Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
182
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

182 Views
Message 71 of 264

And the racism by the left continues evidenced by this thread.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
182
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
166
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

166 Views
Message 72 of 264

@rk9152 wrote:

As to lazy - when one puts up a headline, it usually conveys the message they intend. Others should not be required to delve deep into the stats to get the real meaning. I do not object to "delving". I am commenting on the purpose behind the headline in the first place.


The headline tends to be misleading.  Both the one used here and in the Washington Post.  More media hype sensationalism than actually being truthful by detailing the circumstances.  As is, two impressions can be had; one that police is engaging in senseless killing and second that someone is trying to deprecate law enforcement.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
166
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
162
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

162 Views
Message 73 of 264

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


 


If very, very few are inappropriate and the headline says "over 899" - that is dishonest..

 


The title says "the police have killed 899".   It does NOT say they have killed 899 'inappropiately".  So no, the topic is not dishonest. It is dishonest to say that it means something that it doesn't.

 

To make the desired point it would be more honest to address the inappropriate ones. After all, is that not the point - not to celebrate the heroic actions of the police killing people but to object to those who should not have been killed.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
162
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
155
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

155 Views
Message 74 of 264

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

The list inaccurately paints a negative picture of the police.

Not if one actually looks at the data base instead of just a total number. That's why links are provided to look at the information in data base.  I know that must be confusing for conservatives and so-called independents.


Why put up a misleading headline and require digging down into the data and making your own lists to determine the truth?

 

It is obviously intended to convey a false impression. 


Why is the truth a "misleading headline" to you? That was the total number of people the police had killed when the topic was posted. Now it is 937. Nothing but laziness prevents a person from looking at the data to determine why. Are conservatives that lazy?


My dad killed a man.  Should we think harshly of him, after all, it is a fact.

 

As to lazy - when one puts up a headline, it usually conveys the message they intend. Others should not be required to delve deep into the stats to get the real meaning. I do not object to "delving". I am commenting on the purpose behind the headline in the first place.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
155
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
173
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

173 Views
Message 75 of 264

@rk9152 wrote:


 


If very, very few are inappropriate and the headline says "over 899" - that is dishonest..

 


The title says "the police have killed 899".   It does NOT say they have killed 899 'inappropiately".  So no, the topic is not dishonest. It is dishonest to say that it means something that it doesn't.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
173
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
159
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

159 Views
Message 76 of 264

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

The list inaccurately paints a negative picture of the police.

Not if one actually looks at the data base instead of just a total number. That's why links are provided to look at the information in data base.  I know that must be confusing for conservatives and so-called independents.


Why put up a misleading headline and require digging down into the data and making your own lists to determine the truth?

 

It is obviously intended to convey a false impression. 


Why is the truth a "misleading headline" to you? That was the total number of people the police had killed when the topic was posted. Now it is 937. Nothing but laziness prevents a person from looking at the data to determine why. Are conservatives that lazy?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
159
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
163
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

163 Views
Message 77 of 264

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

To those here who disgustingly and erroneously call others here "police hater": 

 

Have you looked at the data in this data base? Have you looked at the methodology used in compiling this data base? There is a link to the methodology used and separate links to each year back to and including 2015. It is quite complete, much more complete than the police data base that contains just over half of actual fatalities. The data base is quite complete, listing complete circumstances of each incident, the race sex and age of each victim, whether or not they were armed (many were completely unarmed), what they were armed with, etc. etc.  It is an excellent source to educate one's self about the proper and improper actions taken by police across our nation.

 

Do those who call others here police haters also call those who create and update this data base "police haters"? If so ........ why?

 

The "police hater" comment is baiting, slandering, hateful, attacking, totally unjustified and in my opinion only one obsessed with hate would use such a term.


The list is used to convey an erroneous impression of police officers. No, the "list" does not.  The "list" shows each incident and all of it's circumstances for anyone with intelligence to read and discern if any killing was necessary or not. The vast majority are. If you interpret the data base to "convey an erroneous impression", it's in your own mind. If there are unjustified shootings - by all means expose them. Many of those shot and killed were unarmed, yes the data base exposes that, but the data base is not "used to convey an erroneous impression of the police". But to lump them all together only offers the opportunity to those who desire to do so (for whatever reason) to show police in a bad light. Sorry you "lump them all together" instead of differentiating by the detailed information provided.   You see .......... You are the one "lumping them all together", not the data base nor the person who posted this data base here.


