New York Grand Jury Does Not Indict Officer in Choking Death

[AUDub 11,158]

And I disagree with ITCHY. This incident does have a racial component, at least considering the reaction. Here's why:

http://www.motherjon...guson-race-data

The second graph is particularly telling. Imagine if the data earlier than 1970 were included. Imagine a plot that covered a time lime back to slavery. Would that curve slope ever change? Hell no. It would likely keep climbing.

That provides a little historical perspective on why black people are so sensitive to being abused by the system and more particularly, the LEO's who represent it.

In 2012, 123 African-Americans were shot dead by police. In the same year, 326 whites were killed by police.

That too should provide evidence of systematic abuse. Right?

Bill O' Reilly, hmm?

Link

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Who cares where the numbers come from if they are factual. Do you deny that they are?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Who cares where the numbers come from if they are factual. Do you deny that they are?

Obviously you haven't gotten the memo, PT. Anything from Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Daily KOS are all acceptable and of unquestionable integrity. Anything and EVERYTHING from conservative sites especially FOX is not.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Blue.....got it.

[AUDub 11,158]

Who cares where the numbers come from if they are factual. Do you deny that they are?

Obviously you haven't gotten the memo, PT. Anything from Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Daily KOS are all acceptable and of unquestionable integrity. Anything and EVERYTHING from conservative sites especially FOX is not.

To answer Proud, why not open my link and read what it has to say? The numbers are not a reliable.

As for you, Blue, you do realize those numbers are from the CDC, right?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Another opinion.,,,,,not Fox.

http://www.realclear...uth_124882.html

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

I don't see it that way. I do not believe race is the central issue. Policing with excessive force is the real issue. Why do you wish to make this about race? What is your agenda?

No, the media is framing this as police using excessive force against black people. There's countless people who constantly get in front of a camera and bring up race when talking about these cases on tv. Go look up news articles from any website and you'll see somewhere in the articles about the fact that a "white cop kills unarmed black man" or the distortion of "white cop kills unarmed black teen". Michael Brown was portayed as just a teen like he was somehow this innocent little kid that was gunned down. Forget that he robbed a convenience store and strong-armed the store owner before his encounter with officer Wilson. That doesn't go along with the picture the media wants to portray of how reality was.

Why are there constant news articles and new cases being dug up involving black people and the police if race isn't being used as a theme? It's not this forum or people in this forum that have made this a racial issue. It's alreay been made by everyone in the media and figureheads that are playing up the racial aspect to inflame the situation.

I guess you missed all those witty signs saying "black lives matter" at all these protests that the media love showing. Why are the crowds and protesters making it about race? I guess President Obama sees racial issues too because after the Freguson ruling, he addressed the racial aspects by talking about "past history and mistrust of law enforcement in communities of color". Why is he making it about race?

If you can't admit the obvious of what's going on or choose to be naive about the distortion the media is using by focusing on race then there's no point in even going back and forth on here. I don't think race is the reason why either Michael Brown or Eric Garner were killed by police. But everyone with a platform or an agenda in the media has made those cases into a racial issue. How's that making up stuff about the media? How's that a conspiracy theory? The media has become less fact based and more activist based by trying to portray their version of reality by injecting and inflaming tragedies to stir up racial tension.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Who cares where the numbers come from if they are factual. Do you deny that they are?

Obviously you haven't gotten the memo, PT. Anything from Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Daily KOS are all acceptable and of unquestionable integrity. Anything and EVERYTHING from conservative sites especially FOX is not.

To answer Proud, why not open my link and read what it has to say? The numbers are not a reliable.

As for you, Blue, you do realize those numbers are from the CDC, right?

So, you're questioning the data because "coroners are not compelled to report the deaths are a result of police shootings"? Or what? Im not on a side here except to point out everything is arguable in a politics forum and your post simply proves that point. My hunch is, if was Huffington Post or Mother Jones you wouldn't be contesting the point. Thats all.

[AUDub 11,158]

So, you're questioning the data because "coroners are not compelled to report the deaths are a result of police shootings"? Or what? Im not on a side here except to point out everything is arguable in a politics forum and your post simply proves that point.

Yes. Exactly that. The numbers are not a good indicator. O'Reilly thinks they are more significant than they are.

My hunch is, if was Huffington Post or Mother Jones you wouldn't be contesting the point. Thats all.

Your hunch is wrong.

[TheBlueVue 177]

So, you're questioning the data because "coroners are not compelled to report the deaths are a result of police shootings"? Or what? Im not on a side here except to point out everything is arguable in a politics forum and your post simply proves that point.

Yes. Exactly that. The numbers are not a good indicator. O'Reilly thinks they are more significant than they are.

My hunch is, if was Huffington Post or Mother Jones you wouldn't be contesting the point. Thats all.

Your hunch is wrong.

Your opinion on both fronts is duly noted. Reckon we need more govt regulation?

I must tell you however, Im not buying your denial of my hunch

[AUDub 11,158]

Your opinion on both fronts is duly noted. Reckon we need more govt regulation?

