"Black Lives Matter" - it's stupid. Just cut the crap.....

[asta]

Not that it will likely have any real effect on people's perceptions, but a rather timely and extensive study was released this week from a Harvard professor that is an exhaustive work that looks at the issue of racial disparities in the use of force by police. This study seeks to address one of the key shortcomings of some of the previous studies that I mentioned earlier: context. This study attempted to apply controls to the data based on a variety of situations. Tough the study did find that, even while applying controls to the data, moderate racial differences in the less-than-lethal use of force (placing hands on a suspect, handcuffing, pushing them against a wall, using pepper spray, etc.), when it came to using a firearm, the study had a very eye-opening result (bolding mine):So, Fryer et al., when applying context to over 1,300 police shootings, found that not only were police officers less likely to fire at black suspects when not first attacked, the same was also true in scenarios where using a firearm would have likely been deemed justifiable.

This again hints at the notion that perception may not equal reality... but I understand that perception is what drives human nature. We hear again and again the appeal to certainty that "If xyz had been white, they'd still be alive today!"

Thank you for posting this. I keep posting that factual data does not support that police are more likely to shoot a black person but people will not believe it because it does not fit their agenda.

 

[Geoff_M]

I need a refresher on when character witnesses are allowed in court. I seem to remember during the Trayvon Martin trial that they were not allowed to enter testimony that described his violent encounters or why he had been suspended from school. And, of course, this is not a court (thank goodness) but some posters seem to get especially outraged when any prior behavior is brought up. And I know even being a convicted felon does not justify shooting.

Is it possible that if someone gets on the witness stand and gives testimony, that the other side is OK to present evidence to dispute their character? If you don't take the stand then character witnesses can't be used? I probably have this wrong from watching too much tv.

I believe past acts are only generally admissible if the defence claims that their client would never do such a thing nor had ever done so in the past. I don't know if that also aplies in the case of statements made by others on the stand.

 

[sunshinehighway]

To be fair there are equally bad sites on both sides of almost any issue. You think this one is especially bad because it disagrees with your viewpoint. I try to check for other sites to back up an extreme site if it pops up on google. But I have even been ridiculed on the DIS for citing ABC and CNN when they had news that disagreed with someone's viewpoint. So some people only accept cites that confirm an already held viewpoint.

I never said there weren't equally bad sites on both sides. I don't think you should be telling me why I think this site is so bad. Its not because i disagree with it. If somebody posted a link to an equally bad site biased towards a different viewpoint I would think it's just as bad.
That doesn't happen, much in these threads though (no I don't put CNN or ABC in that category).
There is something laughable about someone repeatedly complaining about BLM and the media using using false information to rile people up and then post a link to a website that does exactly that to "prove" something. It's the exact type of nonsense that needs to stop or things will, get worse.
Nothing will get better if bad information is intentionally passed around and people just believe it because it's what they want to hear. That goes both way. We all have to be smarter than that.

 

[asta]

I believe past acts are only generally admissible if the defence claims that their client would never do such a thing nor had ever done so in the past. I don't know if that also aplies in the case of statements made by others on the stand.

Thanks. I specifically wonder if two different people present different versions of what happened is character testimony allowed for or against either.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Nothing will get better if bad information is intentionally passed around and people just believe it because it's what they want to hear. That goes both way. We all have to be smarter than that.

I agree with this. I will just say that these days, bad info is ALSO shared by major media outlets like CNN and others in grossly inappropriate and inflammatory ways at times. CNN gave Dorion Johnson a soapbox live on TV with Anderson Cooper to spread his lies ("hands up, don't shoot") -- lies that contributed to what precipitated in Ferguson. They did little (if anything) to moderate what he said -- grossly irresponsible.

And to be honest, there are times when TMZ has done better reporting than major outlets on some issues -- as shocking as that is!! We live in a strange and confusing time on this front, and we are all wise to question what we are told by ANY outlet. Think, look for corroborating info from varied sources, etc.

 

[pat fan]

Not that it will likely have any real effect on people's perceptions, but a rather timely and extensive study was released this week from a Harvard professor that is an exhaustive work that looks at the issue of racial disparities in the use of force by police. This study seeks to address one of the key shortcomings of some of the previous studies that I mentioned earlier: context. This study attempted to apply controls to the data based on a variety of situations. Tough the study did find that, even while applying controls to the data, moderate racial differences in the less-than-lethal use of force (placing hands on a suspect, handcuffing, pushing them against a wall, using pepper spray, etc.), when it came to using a firearm, the study had a very eye-opening result (bolding mine):

I sincerely hope you have your flame suit back from the cleaners.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I agree with this. I will just say that these days, bad info is ALSO shared by major media outlets like CNN and others in grossly inappropriate and inflammatory ways at times. CNN gave Dorion Johnson a soapbox live on TV with Anderson Cooper to spread his lies ("hands up, don't shoot") -- lies that contributed to what precipitated in Ferguson. They did little (if anything) to moderate what he said -- grossly irresponsible.

