candide

49 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

With an AR-15 strapped to his back. 

Two wrongs don't make a right and neither parties are innocent in this. Him for being there in the first place with a deadly weapon strapped on and those that were looting and rioting. Point though is no 17 year old is mature enough to be in this situation in the first place and the road all of this is going down is going to see many, many more instances like this before it comes to an end.

High emotions and guns don't go well together. 

Exactly! On top of it, he did not respect the rules. Everybody knows that when you play Rin Tin Tin you need a dog. There was no dog.

45 minutes ago, torturedsole said:

In fairness, I never stated that I agree with a 17 year old kid attending a protest with a semi-automatic rifle.  

That was the main point I addressed. He should not have been there and it seems no adult tried to prevent it.

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They won the midterm elections by a landslide  and currently trail Trump in most polls.

LOL.

Exactly! You can check here!

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

4 minutes ago, torturedsole said:

That's a very broad statement of fact.

 

Whilst the UK guns laws are very strict, I do have extensive experience of firearms and it's a positive hobby for young people if provided the opportunity to fire live ammunition and I wasn't in the army. It's obviously a controlled and disciplined environment but there's absolutely no harm in kids taking up the sport. My parents allowed me to travel to the shooting range most weekends in my early teens and were not brainwashing me or were being irresponsible.

 

The discipline I learned in my formative years from these experiences remain with me to this day.

 

Young Kyle was clearly in Kenosha to provide medical support to injured protestors and I believe a jury will acquit him in due course.   

I was obviously not talking about you!

So you agree with letting a 17 yo go to a protest with an assault rifle? Really?

Why would he need an assault rifle just to "provide medical support"? 

2 hours ago, Opl said:

the truth is out there

“I don’t like to mention Biden because he’s not controlling anything. They control him….People that you’ve never heard of. People who are in the dark shadows…..People that you’ve never heard of. They’re people that are on the streets. They’re people that are controlling the streets. We had somebody get on a plane in a certain city this weekend, and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms, gear, and this and that. They’re on a plane.” Trump said...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-claims-without-evidence-biden-controlled-people-dark-shadows-n1238953

 

What is worrying is that some people will surely believe it and act accordingly.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Well that's all easy to say. But the EEC in 1975 was what the remain voters in the referendum of that year voted to stay with. These voters were not made well aware of the  consequences of subsequent mutations (treaties). I have said so often that voting for the EU is not the same as voting for the status quo. All of the more recent treaty decisions were never offered to the UK electorate, via referenda, in the UK; pro EU governments played this subject down (or lied) at election times. 

 

I agree we are unprepared but despite the EU rhetoric I don't think they are either. Yes, four years since the referendum but who would expect an easy-out from an EU which assumes to dictate all the rules and sequencing of negotiations and an EU that risks imploding if the UK exit is successful?

I agree with you that, after numerous years of membership and contribution to the design of the current EU, UK politicians could not be unaware of the likely behaviour of the EU.

What is a bit more annoying is that it's not at all what has been promised...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/nobody-said-it-was-easy

8 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

They can’t win big elections with in-person voting—so they push mail-in voting and vote harvesting.  Guess which party advocates this?

What makes you think they can't win? This is completely incoherent!

They won the midterm elections by a landslide  and currently trail Trump in most polls.

It's Trump who needs to rigg elections in order to be elected.

Trump is doing everything he can to get people enraged so that a can complain about disorder.

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/09/trump-compares-a-police-blunder-to-a-bad-golf-shot.html

The most funny aspect of this event was Trump frantically tweeting about it. Priceless!

17 minutes ago, Tug said:

Yup they haven’t totally corrupted the justice system yet Many Are Getting Arrested MAGA LOL!

This time it was a full court decision: 8-2 (I guess the same 2 as in the previous decision by only 3 judges).

4 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

The EU are welcome to propose their restrictive terms, and the UK are free to reject them (and will reject them). I'm not whining about freedom of contract. I'm simply explaining why the terms are unacceptable. 

Unacceptable, maybe. Unexpected, surely not!

8 minutes ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

You are an example of the problem.  Keep looking for racism, you may eventually find it.  LOL

No, I stick to facts. A general conclusion must be drawn from a dataset of several years, not only one year, in particular when it concerns low numbers.

17 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well because that part of the post I agreed with and saw no reason to argue about, unlike the part about blacks being disproportionately more likely to be killed, which is not the case.

 

If blacks are 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police that would in fact be less than would be expected given that blacks, with 13% of population commit 53% of homicides and 60% robberies (more than 4.0 times their population).

 

Killing an unarmed person is fairly close to an "unfair" killing, but the term "unfair" is an unusable term which of course would be very dependent on interpretation. Unlike a factual issue like armed or unarmed, which already has grey areas, for example the Washington database counts criminals who had a gun in the car as "unarmed". 

 

Whether a killing was "fair" or "unfair" would require a trial of all the facts, which for statistical reports, as you can imagine is not all that practical. There is in fact considerable debate about data collected as you know.

 

But either way, "the police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer."

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883

I agree that it's subject to interpretation and discussion. However:

- you cannot calculate statistics on one year only. We know from the article I linked about 2011-2015, we know 2019 from the wapo, but what about 2016, 2017, and 2018?

- I wouldn't bet your comparison makes sense, as unarmed men are by definition usually not involved in armed clashes.

Double posting, sorry.

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Sorry but that is a misrepresentation. In absolute terms more whites are killed by police, and the only way to portray blacks as more likely to be killed is by reference to their population figure of 13%. However this ignores that 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies are committed by blacks.

 

So actually the 3.5 more likely to be killed is merely a reflection of the fact that blacks are more likely to have encounters with police because they are more than 3.5 more likely to committ homicide or a robbery (13% of population but 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies)

 

Too bad you truncated my post because the part you omitted was the most interesting one. As I mentioned in my post, the total number of killings does not really matter as I guess a lot of them have been shot for legitimate reasons. The issue is unfair killings, such as the ones we have known for around one year. In the absence of precise information, killing unarmed people may be an imperfect approximation of unfair killing.

BTW, That's where the 3.5 factor comes from:

"County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

10 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-b

The claim was about "unarmed people" killed by police.

The issue is not so much how many people were shot. Many people probably deserved to be shot. The issue is that some people have been unfairly/unnecessarily killed, and that such cases concerning black people have rather frequently seen recently. "Unarmed" may be an indicator of unfair killing, but is likely not precise enough.

On top of it, as Simple1 stresses in his post above, black people are statistically more likely to be killed when they are arrested.

19 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. 

Ok. So it also depends on which year as numbers are small.

I'd like to see numbers on unfair/unnecessary killings. It's not sure "unarmed" is a good enough approximation.