All I know is if hvybarrels was a cop he would be dead by now.  His last famous words "he was only reaching into his pocket for a gun, probably was going to turn it over so not to inconvenience me while trying to resist arrest"

There's a huge rainbow of possibilities to be explored, but the point is moot because they only hire people who can pass asshole evaluation and I'd never be allowed in the academy because I'm too smart and would get filtered out through the first test.

There's a huge rainbow of possibilities to be explored, but the point is moot because they only hire people who can pass asshole evaluation and I'd never be allowed in the academy because I'm too smart and would get filtered out through the first test.

Have you applied?

Sound logic

You only hear stories of "innocent black boys who did nothing wrong"  cause the media is very bias.  Doesn't matter if they are a career criminal nah hears a picture when they were 10, look how good he was.  No one wants to hear about that white dude that got shot.   That doesn't bring in the views and the cash.

It's not sound logic. They get convicted of the same crimes at a disproportionate rate.

And for every "they did nothing wrong" story there's 10 more digging into their past in a media smear campaign trying to make their assassination sound justified because of "who they are"

Have you applied?

It's a corrupt bureaucratic organisation run by incompetent homophobes who actively encourage a disarmed populace. No I never applied, but a friend did and didn't know better at the time to get some answers wrong on purpose because the intelligence quota was relatively unknown back then.

It's not sound logic. They get convicted of the same crimes at a disproportionate rate.

And for every "they did nothing wrong" story there's 10 more digging into their past in a media smear campaign trying to make their assassination sound justified because of "who they are"

After the FBI decided to not charge Hillary, how can you say the laws are not being applied equally to everyone?

           

[sarcasm, of course!]

It's not sound logic. They get convicted of the same crimes at a disproportionate rate.

And for every "they did nothing wrong" story there's 10 more digging into their past in a media smear campaign trying to make their assassination sound justified because of "who they are"

Dylan nobel.  Unarmed white dude who got shot 7 days ago he was also "going for a weapon"  his happened to turn out to be fake(unarmed).  He was killed.  No outrage, no protests, no mass media.  Why? 

In the end until further evidence I believe both cases are justified shootings.  There is a reason for the phrase "hands up"

It's a corrupt bureaucratic organisation run by incompetent homophobes who actively encourage a disarmed populace. No I never applied, but a friend did and didn't know better at the time to get some answers wrong on purpose because the intelligence quota was relatively unknown back then.

Also for the intelligence one its not to have dumb police.  Its expensive to train someone.  Highly intelligent people tend to not like doing monotonous things and quit after a little while.  Its purely cost based.  I'm sure you don't wish to raise taxes to cover these losses, right?

Dylan nobel.  Unarmed white dude who got shot 7 days ago he was also "going for a weapon"  his happened to turn out to be fake(unarmed).  He was killed.  No outrage, no protests, no mass media.  Why? 

In the end until further evidence I believe both cases are justified shootings.  There is a reason for the phrase "hands up"

What you should be considering is how cops who get used to killing people with no repercussions are supposed to know when to quit? The indiscriminate killing of black people opens the door to the indiscriminate killing of anybody.

That's a canned study where cops are well aware their racial bias is being evaluated. Not very useful other than proving that cops are aware of basic pr and looking good on tests.

You are saying blacks are more likely to commit crimes but that's not true at all. They are more likely to get arrested and convicted, with much harsher sentencing. This shows a clear pattern of institutionalized racism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html

Feel free to post evidence the study was flawed but don't dismiss it because you don't like the result.

Yes, blacks do seem, on the surface, to get harsher sentencing, but only looking at the surface of sentence received and race of the convict does not tell the whole picture. You have to look at the rap sheet. If two people commit the same crime but one has a lot more convictions than the other, of course that one is going to get a longer sentence for the same crime. No mention in the article of that variable though. Coincidence?

So why are Asians underrepresented? If we have a bunch of white supremacist cops why don't we see more Asians than whites arrested? (proportionately speaking)

Also for the intelligence one its not to have dumb police.  Its expensive to train someone.  Highly intelligent people tend to not like doing monotonous things and quit after a little while.  Its purely cost based.  I'm sure you don't wish to raise taxes to cover these losses, right?

How much extra are we paying now for legal actions and settlement awards because of angry meatheads who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag? The objective of the quota is to find people who are just competent enough to handle the basics of the job but won't ask questions or second guess leadership, even when that leadership is wrong and self destructive.

Hey I found some crucial new info (from CNN of all places):
"The officer still sounds distressed as he explains, "I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand off it."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/us/falcon-heights-shooting-minnesota/

This statement is right on the edge and can be used by both sides. Was he distressed because he knew he made a mistake, or was he distressed because he had just gone through a traumatic incident?