And to be honest, there are times when TMZ has done better reporting than major outlets on some issues -- as shocking as that is!! We live in a strange and confusing time on this front, and we are all wise to question what we are told by ANY outlet. Think, look for corroborating info from varied sources, etc.

Yeah. Things need to be questioned and too many people don't when it's what they want to believe. I think there's a difference between a talking head type interview or a roundtable with commentators and articles presented as fact. They can't really control what someone says in an interview. I've definitely seen such interviews and roundtables where very questionable things have been said (by varying viewpoints). Sites like The Conservative Treehouse intentionally throw out highly questionable things and present them as true.

 

[asta]

I never said there weren't equally bad sites on both sides. I don't think you should be telling me why I think this site is so bad. Its not because i disagree with it. If somebody posted a link to an equally bad site biased towards a different viewpoint I would think it's just as bad.
That doesn't happen, much in these threads though (no I don't put CNN or ABC in that category).
There is something laughable about someone repeatedly complaining about BLM and the media using using false information to rile people up and then post a link to a website that does exactly that to "prove" something. It's the exact type of nonsense that needs to stop or things will, get worse.
Nothing will get better if bad information is intentionally passed around and people just believe it because it's what they want to hear. That goes both way. We all have to be smarter than that.

Sorry if I offended you. I was trying to say that a person who is conservative believes conservative websites because it reinforces their beliefs. There are equal sites and beliefs on the other side. Both sides tend to dismiss the other viewpoints based on their beliefs.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Yeah. Things need to be questioned and too many people don't when it's what they want to believe. I think there's a difference between a talking head type interview or a roundtable with commentators and articles presented as fact. They can't really control what someone says in an interview. I've definitely seen such interviews and roundtables where very questionable things have been said (by varying viewpoints). Sites like The Conservative Treehouse intentionally throw out highly questionable things and present them as true.

I could easily argue that HuffPo does the exact same thing -- yet they are routinely cited by many (I'm thinking other forums, FB. etc. here and not DIS specifically) as though they are a legitimate news source.

It's not just commentators on these major networks, in my opinion. Anchors have biases that show glaringly in some cases, even on major outlets. It's in the questions they choose to ask. The questions they choose NOT to ask.

It just pays to go in eyes open with ANY media outlet, IMO.

 

[pat fan]

I've definitely seen such interviews and roundtables where very questionable things have been said (by varying viewpoints).

If someone is throwing out false information, the interviewer should be calling them on it and pushing that fact. Problem is, there is no real "journalism" anymore. Every "story" is done with a particular slant/POV for a reason, with very little if any actual research done. Woodward & Bernstein would be ashamed. I'm not at all surprised TMZ is the most accurate lately, the rest of them are hogwash.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Thanks. I specifically wonder if two different people present different versions of what happened is character testimony allowed for or against either.

Ok, I certainly don't want to rehash Teayvon Martin.
He wasn't on trial so I don't see why there'd be a need for character witnesses. He was the victim at the trial.
Also, Zimmerman prior bad acts (including prior arrests) were not allowed in and he was the one on trial.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Ok, I certainly don't want to rehash Teayvon Martin.
He wasn't on trial so I don't see why there'd be a need for character witnesses. He was the victim at the trial.
Also, Zimmerman prior bad acts (including prior arrests) were not allowed in and he was the one on trial.

I guess I'll never understand how "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior", EXCEPT in these cases. I'm thinking more public opinion than courtroom now.

 

[asta]

Ok, I certainly don't want to rehash Teayvon Martin.
He wasn't on trial so I don't see why there'd be a need for character witnesses. He was the victim at the trial.
Also, Zimmerman prior bad acts (including prior arrests) were not allowed in and he was the one on trial.

I don't want to rehash it either but that case came to mind when trying to understand when character witnesses are allowed. I am not a lawyer and don't watch many court cases so that one comes to mind because I recall that being discussed while that trial was taking place.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Sorry if I offended you. I was trying to say that a person who is conservative believes conservative websites because it reinforces their beliefs. There are equal sites and beliefs on the other side. Both sides tend to dismiss the other viewpoints based on their beliefs.

It's fine. I actually totally agree with that. I just thought you were saying I do the same thing and I dont.
I actually never believe anything I read. I actually have to stop myself from being that super annoying person on FB who is always telling people the outrageous stories and memes they post aren't true. At least I know enough to stop myself.