 


We'll have to agree to disagee. When individual cases are brought up - that has real meaning as to real happenings. Of course...... there are over 900 "rael happenings", not jsut those you want to cherry-pick. My point exactly - you want to use the large number to convey an inaccurate impression. The list inaccurately paints a negative picture of the police.  No, it doesn't.  You choose to see it as you choose to do. If very, very few are inappropriate and the headline says "over 899" - that is dishonest..


 


 


Yes, it is a dishonest use of numbers. Facts are fact's, but not to those who support trump......."had the biggest crowd"..... ...and anytime he quotes a number.....trump supporters claiming a "dishonest use of numbers".......bawahahaha....

 

Image result for lmao gif

 

 


 


And there it is - the silly picture and the giggle.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
163
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
144
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

144 Views
Message 78 of 264

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

The list inaccurately paints a negative picture of the police.

Not if one actually looks at the data base instead of just a total number. That's why links are provided to look at the information in data base.  I know that must be confusing for conservatives and so-called independents.


Why put up a misleading headline and require digging down into the data and making your own lists to determine the truth?

 

Chas, it's quite telling that facts are "misleading" to those in trumps, alternative reality.  Some just prefer whining over the truth....

 

It is obviously intended to distort the facts.....My point about the topic exactly.

 

Why not just stick to silly pictures and giggling. There is no defense of this obvious attack on our police officers.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
144
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
148
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

148 Views
Message 79 of 264

Yes, it is a dishonest use of numbers.  For some reason this poster seems to have a need to disparage the Police.  Noted...  And, other "groups" as well.  His focus on "Subsets" of people is very easy to spot and interpret.  Bitterness about something I suppose.

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
148
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
158
Views

Re: 18 is Almost Over & Police Have Killed Over 899 So Far

158 Views
Message 80 of 264

@jimc91 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

To those here who disgustingly and erroneously call others here "police hater": 

 

Have you looked at the data in this data base? Have you looked at the methodology used in compiling this data base? There is a link to the methodology used and separate links to each year back to and including 2015. It is quite complete, much more complete than the police data base that contains just over half of actual fatalities. The data base is quite complete, listing complete circumstances of each incident, the race sex and age of each victim, whether or not they were armed (many were completely unarmed), what they were armed with, etc. etc.  It is an excellent source to educate one's self about the proper and improper actions taken by police across our nation.

 

Do those who call others here police haters also call those who create and update this data base "police haters"? If so ........ why?

 

The "police hater" comment is baiting, slandering, hateful, attacking, totally unjustified and in my opinion only one obsessed with hate would use such a term.


The list is used to convey an erroneous impression of police officers. No, the "list" does not.  The "list" shows each incident and all of it's circumstances for anyone with intelligence to read and discern if any killing was necessary or not. The vast majority are. If you interpret the data base to "convey an erroneous impression", it's in your own mind. If there are unjustified shootings - by all means expose them. Many of those shot and killed were unarmed, yes the data base exposes that, but the data base is not "used to convey an erroneous impression of the police". But to lump them all together only offers the opportunity to those who desire to do so (for whatever reason) to show police in a bad light. Sorry you "lump them all together" instead of differentiating by the detailed information provided.   You see .......... You are the one "lumping them all together", not the data base nor the person who posted this data base here.


 


We'll have to agree to disagee. When individual cases are brought up - that has real meaning as to real happenings. Of course...... there are over 900 "rael happenings", not jsut those you want to cherry-pick. My point exactly - you want to use the large number to convey an inaccurate impression. The list inaccurately paints a negative picture of the police.  No, it doesn't.  You choose to see it as you choose to do. If very, very few are inappropriate and the headline says "over 899" - that is dishonest..


 


 


Yes, it is a dishonest use of numbers. Facts are fact's, but not to those who support trump......."had the biggest crowd"..... ...and anytime he quotes a number.....trump supporters claiming a "dishonest use of numbers".......bawahahaha....

 

Image result for lmao gif

 

 


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
158
Views