I must tell you however, Im not buying your denial of my hunch

I think more detail on circumstances surrounding homicides on coroners' reports would be helpful.

Feel free to point it out if I fail to scrutinize the numbers from sources you don't like in the future.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Your opinion on both fronts is duly noted. Reckon we need more govt regulation?

I must tell you however, Im not buying your denial of my hunch

I think more detail on circumstances surrounding homicides on coroners' reports would be helpful.

Feel free to point it out if I fail to scrutinize the numbers from sources you don't like in the future.

Clearly you believe the coroners cover for the police..correct? I don't think that is a legitimate argument, personally.

As for numbers you may post, frankly, I don't read enough of your posts to be overly concerned about your sources.

[AUDub 11,158]

Clearly you believe the coroners cover for the police..correct? I don't think that is a legitimate argument, personally.

As for numbers you may post, frankly, I don't read enough of your posts to be overly concerned about your sources.

No. I do not think there is any nefarious intent when the coroners report does not reflect the circumstances surrounding the death.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Clearly you believe the coroners cover for the police..correct? I don't think that is a legitimate argument, personally.

As for numbers you may post, frankly, I don't read enough of your posts to be overly concerned about your sources.

No. I do not think there is any nefarious intent when the coroners report does not reflect the circumstances surrounding the death.

OK then why the objection to the data from the CDC? You said it was because the coroners were not compelled to report the deaths were a result of police shootings. If you dont think the coroners are covering for the police, what is it about those reports that compels you to question their integrity?

[AUDub 11,158]

Clearly you believe the coroners cover for the police..correct? I don't think that is a legitimate argument, personally.

As for numbers you may post, frankly, I don't read enough of your posts to be overly concerned about your sources.

No. I do not think there is any nefarious intent when the coroners report does not reflect the circumstances surrounding the death.

OK then why the objection to the data from the CDC? You said it was because the coroners were not compelled to report the deaths were a result of police shootings. If you dont think the coroners are covering for the police, what is it about those reports that compels you to question their integrity?

My objection is not with the report itself. My objection is to the conclusion reached with incomplete data.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Clearly you believe the coroners cover for the police..correct? I don't think that is a legitimate argument, personally.

As for numbers you may post, frankly, I don't read enough of your posts to be overly concerned about your sources.

No. I do not think there is any nefarious intent when the coroners report does not reflect the circumstances surrounding the death.

OK then why the objection to the data from the CDC? You said it was because the coroners were not compelled to report the deaths were a result of police shootings. If you dont think the coroners are covering for the police, what is it about those reports that compels you to question their integrity?

My objection is not with the report itself. My objection is to the conclusion reached with incomplete data.

Well, you're operating on the assumption that the data is either incomplete or lacks integrity. Again, my assumption to counter yours is, if this report had been filed in Mother Jones or Huffington your doubts would have been immediately assuaged. Thats all. The coroners do a thorough job. Your doubts, IMO, about the completeness of their efforts, are simply aspersions being cast because you prefer to question the data, given its source, which is FOX News.

[AUDub 11,158]

Clearly you believe the coroners cover for the police..correct? I don't think that is a legitimate argument, personally.

As for numbers you may post, frankly, I don't read enough of your posts to be overly concerned about your sources.

No. I do not think there is any nefarious intent when the coroners report does not reflect the circumstances surrounding the death.

OK then why the objection to the data from the CDC? You said it was because the coroners were not compelled to report the deaths were a result of police shootings. If you dont think the coroners are covering for the police, what is it about those reports that compels you to question their integrity?

My objection is not with the report itself. My objection is to the conclusion reached with incomplete data.

Well, you're operating on the assumption that the data is either incomplete or lacks integrity. Again, my assumption to counter yours is, if this report had been filed in Mother Jones or Huffington your doubts would have been immediately assuaged. Thats all. The coroners do a thorough job. Your doubts, IMO, about the completeness of their efforts, are simply aspersions being cast because you prefer to question the data, given its source, which is FOX News.

The data is incomplete, but I am not castigating the coroners for not doing something they are not required to do.

[alexava 6,973]

I don't see it that way. I do not believe race is the central issue. Policing with excessive force is the real issue. Why do you wish to make this about race? What is your agenda?

No, the media is framing this as police using excessive force against black people. There's countless people who constantly get in front of a camera and bring up race when talking about these cases on tv. Go look up news articles from any website and you'll see somewhere in the articles about the fact that a "white cop kills unarmed black man" or the distortion of "white cop kills unarmed black teen". Michael Brown was portayed as just a teen like he was somehow this innocent little kid that was gunned down. Forget that he robbed a convenience store and strong-armed the store owner before his encounter with officer Wilson. That doesn't go along with the picture the media wants to portray of how reality was.

Why are there constant news articles and new cases being dug up involving black people and the police if race isn't being used as a theme? It's not this forum or people in this forum that have made this a racial issue. It's alreay been made by everyone in the media and figureheads that are playing up the racial aspect to inflame the situation.

I guess you missed all those witty signs saying "black lives matter" at all these protests that the media love showing. Why are the crowds and protesters making it about race? I guess President Obama sees racial issues too because after the Freguson ruling, he addressed the racial aspects by talking about "past history and mistrust of law enforcement in communities of color". Why is he making it about race?

