While blacks executed, whites more likely to walk free in killings of black men

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/spotlight/2017/09/15/while-blacks-executed-whites-more-likely-walk-free-deaths-black-men/668422001/

Quote:A recent headline in The Washington Post said it all: “A death penalty landmark for Florida: Executing a white man for killing a black man.”

Since the 1970s, when the death penalty was reinstated, there have been 92 executions in Florida. Of those, nearly 20 were black men executed for killing a white victim. But until Aug. 24, the state had never, in modern history, employed the death penalty in the other direction — executing a non-Latino white male for killing a black victim. 

The high-profile cases that have involved the death of blacks nationwide are all too familiar. And so are the names of the non-convicted: George Zimmerman, Betty Shelby, Darren Wilson.

A recent report by the Marshall Project in collaboration with The Upshot, provides hard evidence of what many have already suspected: Killings of black men by whites are far more likely to be ruled “justifiable.” This is a creative way for the system to say, “Yes, you killed someone, but we're going to allow you to continue living your life even though an innocent black man is dead.”

Crimes are deemed justifiable when the person attacking has reason to believe they are in danger or are witnessing a crime. This label of “justifiable homicide,” which can be categorized as “felon killed by private citizen” or “felon killed by police officer,” already presumes something about the deceased, that they were committing a felonious act.

From the beginning of this country's history, we've seen the system slap an all-too-familiar criminal label on a black man, without giving that man a fair trial or the opportunity to defend himself. 

This racial disparity persists despite countless variables, including age and location.  Regardless of the circumstances, white people were deemed “justified” in their actions due to a fatal flaw in our society that holds stereotypes as a core value. This implicit bias exists at all levels of the justice system, from killer to prosecutor to jury. Many of these individuals would vehemently argue, and very probably believe, they harbor no racial bias. But the facts show otherwise.

To claim self-defense, a person does not need to actually be in danger, they must only believe they are. And implicit biases — those deep-seated racist stereotypes that affect our choices and decisions — have a direct influence on whether someone believes they are in danger.

A study published by the American Psychological Association that included photos of black and white football players showed that participants judged blacks as larger, stronger and, in some cases, more harmful than whites of the same size. In many people’s minds, “black” equates to "attack." The belief in misguided stereotypes is enough to trigger a sense of fear, a feeling so strong that people grant themselves permission to end someone else's life.

This term “justifiable” boils down to one fundamentally flawed central idea: that black lives do not matter as much as white lives. In general, the number of deaths deemed justifiable is small. A mere 2% of deaths are justified when one person kills another. A white person who kills a black man, however, is more than eight times as likely to be considered justified, and to receive no more than a slap on the wrist. 

These stereotypes and preconceptions permeate every part of the American justice system. A killer has several opportunities to establish self-defense. A prosecutor can drop charges, a grand jury can choose not to indict, a jury can declare the killer not guilty. Each of these stages is influenced by the racial biases of those in power. But the victim, the killed black man, has no chance, at any stage of justice, to speak for himself. 

Though the justice system should work diligently to eliminate biases, many self-proclaimed non-racists slip through the cracks, still clutching their subconscious predisposition about black people.

It is not news that our society and our justice system are racially skewed. Though it may not always be an outright proclamation of hate, actions speak louder than words. Our current justice system operates with thinly veiled micro-aggressions that let white people walk away scot-free with the blood of black men on their hands.

With the Marshall Project study, we now have cold, hard facts to put pressure on America to make a change.

Isn’t it about time?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2017, 01:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/spotlight/2017/09/15/while-blacks-executed-whites-more-likely-walk-free-deaths-black-men/668422001/

Your article loses all credibility almost from the start.  I direct you to this vomitous attempt at "journalism";

Quote:The high-profile cases that have involved the death of blacks nationwide are all too familiar. And so are the names of the non-convicted: George Zimmerman, Betty Shelby, Darren Wilson.

Darren Wilson is not "non-convicted", he's non charged because every investigation into the events of Mike Brown's death corroborate Wilson's versions of events and justified his use of deadly force on Brown.  If you don't believe me, read the Obama era DOJ report on the incident, I've read the entire report.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjf1KC28qrWAhVjsVQKHafdA3EQFggrMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fopa%2Fpress-releases%2Fattachments%2F2015%2F03%2F04%2Fdoj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEfz7aJoHrst-Oiya3i4Ig8ktGnww

Actual proponents of police reform do more damage to their own cause than anyone else when the use inane example such as Brown to make their point.  Not only do the turn off numerous people to their argument, they dilute and minimize tragic events such as Tamir Rice's death by holding Brown up as a direct comparison.

