The blm movement is going to be remembered as one of society's largest scale incidents of mass hysteria built on overt lies and hatred. By nature of their support, hundreds of thousands of otherwise good people are socially endorsing the violence that arises from these hateful "causes" based on utter fabrications.
The definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Whether you support their cause or not, both blm and antifa as organizations fit the literal definition of terrorism. If you don't call them that yourself, that's fine, until recently neither did the American government, but merely saying that they aren't terrorists because you might think they have a reason for their actions is a subjective opinion on something that is otherwise an objective fact. blm/antifa and their supporters are responsible for a great number of increasingly violent attacks in recent years targeted towards opposing views (namely white people and Trump supporters), where they've earned the ire that's currently directed towards them. It's time we collectively began to address these left-wing extremists for what they truly are.
black lives matter as both an organization and as a "social statement" were founded primarily on the basis of "systemic racism" and "police brutality". Both of which have very little merit outside of left-wing echochambers, with almost all of its messaging crumbling under the slightest bit of scrutiny (if it's supporters ever bothered to scrutinize what they are being indoctrinated by).
"Systemic racism" is a catch-all term for any and everything to do with race, applied ad hoc to whatever scenarios people would like changed, whether that's in the public and private school systems, our systems of law and the histories of great nations. No legal definition or even standard application of the word has been decided, and everyone has their own variation on what the word means. And yet, governmental bodies themselves and people are changing the way we act, talk and think in order to combat this vague THEORY (and I stress that word).
"Police brutality" has been a term applied to virtually any instance of law enforcement being applied with force (and sometimes even without it), specifically and especially in regards to any crime committed by someone of the black community. Repeated study after study of police shootings has disputed any notion of "racism" being a factor in police shootings, and yet the stereotype of "evil, racist police" continues to spread. Some studies have even shown the opposite to be true, that white officers are less likely to shoot black suspects, and adjusted for ratios in crime and population white suspects are more likely to be shot by cops (various studies to follow below). And yet, every time a black person is killed by police, regardless of whether or not they were resisting arrest or actively trying to hurt or kill other people, the "police brutality" and "racism" cards have been pulled to demonize lawful shootings to undermine the faith citizens have in their police and government.
Here are some facts and statistics (or what would probably be considered the real enemy to the blm movement...the truth).
In American cops make about 10,000,000 arrests a year. Those ten million arrests don't include detentions, traffic stops or any of the other peaceful public interactions that make up the remaining approximately 60,000,000 police and citizen contact every year. On average per year, only about 1,000 of those 70 MILLION people interacted with end up dead due to police. Yet, people act like their chances of dying at the hands of a cop are anything but minuscule. The entire blm narrative is built on the foundation of "police brutality" and "racism" that simply isn't reflected in reality.
We're not even going to begin to discuss how many of those 1,000 people killed by cops each year are armed and dangerous (which is the majority of cases), or how many of them aren’t black (also the majority). It's also important to note that in police reporting "unarmed" does not mean "not violent". We can even assume, for the sake of argument, that none of those 1,000 police killings each year are justified (even though the vast majority of them are). The ratio of unarmed black men shot and killed (23) in 2018 was 1 out of 67,334 black men arrested. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting, there were 686,665 sworn police officers in the United States in 2018. That’s one unarmed black male shot and killed for every 49,047 sworn police officers. Out of the nearly 47.8 million black Americans, the police have shot roughly one unarmed black male per roughly 2.1 million people.
The inevitable conversation that follows is that black people only represent 14% of the US population, how is it that they make up such a high number of overall police deaths**.** blm and it's supporters would like to propagate the idea that it's racism. Which fortunately has little factual basis in this topic. This is where we need to have those brutal, honest conversations that everyone claims to want to have regarding race (silence is violence after all), but nobody is actually allowed to discuss without being banned, canceled or called a racist nazi.