Generally they say that statements made immediately after the event are the most honest so there is reason to believe he was giving proper instruction prior to firing.

Feel free to post evidence the study was flawed but don't dismiss it because you don't like the result.

Yes, blacks do seem, on the surface, to get harsher sentencing, but only looking at the surface of sentence received and race of the convict does not tell the whole picture. You have to look at the rap sheet. If two people commit the same crime but one has a lot more convictions than the other, of course that one is going to get a longer sentence for the same crime. No mention in the article of that variable though. Coincidence?

So why are Asians underrepresented? If we have a bunch of white supremacist cops why don't we see more Asians than whites arrested? (proportionately speaking)

It's a canned study. Real life paints a much different picture. When you point out about prior arrests all that means is that it's a self sustaining cycle. Circular logic aka bubble logic.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/

What you should be considering is how cops who get used to killing people with no repercussions are supposed to know when to quit? The indiscriminate killing of black people opens the door to the indiscriminate killing of anybody.

Why do you keep repeating saying "indiscriminate killing"  "institutionalize racism"  and similar connotations. Cops are not driving around gunning random black people.  They are trained to deal with crime whatever color skin the criminal has.  I don't give a shit if you are black, white or fucking purple you do a crime and have a weapon or allude that you have one. Then motion to use it to harm the officer/officers it is justifiable for those individuals to be shot.  If i was to walk into your house robbing you when you had your gun pointing at me then reach down into my pants are you telling me you would do nothing?  Thankfully we live in a relatively safe society that people with less threat based evaluation and reactionary survival instincts can live a full life. If not you probably be dead from what i gather you write about. 

How much extra are we paying now for legal actions and settlement awards because of angry meatheads who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag? The objective of the quota is to find people who are just competent enough to handle the basics of the job but won't ask questions or second guess leadership, even when that leadership is wrong and self destructive.

You know they have a disqualification for low IQ too.  They are not hiring only "meatheads"  you just call them that because you don't understand the line of work.  And the risks and emotions that come with that type of job. 

It's a canned study. Real life paints a much different picture. When you point out about prior arrests all that means is that it's a self sustaining cycle. Circular logic aka bubble logic.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/

Wait, so you don't support 3 strikes rule.  You want the judges to ignore all priors when sentencing?  Wow and I thought you couldn't sound more ridiculous.

It's a canned study. Real life paints a much different picture. When you point out about prior arrests all that means is that it's a self sustaining cycle. Circular logic aka bubble logic.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/

A good study has to control for variables. In the case of a use of force study that means presenting the same exact situation to multiple people and study the numbers. Just because they aren't real life shootings doesn't mean the study isn't valid.

And who is sustaining the cycle from? If you commit a crime once and I commit it 10 times, is it everyone else's fault? Did the most successful black americans in history succeed because they complained about an unfair system or did they succeed because they went out and worked hard in the face of the junk hand they were dealt? Recidivism is a problem that society is trying to figure out but it is far from the case that blacks are purely victims of the system.

Feel free to post evidence the study was flawed but don't dismiss it because you don't like the result.

Yes, blacks do seem, on the surface, to get harsher sentencing, but only looking at the surface of sentence received and race of the convict does not tell the whole picture. You have to look at the rap sheet. If two people commit the same crime but one has a lot more convictions than the other, of course that one is going to get a longer sentence for the same crime. No mention in the article of that variable though. Coincidence?

So why are Asians underrepresented? If we have a bunch of white supremacist cops why don't we see more Asians than whites arrested? (proportionately speaking)

Why do you always insist on arguing for the one or two "facts" that you think prove your position while ignoring some extremely glaring and relevant ones?

For example, it's less likely a poor black will have the money for a private attorney, so he gets the court-appointed public defender.  Meanwhile, Mr. White can afford an experienced defense attorney from a prestigious law firm with 4 partners and a dozen paralegals working the case.

Also, a clean cut white boy who "made a mistake" and is captain of the local sports team, gets good  grades, and has the potential to learn from this and not do it again plays well for juries and judges.  Not the same when a black kid from a broken home, living in a gang-run neighborhood and on his way to becoming a high school drop out.  He might not get the same treatment unless there is something that changes and gives us hope things can be different in his life.

So, if you want to analyze something, maybe analyze all the factors that are affecting the outcome.  Leaving those out which point to a different conclusion than what you want to prove is dishonest!

If you want  to talk about controlling variables, how about that study only existing in it's own bubble?  Video simulation, while good for practice and training, is not an accurate testing method.  Facing a real person who reacts, moves, talks, yells, distracts while someone comes from another direction ..... those are real life variables that impact the stories we see.  Trying to measure that in a controlled setting is not realistic.