 

[asta]

It's fine. I actually totally agree with that. I just thought you were saying I do the same thing and I dont.
I actually never believe anything I read. I actually have to stop myself from being that super annoying person on FB who is always telling people the outrageous stories and memes they post aren't true. At least I know enough to stop myself.

With all of the politically charged posts on my Facebook I recently suggested a 'bite my tongue' button. I try very hard to not react because I don't want to argue with friends but it is very hard.

 

[sunshinehighway]

With all of the politically charged posts on my Facebook I recently suggested a 'bite my tongue' button. I try very hard to not react because I don't want to argue with friends but it is very hard.

Yes that seems the best way to handle it. I'm not even talking politically charged stuff. I put a lot of it in the same category as when people share posts like "so and so is giving away money to anyone who shares this" or that dog with the ham on his face that people actually thought was burned in a fire. Think people, think.

 

[pat fan]

I actually have to stop myself from being that super annoying person on FB who is always telling people the outrageous stories and memes they post aren't true. At least I know enough to stop myself.

Wait, we're not supposed to tell them the truth???

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

It's fine. I actually totally agree with that. I just thought you were saying I do the same thing and I dont.
I actually never believe anything I read. I actually have to stop myself from being that super annoying person on FB who is always telling people the outrageous stories and memes they post aren't true. At least I know enough to stop myself.

Wait, we're not supposed to tell them the truth???

So difficult... I try to stay away from FB "tit for tat" debates, but I DO share FACTUAL and/or WELL-REASONED info like the link posted earlier by @Geoff_M (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...force-but-not-in-shootings.html?smid=fb-share) in my own timeline.

 

[Disn3yVision]

Its funny, I keep reading the same adjectives being used throughout this thread to put down Black Lives Matter: violent, disrespectful, unlawful, divisive, aggressive, rowdy, criminal. Do you think it is a coincidence that these are the same prejudices often associated with blacks, and black men in particular? The same prejudices in fact, that BLM is trying to address? The same prejudices that may lead to, consciously or subconsciously, black men being treated differently in similar situations, and even killed in some instances? The same prejudices that may have led to Trayvon Martin's death?

Speaking of which, I also see the same specific instances being brought up repeatedly. Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, etc. But as PP's have said multiple times, this isn't about any one incident. This is about ALL the incidents. That have occurred. That keep occurring. American has a problem, and has for a very long time. It isn't as simple as whites and blacks or cops and blacks. What is dividing us, what is dividing our country, goes back much further and is a lot deeper than Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter is a conduit through which a much deeper issue has began bubbling back up from the depths it has been hiding and festering in for so many years.

The truth is, you can see the worst in anything if you want to. You could argue God is a power hungry, vengeful, racist if you chose to see Him that way... and you would have plenty of evidence I might add. Or you could choose to see the good and him and embrace it. The choice it up to you. The truth is Black Lives Matter isn't a a defined group of people. It is both a sign and signifier. It is a voice for people that have not been heard. It is an alarm clock for america to wake up, a mirror we all need to look into. It is all of us. It is a feeling all black people have felt at one point in their lives... And one that we all hope to never have feel again.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Its funny, I keep reading the same adjectives being used throughout this thread to put down Black Lives Matter: violent, disrespectful, unlawful, divisive, aggressive, rowdy, criminal. Do you think it is a coincidence that these are the same prejudices often associated with blacks, and black men in particular? The same prejudices in fact, that BLM is trying to address? The same prejudices that may lead to, consciously or subconsciously, black men being treated differently in similar situations, and even killed in some instances? The same prejudices that may have led to Trayvon Martin's death?

Speaking of which, I also see the same specific instances being brought up repeatedly. Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, etc. But as PP's have said multiple times, this isn't about any one incident. This is about ALL the incidents. That have occurred. That keep occurring. American has a problem, and has for a very long time. It isn't as simple as whites and blacks or cops and blacks. What is dividing us, what is dividing our country, goes back much further and is a lot deeper than Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter is a conduit through which a much deeper issue has began bubbling back up from the depths it has been hiding and festering in for so many years.

The truth is, you can see the worst in anything if you want to. You could argue God is a power hungry, vengeful, racist if you chose to see Him that way... and you would have plenty of evidence I might add. Or you could choose to see the good and him and embrace it. The choice it up to you. The truth is Black Lives Matter isn't a a defined group of people. It is a sign and signifier. It is a voice for people that have not been heard. It is an alarm clock for america to wake up, a mirror we all need to look into. It is all of us. It is a feeling all black people have felt at one point in their lives... And one that we all hope to never have feel again.

To all of this, I would just say: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...force-but-not-in-shootings.html?smid=fb-share

Facts and evidence matter. But they often aren't good for ratings.

There are CLEARLY issues to be addressed. But BLM doesn't appear interested in facts. IMO, that movement is not the answer.