As for the attempted substance of the article, whites are victimized by blacks at a much greater proportional rate than the other way around.  Don't believe me, simply view the FBI's statistics on the issue.  This is 2013, but the results are rather consistent from year to year.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

Despite being only around 13% of the population blacks killed whites more than twice as often as the opposite.  If you want to have a conversation about why this is the case, then try and have it.  But don't throw some ham fisted pathetic attempt at journalism at us as proof of some larger conspiracy or injustice.  Before I forget, I'll preempt your pathetic, "I'm only posting this to generate discussion", defense.  No one buys it so please spare us.

[6andcounting]

I'm not sure why an article comparing punishments between white on black and black on white crime mentions George Zimmerman (Hispanc) or Officer Wilson (guy Obama's DOJ said was had his gun grabbed by a guy fleeing the scene of a strong-arm robbery with stolen cash). I'm also not sure what Officer Shelby was supposed to do when the zombified suspect ignored police orders in favor of mumbling to himself about his hallucinations and walking 30-40 feet back to his vehicle so he could reach through his driver side window.

[StLucieBengal]

Wth man lol

[GMDino]

Quote:Since the 1970s, when the death penalty was reinstated, there have been 92 executions in Florida. Of those, nearly 20 were black men executed for killing a white victim. But until Aug. 24, the state had never, in modern history, employed the death penalty in the other direction — executing a non-Latino white male for killing a black victim. 


The high-profile cases that have involved the death of blacks nationwide are all too familiar. And so are the names of the non-convicted: George Zimmerman, Betty Shelby, Darren Wilson.

A recent report by the Marshall Project in collaboration with The Upshot, provides hard evidence of what many have already suspected: Killings of black men by whites are far more likely to be ruled “justifiable.” This is a creative way for the system to say, “Yes, you killed someone, but we're going to allow you to continue living your life even though an innocent black man is dead.”

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Hiding behind the "article". Typical, and sad.


Does the article define "far more likely". See, "far more likely" is a subjective term. If they crunched the numbers then they obviously have hard data to back this assertion up. This being the case, why would they not publish the hard numbers? The answer, to anyone vaguely familiar with the concept of logic, is that the hard numbers don't produce the impact they prefer to make their point, hence the deliberately ambiguous term, "far more likely".

I'll provide you with a for instance. Say, after acquiring all the data they found that whites who killed blacks were found to be justified in nine instances. Conversely, they found that blacks who killed whites were found to be justified in three cases. Is a difference of six, at such low numbers, "far more likely"? The answer is, it could be, largely depending on what the author of this study is trying to prove. This prompts a secondary question, with numbers so low does either occur enough to even warrant including them in any study. Unless the study is specifically on that subject, and not, say, on the topic of who gets the death penalty in general, the answer from a statistical standpoint (for anyone familiar with the concept of statistics) would be no.

Let us also look at the intentionally inflammatory claim, "This is a creative way for the system to say, “Yes, you killed someone, but we're going to allow you to continue living your life even though an innocent black man is dead." First, let us examine two mutually exclusive concepts. White man kills black man, shooting ruled justified. if the intentional killing of a person is ruled justified then, logically, the person killed was doing something they should not be doing, hence their being killed was ruled lawful. Is this an absolute? Well, by using the specific term "justifiable" the answer becomes almost certainly, yes. If they included accidental shootings that were not charged as an honest accident then we'd have a different story, but they specifically used the term "justifiable". You don't get to justifiably shoot someone who is just walking down the street, they have to be engaged in an activity that justifies their being shot, by the very definition of the term. Why does the article not provide more detail in this regard? For the same reason above, it doesn't fit their narrative.

Lastly, does this study include police shootings? If it does then the study becomes even more meaningless. If it doesn't it should specifically say so. The USAToday article would seem to implicate that it does with the statement;

Quote:Crimes are deemed justifiable when the person attacking has reason to believe they are in danger or are witnessing a crime. This label of “justifiable homicide,” which can be categorized as “felon killed by private citizen” or “felon killed by police officer,” already presumes something about the deceased, that they were committing a felonious act.

Look specifically at the claim, "already presumes something about the deceased, that they were committing a felonious act." This is so inane as to be meaningless. If a LEO sees a person beating another person with a baseball bat the suspect is engaging in a felonious act. The only presumption of such a felony act is in the legal sense as the person has, obviously, not been convicted in a court of law of said felonious act. This does not prevent any reasonable person from reaching the logical and obvious conclusion that the suspect is engaged in a felonious act.

The purpose of such a study should be to inform, there should be no ambiguity in a hard data study. If there is ambiguity then one must question why. The answer will likely lead one to discount the study altogether. This article wants to steer you in a certain direction. It employs numerous avenues of deceit in order to do so. It is also written by a man whose impartiality on this subject is without question, non-existent.

