's okay. It does, however, remove any question to me about whether or not he was armed at the time of his shooting.


No. I am repeating what DOJ actually said and correcting your account that claimed the DOJ said he was armed. The DOJ did not say that he was armed at all. You written account also implied that video evidence showed officers telling him to drop the knife. Now you are saying it was witnesses. The DoJ didnt give any account of this. Maybe rather than giving your accounts you should just link to sources.


Maybe you should rethink your tone before you overstep. You're clearly passionate about this, but watch yourself.

The DOJ stated: "During the investigation following the initial incident, Mr. Blake admitted that he had a knife in his possession. DCI agents recovered a knife from the driver's side floorboard of Mr. Blake's vehicle. A search of the vehicle located no additional weapons."

Being armed means to be equipped with or carrying a weapon. Blake told them he had a knife in his possession, not "in the car" as you wrongly stated. I guess you think he just stores his knife on the floorboard of his driver side for convenience. Or more likely the knife fell out of his hand after he was shot. But if this is the hill you want to stand on, so be it.

And I never said there was video evidence showing officers telling him to "drop the knife." You came to that implication on your own. But yes, to clarify, that detail comes from witnesses at the scene.


In the car is in his possession. This doesnt indicate armed, otherwise the DOJ would have said armed. You are implying witnesses, which are evidence in a case. Yet the DOJ didnt mention witnesses who corroborate Blake holding a knife. So either the "witnesses" havent been vetted or that "evidence" hasnt been provided.

Its not overstepping to suggest you cite your sources when presenting a narrative of what happened. My tone is just fine, watch yourself when you make claims about someone who got shot in the back 7 times.
User avatar
Camden [enjin:6601484]
Posts: 18065
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by Camden [enjin:6601484] »

Wouldn't a more prudent move by the NBA and its players be to encourage and evidently inform more people to stop committing crime and stop resisting arrest? If you do not encounter the police, the chance of you being wrongfully killed by law enforcement is zero. Why is that not the message LeBron James and others are pushing? It's common sense to many, but apparently not all. Retired NFL star Marcellus Wiley, to his credit, has been the most vocal in this regard.
User avatar
Camden [enjin:6601484]
Posts: 18065
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by Camden [enjin:6601484] »

thedoper wrote:
Camden0916 wrote:
thedoper wrote:
Camden0916 wrote:
thedoper wrote:
Camden0916 wrote:"According to the release, Blake admitted to investigators that he did have a knife at the time and a knife was recovered from the driver's side floorboard of his vehicle. No other weapons were found, the report said."

NBC Chicago


Yes he told them he had a knife in the car.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/5639429002


Witnesses at the scene claim they heard officers verbally command him to "drop the knife." That would mean he had a knife prior to being shot. But if that's the conclusion you come to, then that's okay. It does, however, remove any question to me about whether or not he was armed at the time of his shooting.


No. I am repeating what DOJ actually said and correcting your account that claimed the DOJ said he was armed. The DOJ did not say that he was armed at all. You written account also implied that video evidence showed officers telling him to drop the knife. Now you are saying it was witnesses. The DoJ didnt give any account of this. Maybe rather than giving your accounts you should just link to sources.


Maybe you should rethink your tone before you overstep. You're clearly passionate about this, but watch yourself.

The DOJ stated: "During the investigation following the initial incident, Mr. Blake admitted that he had a knife in his possession. DCI agents recovered a knife from the driver's side floorboard of Mr. Blake's vehicle. A search of the vehicle located no additional weapons."

Being armed means to be equipped with or carrying a weapon. Blake told them he had a knife in his possession, not "in the car" as you wrongly stated. I guess you think he just stores his knife on the floorboard of his driver side for convenience. Or more likely the knife fell out of his hand after he was shot. But if this is the hill you want to stand on, so be it.

And I never said there was video evidence showing officers telling him to "drop the knife." You came to that implication on your own. But yes, to clarify, that detail comes from witnesses at the scene.


In the car is in his possession. This doesnt indicate armed, otherwise the DOJ would have said armed. You are implying witnesses, which are evidence in a case. Yet the DOJ didnt mention witnesses who corroborate Blake holding a knife. So either the "witnesses" havent been vetted or that "evidence" hasnt been provided.

Its not overstepping to suggest you cite your sources when presenting a narrative of what happened. My tone is just fine, watch yourself when you make claims about someone who got shot in the back 7 times.


Or in his possession means on his person, doper. You're accusing me of putting words in the DOJ's mouth and yet you have done nothing different by suggesting the weapon was in his vehicle the whole time. The mental gymnastics you're performing here is astounding. It's clear to me that we won't agree here on much as you see an unjust, racially-motivated killing of the innocent and I frankly think that's bullshit.
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 24067
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by Monster »

Camden wrote:Wouldn't a more prudent move by the NBA and its players be to encourage and evidently inform more people to stop committing crime and stop resisting arrest? If you do not encounter the police, the chance of you being wrongfully killed by law enforcement is zero. Why is that not the message LeBron James and others are pushing? It's common sense to many, but apparently not all. Retired NFL star Marcellus Wiley, to his credit, has been the most vocal in this regard.