If you can't admit the obvious of what's going on or choose to be naive about the distortion the media is using by focusing on race then there's no point in even going back and forth on here. I don't think race is the reason why either Michael Brown or Eric Garner were killed by police. But everyone with a platform or an agenda in the media has made those cases into a racial issue. How's that making up stuff about the media? How's that a conspiracy theory? The media has become less fact based and more activist based by trying to portray their version of reality by injecting and inflaming tragedies to stir up racial tension.

Well put 91. I stated earlier that "the media it trying to start a race war". It has since been correctly, but repeatedly called a ridiculous claim. No the media does not intend to actually start a literal "war". The media does however emphasize the agenda with the direction they lean. That usually goes both ways depending on the outlet. I have never been a fan of Fox. The others have made me sick lately.

[AUFAN78 3,912]

"In my opinion you loose credibility when you ignore/deny the media's attempt to propagate racism. And by the way, that has zero to do with some stupid analogy. So please spare me from that elementary drivel. Plus, the analogy misses the entire point. Don't get lost homey. Focus."

Don't loose your credibility Homer. You is better then that.

Ironic isn't it. homey was critiquing everyone's use of the Queen's English long before you followed suit. I have noticed, however, with the exception of this glaring faux pas, the critiques are usually invoked only when you're "loosing" based on the lack of merit of your argument.

Kind of glaring aye?

We can't help it if you guys are too lazy to edit your posts.

Thanks for pointing out the error homey, but my hope is you'd focus on the topic and not gloat over such a meaningless misspelled word. I guess even a minor victory at this point is somehow worthwhile to you guys.

[homersapien 11,393]

Who cares where the numbers come from if they are factual. Do you deny that they are?

Seriously? The whole point is they aren't factual (in terms of making a generalized conclusion).

[homersapien 11,393]

Who cares where the numbers come from if they are factual. Do you deny that they are?

Obviously you haven't gotten the memo, PT. Anything from Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Daily KOS are all acceptable and of unquestionable integrity. Anything and EVERYTHING from conservative sites especially FOX is not.

Red herring. We are discussing data from the CDC and FBI. Read it again more carefully.

[AUFAN78 3,912]

Another opinion.,,,,,not Fox.

http://www.realclear...uth_124882.html

Whether you use Fox numbers or the Real Clear numbers, the same picture is painted and it is not the one portrayed by the MSM. And that my friends is the real point.

[homersapien 11,393]

Your opinion on both fronts is duly noted. Reckon we need more govt regulation?

I must tell you however, Im not buying your denial of my hunch

I think more detail on circumstances surrounding homicides on coroners' reports would be helpful.

Feel free to point it out if I fail to scrutinize the numbers from sources you don't like in the future.

Clearly you believe the coroners cover for the police..correct? I don't think that is a legitimate argument, personally.

As for numbers you may post, frankly, I don't read enough of your posts to be overly concerned about your sources.

Good Grief. :-\ Classic Blue Vue tactics.

[homersapien 11,393]

Clearly you believe the coroners cover for the police..correct? I don't think that is a legitimate argument, personally.

As for numbers you may post, frankly, I don't read enough of your posts to be overly concerned about your sources.

No. I do not think there is any nefarious intent when the coroners report does not reflect the circumstances surrounding the death.

OK then why the objection to the data from the CDC? You said it was because the coroners were not compelled to report the deaths were a result of police shootings. If you dont think the coroners are covering for the police, what is it about those reports that compels you to question their integrity?

My objection is not with the report itself. My objection is to the conclusion reached with incomplete data.

Well, you're operating on the assumption that the data is either incomplete or lacks integrity. Again, my assumption to counter yours is, if this report had been filed in Mother Jones or Huffington your doubts would have been immediately assuaged. Thats all. The coroners do a thorough job. Your doubts, IMO, about the completeness of their efforts, are simply aspersions being cast because you prefer to question the data, given its source, which is FOX News.

I am starting to see your problem here. The source of the data was not Fox News.

[homersapien 11,393]

"In my opinion you loose credibility when you ignore/deny the media's attempt to propagate racism. And by the way, that has zero to do with some stupid analogy. So please spare me from that elementary drivel. Plus, the analogy misses the entire point. Don't get lost homey. Focus."

Don't loose your credibility Homer. You is better then that.

Ironic isn't it. homey was critiquing everyone's use of the Queen's English long before you followed suit. I have noticed, however, with the exception of this glaring faux pas, the critiques are usually invoked only when you're "loosing" based on the lack of merit of your argument.

Kind of glaring aye?

We can't help it if you guys are too lazy to edit your posts.

Thanks for pointing out the error homey, but my hope is you'd focus on the topic and not gloat over such a meaningless misspelled word. I guess even a minor victory at this point is somehow worthwhile to you guys.

I didn't point out the error nor am I "gloating" over a miss-spelled word. I constantly make typos (which I usually take the time to correct).

I am making fun of your and Blue's reaction to it.