Then why does this article exist? It exists solely to feed the preconceived ideas of people like OP, who lap up this pablum with relish. A more discerning, logical perusal of this article finds holes so large as to drive a truck through. Whomever put this study together is a very poor scientist Dr. Venkman. Thank you and enjoy your Sunday, all.

[GMDino]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/upshot/killings-of-blacks-by-whites-are-far-more-likely-to-be-ruled-justifiable.html?mcubz=0

Quote:To understand the gaps, The Marshall Project obtained dozens of data sets from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and examined various combinations of killer and victim. Two types of “justifiable homicide” are noted: “felon killed by private citizen” or “felon killed by police officer.” (In a bit of circular logic, the person killed is presumptively classified as a felon, since the homicide could be justified only if a life was threatened, which is a crime.)

The data were processed to standardize key variables and exclude more than 200,000 cases that lacked essential information or were homicides by the police. The resulting data detail the circumstances of each death: any weapons used; information on the killer’s and victim’s race, age, ethnicity and sex; and how police investigators classify each type of killing (“brawl due to the influence of alcohol,” “sniper attack” or “lover’s triangle,” for example).


Little large-scale research has examined the role of race in “justifiable” homicides that do not involve the police. The data examined by The Marshall Project are more comprehensive and cover a longer time period than other research into the question, much of which has focused oncontroversial Stand Your Ground laws.

In the United States, the law of self-defense allows civilians to use deadly force in cases where they have a reasonable belief force is necessary to defend themselves or others. How that is construed varies from state to state, but the question often depends on what the killer believed when pulling the trigger.

“If there are factors — even if they’re stereotypes — that lead the defender to believe he’s in danger, that factors in, whether it’s a righteous cause or not,” said Mitch Vilos, a Utah defense lawyer, gun rights advocate and the author of “Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States.”

Self-defense decisions by regular people, much like those involving the police, are made quickly and with imperfect information. As a result, a homicide can be ruled self-defense when the killer faced no actual threat but had a reasonable belief he or she did.

That is where irrational fear can come into play. The police, prosecutors and juries may be apt to give killers the benefit of the doubt in situations when they were faced with someone who seemed “dangerous.”

“Tell me that it doesn’t factor in if the person is black when they’re approaching the suspect,” Mr. Vilos said. “It contributes to the decision to pull the trigger because of the fear associated with the stereotype.

“Right or wrong, that’s what’s happening, in my opinion.”

The vast majority of killings of whites are committed by other whites, contrary to some folk wisdom, and the overwhelming majority of killings of blacks is by other blacks.

But killings of black males by whites are more than eight times as likely as all others combined to be labeled justifiable, a racial disparity that is hard to explain based solely on the circumstances reported in the police data and one that has persisted for decades.

More at the link.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-17-2017, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/upshot/killings-of-blacks-by-whites-are-far-more-likely-to-be-ruled-justifiable.html?mcubz=0



More at the link.

Quote:
But killings of black males by whites are more than eight times as likely as all others combined to be labeled justifiable, a racial disparity that is hard to explain based solely on the circumstances reported in the police data and one that has persisted for decades.

Then perhaps the Black population (not to pick on the Black population, just the focus of the propaganda) should be asking itself what they can do to stop committing acts that result in being justifiably killed.  If a killing was ruled justified, then the victim did something to deserve it.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2017, 10:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Then perhaps the Black population (not to pick on the Black population, just the focus of the propaganda) should be asking itself what they can do to stop committing acts that result in being justifiably killed.  If a killing was ruled justified, then the victim did something to deserve it.

Well the point was that given all kinds of variables it was still more likely to be found "justifiable".  The theory being it is an inherent factor that blacks "deserved" it no matter that the variables were.

The numbers are the numbers.  The reasoning may be a little deeper than "well, they must have deserved it then."

[Dill]

(09-17-2017, 10:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Then perhaps the Black population (not to pick on the Black population, just the focus of the propaganda) should be asking itself what they can do to stop committing acts that result in being justifiably killed.  If a killing was ruled justified, then the victim did something to deserve it.

Are you implying that an unjustified killing is never "ruled justified"? 

White folks are justifiably killed by police too.  What can we do to stop committing acts that result in justifiable killings?