In the US, the American black population represents 53% of convicted murders, 29% of rapes, 54% of robberies, 33% of assaults, 43% of weapons charges, 29% of domestic abuse and 27% of drug abuse violations among others (continuing to over index in almost all areas of remaining crime). The vast majority of these crimes were conducted by males, meaning that half of the violent crime in America is committed by less than the roughly 6-7% of black men in the US. It's not only understandable but expected that there would be a higher degree of violence involved in these arrests, as usually the type of person that's being arrested for murder isn't likely to go without a fight, nor would they like to spend their lives in prison. Ignoring these facts is tantamount to delusion.
Almost all studies that conclude that black people are killed disproportionately fail to factor in crime rates into their models, whether on purpose to reach a desired conclusion or via a poor scientific process. Those are very relevant statistics that cannot be ignored when discussing police interactions with black people, nor can they be discarded in studies, as they help to explain why there is a disparity between the black population and arrests/deaths. Many who like to dismiss these figures do so by doing what they always do, and cry "racism", whether it's the mere use of these statistics or in the very core of every single arrest that makes up the data.
But simply hand-waving away the reason that there are so many violent interactions between the black community and the police due to "racism" is disingenuous and deliberate. The reasons behind those crime rates and why the black community is plagued by crime are extraordinarily complicated, and very well may contain elements of race and racism reaching back decades (such as the Welfare system and Jim Crow laws), but that’s an entirely separate conversation for another day unrelated to the premise of "police brutality towards blacks". The fact of the matter is, the black community has and will continue to have problems with overwhelming violence without real intervention, and its these problems that lead to further violent interactions with police.
Keeping the aforementioned statistics in mind, each year, American cops kill more white people, both in raw numbers and when adjusted for crime rates, than black people (note: the study has since been retracted due to public inference, however, the data included remains valid, even more studies with similar findings below). Only roughly .009% of all arrests ended with a civilian death regardless of race, and for every 10 deadly weapon assaults on a police officer there was as a result of 1 fatal police shooting, or in other words, even in encounters with deadly weapons police will only fatally shoot about 10% of the time. In fact, research done by the National Police Research Platform, only roughly 27% of those 680,000+ officers report ever even firing their gun on duty (which doesn't specifically entail actually shooting someone either, just the fact that they've shot their weapon). And yet the narrative of blood thirsty police persists.
Contrary to the black lives matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police.In 2015, black civil-rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow famously defended the police by acknowledging that a police officer is roughly 18.5x more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer, a number that's been repeated ad nauseam and is roughly supported by statistics year after year (it lowers to roughly 2.5x more likely for a cop to be killed by armed black males than the reverse). Factually, black males have made up nearly 50 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade even though they are only 6-7% of the overall population.
White people make up roughly over 50% of known race homicide victims, with caucasians representing roughly 76% of the total US population. Black people were 45% of known race homicide victims, but only 13% of the population. Which means the homicide rate for blacks was 3.5x their percentage of the US population, making them over five times as likely to be homicide victims.
According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 study, 15.3% of violent crimes against whites were committed by blacks for a total of 547,948 crimes, with violent black offenders being 1.8x their percent of the population. In contrast, whites committed 10.6% of violent crimes against blacks for a total of 59,777 crimes, making up 0.8x their percentage of the population. But of violent crime against black people, 70% of the time the offender was reported by the victim themselves as black, which is supportive of the epidemic of black-on-black violence increasing across the country. The offender to victim ratio shows that violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was twice the percentage of black victims (11%).
Hate crime statistics actually show that in recent years, anti-black incidents overall fell to a recent record low share of all hate crime, while anti-white and other races have seen increases in hate crime towards them. Meanwhile hate crimes committed by black offenders continues to increase year over year, reaching a high of 24% of all reported hate crimes despite making up only 14% of the population. In major cities such as New York, black perpetrators make up the majority of hate crimes towards Jewish and LGBT people, again, despite the narrative that says black people are society's current victims of discrimination.
People need to stop acting like, just because they’re black, they’ll die if they interact with the cops or that white people are targeting black people with racism and hatred. Of course in a country of hundreds of millions of people there is going to be anti-black racism. But it certainly isn't to the degree in which activists like to perpetuate, such as it being a public health crisis. Statistics simply do not reflect any reality in which this absurdity is true, unless a concentrated effort is put into disqualifying and discounting data that opposes the narrative. If anything, the crime data, statistics on police shootings and the general modern societal zeitgeist would suggest an active and ongoing discrimination against whites. But hey, that's another topic for another day isn't it.
