>It still serves to support the point quite clearly that police are not to be feared as much as criminals, even if you're black.
As you point out yourself, it doesn't necessarily if you consider the average black person. The average black person is not a gang member, not a criminal and doesn't hang out with those groups. It may very well be that for such a person the police are a bigger risk than criminals. It's simply that the massively higher violence amongst criminals shifts the overall numbers.
I have a co-worker, middle class white collar living in a good neighborhood. Walking home with his kid from school. Stopped by police with hands on holsters and told to turn around slowly. Was afraid for his life. Talk to most any black person in the US and they have a similar story.
Resisting arrest should not lead to death. There is no urgency to shoot someone who is drunk in the back as he is fleeing when you have his car in your possession.
Polices are using unnecessarily lethal force indiscriminately for offenses and in situations that don't require in the least. They have been getting positive reinforcement by being not prosecuted and being protected by their force and the system in general.
> They have been getting positive reinforcement by being not prosecuted and being protected by their force and the system in general.
Also, a number of cases have come out recently of police were disciplined, including dismissals, for reporting or intervening against excessive use of force by other cops, so there is negative reinforcement for good cops as well as positive reinforcement for the bad ones.
"Positive" and "negative" in reinforcement don't mean "good, pleasant, desired" and "bad, unpleasant, not desired". They mean "something was added" and "something was taken away". Better names would be "additive" and "subtractive".
The term for "good, pleasant, desired" is "reinforcement", for "bad, unpleasant, not desired" is punishment.
So:
Positive reinforcement --> Behaviour leads to addition of pleasurable stimulus. Eg. Press button, receive food.
Negative reinforcement --> Behaviour leads to removal of unpleasant stimulus. Eg. Press button, persistent loud noise is muted.
Positive punishment --> Behaviour leads to addition of unpleasant stimulus. Eg. Press button, loud noise begins.
Negative punishment --> Behaviour leads to removal of pleasant stimulus. Eg. Press button, food is taken away.
We’ve also seen the last month that police will lie to cover their backsides. Resisting arrest without video evidence to prove it just means they needed a retroactive excuse.
Exactly this. The force used should always match the situation. Deadly force should not be used ever on an unarmed individual. Police should have to face trial if a prosecutor believes a case can be made that the force used was inappropriate - no special protections.
That does not remove the logical fallacy of implying that because police are (wrongly, as you say) a mortal threat to those who resist arrests, therefore police are one of the biggest threats (if not the threat) in an average black persons life. The recent two cases do not offer convincing evidence for the latter (although other cases may do so).
Of course this (particular topic) isn't really a place for arguing for an argument's sake. Rather, it's for showing your compassion.
I think you're correct. They're likely not the biggest threat. That's probably heart disease, cancer, or diabetes in the US. Violence of any kind is way down the list for most people.
I don't think they have to be the biggest threat to acknowledge that the police are out of control and above the law. Fix them, or abolish them and recreate them if they can't be fixed.
This issue goes well beyond racism. Blacks feel it the most, but this problem affects everybody. Nobody wants police that can steal from you (civil forfeiture) or assault or even kill you without sufficient reason or consequences.
Societies aren't judged on how they treat their average members of society alone; also how they treat the outliers.
The US treats its outliers poorly. We have the highest rate of incarceration and a disquieting likelihood of police interactions ending in violence against suspects relative to other countries.
Not sure what "walking catalogue of locally available illicit substances" is a reference to, as that describes none of the recent police murders AFAIK.
Also FYI, in the case of Rayshard Brooks (the victim who took the officer's Taser), the District Attorney said that the Taser "had already been fired twice and was thus empty and no longer a threat". https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-atlanta-ra...
That's misleading to the point of lying. The "already" here means the split second between Brooks firing it at the officer and the officer shooting him.
I’ll point out, by the way, that a taser is one of these “non-lethal” weapons with which we should be fine with cops firing at groups of protesters indiscriminately. But apparently when someone uses one against a cop it’s worth the immediate death penalty. I wonder what’d happen if a protester shot a cop with a rubber bullet?
Split second? The officer hadn't even drawn his gun when Brooks fired the Taser. He made the decision to draw his gun in the first place already knowing that the Taser Brooks held was depleted.
Are you serious? It's clearly true. The officer's gun remains in its holster until after Brooks fires the Taser — you can tell because his right arm is still vertical. The NYT has a good breakdown: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/videos-rayshard-brooks...
And regardless, let's not move the goalposts to consider only the time after Brooks fired the Taser. After all, it's not like that was the first opportunity the officer had to calculate how many shots it had left.
>He made the decision to draw his gun in the first place already knowing
Which is different from the gun being drawn. You can clearly see the officer pass his tazer from his right to left hand and then reach for his gun prior to the tazer shot.
>And regardless, it's not like the moment that Brooks fired the Taser was the first opportunity the officer had to calculate how many shots it had left.
Having a second potentially valid argument doesn't change the accuracy of the one made.
> You can clearly see the officer pass his tazer from his right to left hand and then reach for his gun prior to the tazer shot.
Reaching for a holstered handgun and deciding to draw it are two separate things.
> Having a second potentially valid argument doesn't change the accuracy of the one made.
I'm making exactly one argument: the officer who killed Rayshard Brooks did so knowing that the Taser in his hand was useless. You've yet to offer any evidence to the contrary.
No. Also, among other things you might in bad faith argue that I imply – but I do not – is that even if that was the case, killing him would've been OK.
What I actually implied was that I hardly think these two are very good examples of “average” persons, or “average” black persons, which should be taken into consideration in parent's logic.
You seem to be effectively saying that your average black person is a criminal because they see extrajudicial murder as being a bad thing, which is a remarkably racist thing to argue for. Not to mention your incredibly disingenuous takes on the situations that occurred and the reason why people are angry.
As you point out yourself, it doesn't necessarily if you consider the average black person. The average black person is not a gang member, not a criminal and doesn't hang out with those groups. It may very well be that for such a person the police are a bigger risk than criminals. It's simply that the massively higher violence amongst criminals shifts the overall numbers.