"Ok guys you have been selected to participate in a paid study because we're confident you will make us look good. Keep in mind the results will be shown to the public."

Why do you always insist on arguing for the one or two "facts" that you think prove your position while ignoring some extremely glaring and relevant ones?

For example, it's less likely a poor black will have the money for a private attorney, so he gets the court-appointed public defender.  Meanwhile, Mr. White can afford an experienced defense attorney from a prestigious law firm with 4 partners and a dozen paralegals working the case.

Also, a clean cut white boy who "made a mistake" and is captain of the local sports team, get good  grades, and has the potential to lean from this and not do it again plays well for juries and judges.  Not the same when a black kid from a broken home, living in a gang-run neighborhood and on his way to becoming a high school drop out.  He might not get the same treatment unless there is something that changes and gives us hope things can be different in his life.

So, if you want to analyze something, maybe analyze all the factors that are affecting the outcome.  Leaving those out which point to a different conclusion than what you want to prove is dishonest!

If you want  to talk about controlling variables, how about that study only existing in it's own bubble?  Video simulation, while good for practice and training, is not an accurate testing method.  Facing a real person who reacts, moves, talks, yells, distracts while someone comes from another direction ..... those are real life variables that impact the stories we see.  Trying to measure that in a controlled setting is not realistic.

I didn't feel the need to address points that I did not consider to be in contention. Yes, blacks tend to be poorer and are less able to afford good attorneys, this is something to consider. I pointed out a separate fact that the article left out.

As for the study, you have to have a controlled situation to get comparable data. If you take 10 real life shootings you are going to end up with so many variables. You will end up with 10 different times of the day, 10 ten different distances between the officer and person shot, 10 different temperatures, 10 different lighting conditions, etc. It is important to gather data from actual shootings but controlled studies offer something that the real life cases cannot.

Yes a controlled study like the one mentioned has trouble reproducing the actual stress someone goes through during a real use of force incident but these studies still do yield useable data. If I recall, this study made the test participants decide very quickly whether or not to shoot. It presented them with images of shoot and no shoot situations with both black and white people. The officers hesitated longer to shoot at the black people, not by a huge difference but it was enough to be noticeable in the data. The question is this, did the officers really go out to falsify the data by purposefully waiting a fraction of a second longer when they saw a black person in a shoot situation? The average was 0.23 second slower to shoot at a black suspect in the study than a white suspect. You think they consciously stalled an extra 0.23 second so they could claim "look, I am not racist!"

"Ok guys you have been selected to participate in a paid study because we're confident you will make us look good. Keep in mind the results will be shown to the public."

"In addition, for this study the officers were given a battery of written and oral tests. Again, there was no mention of a racial component. But one of the tests was the Harvard Implicit Association Test, designed to detect racial bias by linking pictures of black and white faces with pictures of weapons. Perhaps stunningly, 96 percent of the nearly all white officers demonstrated implicit racial bias, with 78 percent strongly or moderately associating blacks with weapons, and zero percent associating whites with weapons. So that’s the baseline test group for the study."

So they admitted to having racial bias in the study as part of the program to make them look good as well?

Come on, you are just attacking the study without good reason. If you really want to prove it cannot be trusted then go out and show what is wrong with the actual methodology instead of just claiming it to be canned or a publicity stunt.

"In addition, for this study the officers were given a battery of written and oral tests. Again, there was no mention of a racial component. But one of the tests was the Harvard Implicit Association Test, designed to detect racial bias by linking pictures of black and white faces with pictures of weapons. Perhaps stunningly, 96 percent of the nearly all white officers demonstrated implicit racial bias, with 78 percent strongly or moderately associating blacks with weapons, and zero percent associating whites with weapons. So that’s the baseline test group for the study."

So they admitted to having racial bias in the study as part of the program to make them look good as well?

Come on, you are just attacking the study without good reason. If you really want to prove it cannot be trusted then go out and show what is wrong with the actual methodology instead of just claiming it to be canned or a publicity stunt.

As we well know, canned studies are easy to manipulate, and in this case the statistics tell a different story. I wonder if they gave the written/oral part first, giving the subjects time to figure out what was going on?

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/diane-sawyer-rigs-mass-shooting-experiment-2020

It's a corrupt bureaucratic organisation run by incompetent homophobes who actively encourage a disarmed populace. No I never applied, but a friend did and didn't know better at the time to get some answers wrong on purpose because the intelligence quota was relatively unknown back then.

HPD doesn't test for IQ. They test for reading comprehension followed by a behavioral/psych inventory.
Your point is moot since you never applied or bothered into learning about the process. Your fear and distrust of organizations is your lack of knowledge about them. You wouldn't know what to do in a situation like that. You aren't trained in any way and you are far less capable than handling the situation than those police officers.