The questions that decent human beings need to seriously ask themselves in regards to police is, are you committing crimes? Are you going to resist if the cops try to arrest you? I would hope not for both of those questions. In 2020, there's no excuse for that level of ignorance. Therefore, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are virtually zero. But, the best part is, even if you are committing crimes and resisting arrest, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are still virtually zero, regardless of your skin color or particular demographic.That's the statistical fact. No matter how many slogans are chanted or how many times ACAB is gratified onto buildings, it doesn't suddenly mean the police are out to kill anyone.
The gaslighting from the media and the blm supporters claim that the violent actions of a "few" rioters do not represent most of the "peaceful group" (a courtesy not extended to the legitimately mostly peaceful police). The left-leaning Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project reports that in the summer of 2020 alone (not including the continued riots in September) there were 7,750+ demonstrations related to blm. Of those, over 1000 included some sort of assault on police and/or bystanders, arson or looting but yet were not declared riots.
Over 570 of those "peaceful protests" in 220 locations turned violent to the degree that they were declared riots. That's 570+ "mostly peaceful protests" barely covered by mainstream news, that seemingly most supporters of blm refuse to acknowledge even occurred, which included an estimated $2 billion dollars in damages (most of which isn't covered by insurance, done to local family businesses, many black owned), along with a few dozen related fatalities (including targeted, accidental and incidental, more to follow below) and countless incidents of arson, looting and assault against bystanders and police. ACLED also stated that of those demonstrations, only 5% of them have been met with force by police, which is obviously roughly the same percentage of "protests" that become violent riots.
Only of course the media and blm supporters would like you to believe that police (by way of "fascist" Trump) are arresting and attacking "peaceful protesters utilizing their 'freedom of speech'", which couldn't be further from the truth. The freedom of speech was designed to protect people from those who think violence is the solution to democratic problems. Inciting violence was written in as an exception to the amendment, in part so that people couldn't use strength against others to assert beliefs. There's legal and historical precedence for proper "freedom of speech" and "freedom to protest", and nobody should care about the personal interpretations of rioters and terrorists on those fundamental freedoms.
And yet here we are, in a society where the mainstream media, an extraordinarily vocal minority of citizens, multinational billion dollar businesses donating hundreds of millions to the cause that partially goes to fund rioters' bail from jail after arrests (multiple criminals who then went on to commit other murders), celebrities and sports teams are all siding with blm over blatantly false lies and misinformation. All the while supporting the notion that black people are being "oppressed and victimized". None of their opinions on equality, inclusive ideologies and the freedom of speech, actually extends to the mostly peaceful police officers, towards white people, or any other demographic that condemns these actions (such as the increasing number of liberals leaving the party #WalkAway, or the various minority groups now increasingly supporting Trump). People need to forgo emotional arguments for rational analysis, stop confusing correlation with causation, and understand the impact of confounding variables and their own bias in these discussions.
Because what is happening is society and the Regressive Left is fostering an environment based on hate in the name of acceptance, including the willful return of Segregation, Affirmative Action and identity politics based on race, the demand for reparations (despite the Welfare system predominately geared towards blacks, having spent $22 TRILLION in the past 50 years towards poverty, costing 3 times as much as all of America's wars since the Revolution), special considerations in academia (like lowered admission standards or testing requirements, even though more money is spent on additional education funding for black students than any other race, and racial quotas hurting Asian Americans), the desire to rid society of capitalism (while hypocritically selling copious amounts of branded merchandise), two parent households (which has now quietly been removed due to criticism) and the abolishment of police and prisons. Democrats and blm leaders have continually called for public violence, including attacks on police and white folks, with the demonization of white people as a sub-human race and as racist demons.