What is the solution to encourage people to stop committing crimes?
User avatar
thedoper
Posts: 11008
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by thedoper »

Camden0916 wrote:
thedoper wrote:
Camden0916 wrote:
thedoper wrote:
Camden0916 wrote:
thedoper wrote:
Camden0916 wrote:"According to the release, Blake admitted to investigators that he did have a knife at the time and a knife was recovered from the driver's side floorboard of his vehicle. No other weapons were found, the report said."

NBC Chicago


Yes he told them he had a knife in the car.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/5639429002


Witnesses at the scene claim they heard officers verbally command him to "drop the knife." That would mean he had a knife prior to being shot. But if that's the conclusion you come to, then that's okay. It does, however, remove any question to me about whether or not he was armed at the time of his shooting.


No. I am repeating what DOJ actually said and correcting your account that claimed the DOJ said he was armed. The DOJ did not say that he was armed at all. You written account also implied that video evidence showed officers telling him to drop the knife. Now you are saying it was witnesses. The DoJ didnt give any account of this. Maybe rather than giving your accounts you should just link to sources.


Maybe you should rethink your tone before you overstep. You're clearly passionate about this, but watch yourself.

The DOJ stated: "During the investigation following the initial incident, Mr. Blake admitted that he had a knife in his possession. DCI agents recovered a knife from the driver's side floorboard of Mr. Blake's vehicle. A search of the vehicle located no additional weapons."

Being armed means to be equipped with or carrying a weapon. Blake told them he had a knife in his possession, not "in the car" as you wrongly stated. I guess you think he just stores his knife on the floorboard of his driver side for convenience. Or more likely the knife fell out of his hand after he was shot. But if this is the hill you want to stand on, so be it.

And I never said there was video evidence showing officers telling him to "drop the knife." You came to that implication on your own. But yes, to clarify, that detail comes from witnesses at the scene.


In the car is in his possession. This doesnt indicate armed, otherwise the DOJ would have said armed. You are implying witnesses, which are evidence in a case. Yet the DOJ didnt mention witnesses who corroborate Blake holding a knife. So either the "witnesses" havent been vetted or that "evidence" hasnt been provided.

Its not overstepping to suggest you cite your sources when presenting a narrative of what happened. My tone is just fine, watch yourself when you make claims about someone who got shot in the back 7 times.


Or in his possession means on his person, doper. You're accusing me of putting words in the DOJ's mouth and yet you have done nothing different by suggesting the weapon was in his vehicle the whole time. The mental gymnastics you're performing here is astounding. It's clear to me that we won't agree here on much as you see an unjust, racially-motivated killing of the innocent and I frankly think that's bullshit.


Right. Provide a narrative that a guy who gets shot in the back 7 times deserved it and then when asked for citations deflect. Just cite your sources if you want me to follow your narrative.
The DOJ never said armed, you did. He said they found a knife on the floor of the drivers seat. You first in a sentence after discussing the video saud cops told him to drop the knife and later said witnesses heard the cops say that. All I'm doing is asking for tangible evidence of this. No witness accounts have been presented by investigators.
If you are presenting your version of the events as facts just provide sources. Rather than accusing me of mental gymnastics. Im not the one giving the account, just trying to stick to what the DOJ said.
User avatar
Camden [enjin:6601484]
Posts: 18065
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by Camden [enjin:6601484] »

monsterpile wrote:

Cam does systemic racism exist in some way in the USA?


No. Systemic racism does not exist in America. There is no system in place to hinder any specific race in this country. If there was, we would not see the many black entrepreneurs, business owners, surgeons, educators, attorneys, political officials, professional athletes, etc. Systemic racism would have suppressed them from such success. We would not see blacks wrongfully charged with crimes walk free after court cases. There would not be black valedictorians and honor grads in almost every graduating class. Systemic racism also implies that another race has an advantage in life and that's another issue I find to be folly. I'm sure many will disagree with me on this too.
User avatar
WildWolf2813
Posts: 3467
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by WildWolf2813 »

Camden wrote:You ask what I think is nonsense. Well, look around. There are millions of uneducated (in that they haven't asked enough why's) people from all sorts of backgrounds protesting and rioting over a false narrative. The idea that blacks, especially unarmed blacks, are being unjustly murdered by law enforcement is lunacy. The numbers don't support it. In reality -- a place where liberal Democrats don't often spend much of their time -- a greater number of whites are killed by police annually, which is absurd considering blacks statistically make up roughly 60-percent of all violent crimes. You'd think that since whites are being killed more often that they'd be committing more violent crime, but that's not the case. Nobody wants you to know that as it doesn't play into the Black Lives Matter movement where they portray black people to be helpless and dependent victims of the law.