[*michaelsean*]

Can we see the actual crimes and events surrounding them? If someone walks into a convenient store to rob it, and kills somebody, it will never be termed justifiable, and is certainly eligible for the death penalty. I feel I can safely say that if any killing that was deemed justifiable had actually not been deemed that, it would not be eligible for the death penalty. Killing someone because you were wrongly scared of them is not a capital offense.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-16-2017, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your article loses all credibility almost from the start.  I direct you to this vomitous attempt at "journalism";




Darren Wilson is not "non-convicted", he's non charged because every investigation into the events of Mike Brown's death corroborate Wilson's versions of events and justified his use of deadly force on Brown.  If you don't believe me, read the Obama era DOJ report on the incident, I've read the entire report.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjf1KC28qrWAhVjsVQKHafdA3EQFggrMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fopa%2Fpress-releases%2Fattachments%2F2015%2F03%2F04%2Fdoj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEfz7aJoHrst-Oiya3i4Ig8ktGnww

Actual proponents of police reform do more damage to their own cause than anyone else when the use inane example such as Brown to make their point.  Not only do the turn off numerous people to their argument, they dilute and minimize tragic events such as Tamir Rice's death by holding Brown up as a direct comparison.

As for the attempted substance of the article, whites are victimized by blacks at a much greater proportional rate than the other way around.  Don't believe me, simply view the FBI's statistics on the issue.  This is 2013, but the results are rather consistent from year to year.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

Despite being only around 13% of the population blacks killed whites more than twice as often as the opposite.  If you want to have a conversation about why this is the case, then try and have it.  But don't throw some ham fisted pathetic attempt at journalism at us as proof of some larger conspiracy or injustice.  Before I forget, I'll preempt your pathetic, "I'm only posting this to generate discussion", defense.  No one buys it so please spare us.

(09-17-2017, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hiding behind the "article".  Typical, and sad.


Does the article define "far more likely".  See, "far more likely" is a subjective term.  If they crunched the numbers then they obviously have hard data to back this assertion up.  This being the case, why would they not publish the hard numbers?  The answer, to anyone vaguely familiar with the concept of logic, is that the hard numbers don't produce the impact they prefer to make their point, hence the deliberately ambiguous term, "far more likely".  

I'll provide you with a for instance.  Say, after acquiring all the data they found that whites who killed blacks were found to be justified in nine instances.  Conversely, they found that blacks who killed whites were found to be justified in three cases.  Is a difference of six, at such low numbers, "far more likely"?  The answer is, it could be, largely depending on what the author of this study is trying to prove.   This prompts a secondary question, with numbers so low does either occur enough to even warrant including them in any study.  Unless the study is specifically on that subject, and not, say, on the topic of who gets the death penalty in general, the answer from a statistical standpoint (for anyone familiar with the concept of statistics) would be no.

Let us also look at the intentionally inflammatory claim, "This is a creative way for the system to say, “Yes, you killed someone, but we're going to allow you to continue living your life even though an innocent black man is dead."  First, let us examine two mutually exclusive concepts.  White man kills black man, shooting ruled justified.  if the intentional killing of a person is ruled justified then, logically, the person killed was doing something they should not be doing, hence their being killed was ruled lawful.  Is this an absolute?  Well, by using the specific term "justifiable" the answer becomes almost certainly, yes.  If they included accidental shootings that were not charged as an honest accident then we'd have a different story, but they specifically used the term "justifiable".  You don't get to justifiably shoot someone who is just walking down the street, they have to be engaged in an activity that justifies their being shot, by the very definition of the term.  Why does the article not provide more detail in this regard?  For the same reason above, it doesn't fit their narrative.

Lastly, does this study include police shootings?  If it does then the study becomes even more meaningless.  If it doesn't it should specifically say so.  The USAToday article would seem to implicate that it does with the statement;


Look specifically at the claim, "already presumes something about the deceased, that they were committing a felonious act."  This is so inane as to be meaningless.  If a LEO sees a person beating another person with a baseball bat the suspect is engaging in a felonious act.  The only presumption of such a felony act is in the legal sense as the person has, obviously, not been convicted in a court of law of said felonious act.  This does not prevent any reasonable person from reaching the logical and obvious conclusion that the suspect is engaged in a felonious act.

The purpose of such a study should be to inform, there should be no ambiguity in a hard data study.  If there is ambiguity then one must question why.  The answer will likely lead one to discount the study altogether.  This article wants to steer you in a certain direction.  It employs numerous avenues of deceit in order to do so.  It is also written by a man whose impartiality on this subject is without question, non-existent.

Then why does this article exist?  It exists solely to feed the preconceived ideas of people like OP, who lap up this pablum with relish.  A more discerning, logical perusal of this article finds holes so large as to drive a truck through.  Whomever put this study together is a very poor scientist Dr. Venkman.  Thank you and enjoy your Sunday, all.

[GMDino]

(09-18-2017, 11:30 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2017, 11:44 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Yes, gifs are easier than a reasoned, cogent response.  

[GMDino]

(09-18-2017, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, gifs are easier than a reasoned, cogent response.  

But I found Leonard's post funny.