Gun Control, Controversy, so keep it clean.

Bet the idiot doesn't show up at another anti-police rally in camo garb with an AR-15 on his back.

I was watching the news coverage the night it happened. Yes, they had his picture on the news saying he was a person of interest as he was seen on video running from the area with a rifle. Not trying to turn in his gun and help police protect the demonstrators. But about 4 hours later, they announced he had turned himself in and was being questioned. The next morning, the police chief, at the first news briefing, announced that he was cleared of any involvement That was on the news. I don't know about Facebook or some website. I'm sure if he goes to the police about any death threats, they wouldn't turn him away. The whole incident sounds like he, and the BLM movement are trying to make more out of it than there is.

Maybe so, but I'm still wondering why the Dallas PD aren't doing more to quash this in the media then. Haven't police departments all over the US realized yet that the only way to combat the misinformation that BLM spreads via both established and social media is to counter it with their own campaigns? Seems to me they're hurting themselves badly by playing it close to the chest in many situations.

the press is free to print or not print what they choose.

Hat's off to the Chief. His handling of this has been amazing. Especially knowing what he is going through. I don't think my comments would be so reserved.

Before you jump to any conclusions, you might want to read this: www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12149468/racism-police-shootings-data

It questions the validity of some (not all) data points in that paper and presents good reason for doing so. The best reason? The study was conducted using data from police precincts in only 10 cities in 3 states. As far as "national studies" go, that's almost thinner than many MythBusters datasets we've seen over the years.

It's also worth noting that the cities Fryer and his team worked with are all members of a White House initiative on policing data launched in 2015. In other words, they've committed themselves to collecting and sharing data on everything they do, which would be a pretty strong incentive for anyone to stay within the confines of the law. Not that I'm saying they didn't do that before they said yes to being in this program. Actually, they may specifically have said yes to join the program because they felt they had nothing to hide or be ashamed of. Chances are these are some of the best departments you'll find in the country when it comes to community relations and policing. Again, hardly representative of the country as a whole.

ADDENDUM: The author of the study actually admits this himself.

From page 7 of the report:



If you're interested in reading the report in full - without journalists interpreting and paraphrasing to fit some agenda, no matter which side of the political spectrum they're on - here's a direct link: www.nber.org/papers/w22399

Interestingly - although this is not the result the media would have us focus on - even in these "best departments in the country", there is a significant racial disparity between blacks, latinos and whites when it comes to officers getting physical with suspects. The report doesn't offer any explanation as to why this is, just that blacks and latinos are significantly more likely to be manhandled or have weapons (batons, tasers, guns) drawn on them than whites are.

Maybe BLM have the facts wrong when it comes to police shootings, but maybe the opposition also have the facts wrong when they refuse to acknowledge that black people (at least in some communities) still have some reason to feel they're being discriminated against by police.

Seems to me both sides are trying to play this in black and white and neglecting all the grey areas.

And supporters will conveniently omit that the same report says black people are 19% more likely to be subjected to non-lethal use of force than white people, not to mention that more than 40% of all stops reported between 2003 and 2013 were black people, even though only roughly 18% of the population is black. Even when removing people from the equation who resist police, carry and/or use weapons against them and have actually committed a crime, that number doesn't change significantly.

According to the report, a compliant, unarmed black person who hasn't committed any crime at all is still around 18-19% more likely than a white person under the same circumstances to be subjected to non-lethal force by police. Add to that the fact that they're much more likely to be stopped to begin with.

I can twist facts to fit an agenda with the best of them.

Look, I've read the entire report and it's utterly useless. The four datasets used to reach its conclusions have so little overlap that the whole thing is basically apples to oranges.

The data set about use of non-lethal force (where I got the facts above) is solely taken from New York City's "Stop & Frisk" program. None of the 10 cities that supplied data on officer-involved shootings supplied data on use of non-lethal force. Conversely, NYC only supplied data on use of non-lethal force and only in connection with the "Stop & Frisk" program, not in connection with any other stops or arrests. They didn't supply a single datapoint on officer-involved shootings, yet both datasets are included to paint a picture of overall national conditions.

I'm sure none of you would be ready to accept a claim that just because the NYPD is more likely to use force against a black person than a white person, that's an adequate representation of every police department in the US. If that's true, you shouldn't be any more ready to accept that 10 specific police departments who willingly supplied data on officer-involved shootings are any more of an adequate representation of national conditions.

The two other datasets used are equally weak.

Out of the four datasets used, only one provides the civilian side of the story and that's the national "Police-Public Contact Survey". National. As in not at all limited to the 11 total cities all the other data has been gathered from (NYC and the ones that supplied shooting data). Not to mention that survey has some other serious shortcomings.

For one thing, only 11% of all people surveyed are black, 53% of all people surveyed are women and nearly half of the incidents participants have been asked about were routine traffic stops. The survey is also not limited to stops and arrests, but includes accounts of such innocuous things as officers canvasing a neighborhood after a crime has been committed and simply asking people if they've witnessed anything. Participants have then been asked how they experienced that encounter with police.

How the data from that survey is in any way relevant to the questions raised by this report eludes me completely. As mentioned, it doesn't cover the cities the other data comes from, it covers way too little of the black demographic, more than half the respondents are women (more likely to be compliant with police and therefore less likely to be subjected to use of force), it isn't specific to anything that has to do with use of force, let alone shooting and so on and so forth.

Furthermore, just as police officers might lie on their reports, respondents to this survey could easily do the same thing. In fact, it's noted in the report that virtually none of the respondents who had been subjected to any kind of police force (in the very few incidents where that was even a factor) would admit to being non-compliant in any way during the altercation. In other words, they certainly hadn't done anything to deserve what the police did to them. Right... None of them... Not one... That sounds perfectly plausible, doesn't it...?

I could keep picking this report apart, but my point is that it should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter which side of the argument you're on. If you do however plan on referencing this report as proof of anything, both sides of the argument need to acknowledge both "truths" it comes to; that no, police aren't shooting black people for no reason (at least not in the 10 select cities that provided data), but they do stop and use non-lethal force against black people much more often than is true for white people - even when the subject isn't a threat to officers (at least in New York City).

any time you rely on surveys you get biased results.

"I was being compliant" yet it took the combined might of three officers to get his hands close enough together to get the handcuffs latched. and two of the officers got mule-kicked in the process.