Now, we can look at specific instances where the American people have been lied to by mainstream media. George Floyd was viciously murdered by police offers in Minneapolis. He couldn't breathe for eight minutes. He was a God-fearing man who was changing his life for the better... Or was he? Further research would lead most rational people to believe that he was incredibly high and absolutely resisting arrest. Further research would show that Floyd's autopsy showed that he had a lethal dose of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system and that his death was not caused by asphyxiation. The body camera footage of officers on the scene show that Floyd -- while resisting arrest -- was complaining about everything from head to toe to include his lack of breathing... long before an officer ever had his knee placed on his neck. Floyd stated that he could not breathe, that he was claustrophobic, that he was thirsty, that his knees hurt, that his back hurt. Floyd begged and pleaded for these officers to lay him on the ground where he was detained and eventually died. In my non-medical opinion, he died of a drug overdose. Derek Chauvin will be disciplined for how he handled the situation, but I do not think he murdered Floyd that day.

And now we have Jacob Blake. The media wants you to know that he's a father of six. They want you to know that he was mediating an altercation between two women. They want you to know that he was shot seven times in the back for no apparent reason. What they don't want you to find out is that Blake has a blatant criminal history. That Blake is a sexual offender and domestic abuser on multiple charges. That Blake had a warrant for his arrest. That Blake has a history of violence and the police dating back to 2015 where he grappled with police after pointing his firearm at a man in a bar. The Wisconsin DOJ confirmed this evening that Blake was in fact armed with a knife on the scene of his shooting. So, we know the history. We know that he was armed. Well, did the police take progressive measures in order to subdue Blake? Video evidence confirms that officers gave verbal commands and attempted to take him down to the ground. They were unsuccessful. They told him to "drop the knife" to which he did not comply. They used a stun gun as the next means of force, but was unsuccessful. Blake, still carrying his knife, promptly walked to the driver side of his SUV and reached inside. It's at that point where lethal force is authorized and the officer fired his weapon. You have a suspect with a violent history who is resisting arrest and various means of force reaching into his vehicle for what I'm sure they thought would be another weapon. Those officers have families to return to. They have lives to protect including their own. I can't understand what others do not understand about this. How can people simply deduce this as a racially-motivated killing of the innocent. It's mind-boggling.

So, yes, to me and I'm sure many others this entire protest and movement is nonsense. The facts and details are open to the public. It's up to each individual to not only find them on their own but to think for themselves. I'm not seeing that happen in 2020. I'm seeing sheep be led astray by the media. I'm seeing a lack of accountability and responsibility in various forms. There are more lives being destroyed as a response to these incidents than there are lives being taken from law enforcement. Where does this end? How does this end? I simply don't know.

If you happened to read this long of a post, then I hope you either found yourself nodding along because you knew the information already and agree or you are motivated to go make some conclusions of your own. Or you can make a rebuttal. But do not call me a racist as you have no basis for such a claim. I see that word being thrown around every day on social media and it is losing its value.



We can look at this both ways. Whenever a white person is taken in for a crime, we don't get the menacing mugshot plastered on TV. We always get the picture where the criminal looks innocent, looks normal, looks like the everyday person. We always get the story of how nice he was, how much his parents loved him, and the worst case scenario is a plea that maybe he's not mentally stable. Depending on who you look to for news, that is always the stance taken. When he's black we get the most menacing picture ever and we find out about the time he shoved a girl in the 3rd grade. It's slanted narrative.

It's not that guys like Jacob Blake and George Floyd or whoever were saints. But the way they died /got shot is inexcusable. In George Floyd's case, there's 4 cops standing around, 3 of them being spectators and the only way to keep him under control was to put a knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds? In Jacob Blake's case, nothing he did justified seven shots to the back. I live in the hood, and I don't care how desensitized to violence you are, a warning shot causes everyone to drop what they're doing. 1 to the air woulda been a lot more useful than 7 to the back. 7 shots is something you reserve for an animal in a life or death situation. If a tiger is tryna claw at my throat, 7 bullets in it is very justifiable. If a guy is trying to open his car, even if he was reaching for a weapon, I as the cop have a gun and my fellow officers. I shouldn't be in fear of my life. That cop was because deep down he felt that Black man could overwhelm him despite having a gun in hand. He shouldn't be on the streets thinking that way. He didn't look at him as a guy who could restrain without further incident. He looked at him like an animal he had to tranquilize and too many times officers look at Black men as animals they have to put down and it's sickening.

Do I think you're a racist? I don't know. But part of why there's such anger and frustration when it comes to this stuff is because certain opinions can't be just be let go as merely agreeing to disagree. Disagreeing about whether LaMelo Ball should be the #1 pick can be chalked up as agreeing to disagree. Disagreeing with why a race of people still feel as if we're viewed as subhuman and expendable by another race is not.
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 24067
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Milwaukee Bucks boycott game 5

Post by Monster »

Camden wrote:
monsterpile wrote:

Cam does systemic racism exist in some way in the USA?


No. Systemic racism does not exist in America. There is no system in place to hinder any specific race in this country. If there was, we would not see the many black entrepreneurs, business owners, surgeons, educators, attorneys, political officials, professional athletes, etc. Systemic racism would have suppressed them from such success. We would not see blacks wrongfully charged with crimes walk free after court cases. There would not be black valedictorians and honor grads in almost every graduating class. Systemic racism also implies that another race has an advantage in life and that's another issue I find to be folly. I'm sure many will disagree with me on this too.


Ok thanks for the reply I do appreciate it. When do you think systemic racism ceased to be an issue in the USA?
Post Reply