Compound this with the contrasting fact that nearly 80% of the black community not only disagrees with the notion of defunding the police, but a significant portion would like to see either the same amount or more police presence in their neighborhoods. As anyone who grew up in a crime ridden black community knows (such as myself), a lack of policing only hurts the people that soft-bellied liberals claim to want to help. If any of the organizations and rioters actually cared about black lives mattering, then they would be focusing on the real tragedies occurring within their own communities. Such as the uncontrolled black-on-black violence, drug use and absentee fathers, and not whatever viral case makes the news in order to further the political agenda. The black community that actually deals with the rampant violence and gangs realize that defunding police is tantamount to forfeiting their lives and the lives of loved ones.
If the two tenants of the blm and antifa supporters are based on "systemic racism" and "police brutality" and both are built on misinformation and lies, then what are all of the riots, looting, arson and murder actually for? Why as a society have we both allowed and endorsed these horrific actions to the point of normalcy? Why is it so difficult for liberals to disavow the actual closest things our generation has seen to Nazism?
Why does the violence inspired by the "blm cause" not count as extremism other than social bias of the people who believe in it (despite glaringly obvious examples that say otherwise)? Defenders would like to argue that just because these killers and anarchists believed in the blm narrative, doesn't mean they have killed all those cops or Trump supporters specifically for blm. And just because people aren't card carrying members of antifa, then obviously they aren't rioting specifically for antifa...it's all just a magical coincidence that they buy their branded t-shirts and wave their affiliated flags.
But yet, if an individual police officer happens to kill a black man in the line of duty, that's somehow representative of all officers and "systemic racism" according to these same groups. We wouldn't excuse this type of behavior if it had been done in the name of ISIS. We wouldn't judge an act of terrorism on whether or not it's followers actually traveled to Syria before stabbing someone in the throat. Like logical, intelligent human beings we would determine their guilt via their extremist beliefs and horrific actions, which at this point is undeniable despite the feverish attempts to deny virtually all of it (a relatively small list compared to all incidents of blm and antifa inspired attacks to follow).
When we have such divergent attitudes in the way the very cultures and people of various races approach life, are we still feigning surprise that there's a difference in terms of wealth, crime, education, economic or job status between races? Eventually we need to be honest and look at how people actually behave and how society functions, instead of playing pretend and arguing about microagressions and white fragility.
Allowing this toxic blm rhetoric continue in this state for political reasons is entirely the opposite of being respectful of other views and is a direct attack on democracy. The sheer unfathomable damage done for this "cause" will go down in history as one of the worst decisions our society has ever inflicted upon itself perpetuated by the willful ideological delusion of one political side and its ever increasingly unstable base. If there are any blm supporters still reading this, I implore you to reconsider your stance. You can be against racism and support the real black community without endorsing the hate and lies of the blm organization. There is no requirement to martyr violent criminals just because they died while being black.
Please. If you're honestly trying to do what's best for society and the real black families adversely affected, ensure you're not on the wrong side of history while doing it.
****
Edit: Please feel free to copy and paste this information where you see fit, I know not everyone interested in these conversations wants to do the leg-work and a lot of the discussions revert back to the same topics (crime rates, demographics, studies, etc). And rather than "own" a stupid Reddit post, I would rather see more people discussing the realities of this situation with the most concrete information.
****
2019 Study from Michigan State University and the University of Maryland via the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings" and "Examination of National Violent Death Reporting System data shows racial differences across types of fatal shootings. Black civilians fatally shot by police (relative to White civilians) are more likely to be unarmed and less likely to pose an immediate threat to officers. In contrast, White civilians (relative to Black civilians) are nearly three times more likely to be fatally shot by police when the incident is related to mental-health concerns and are seven times more likely to commit 'suicide by cop'".
Bonus points: the Vice President of Research & Innovation at Michigan was forced to resign partially due to his contrary findings that stated there was no racism in police shootings, which was among his other "racist science" that some faculty and students found offensive.
2018 Study from Michigan State and Arizona State University concluded: "When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. Multiverse analyses showed only one significant anti-Black disparity of 144 possible tests. Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for Blacks, at least when analyzing all shootings. For unarmed shootings or misidentification shootings, data are too uncertain to be conclusive."
2016 Study from Washington State University via American Society of Criminology concluded: "We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects."
2016 Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."
2018 Follow-up Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "In stark contrast, Fryer (forthcoming) finds that, conditional on a police interaction, there are no racial differences in OIS on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where I have both OIS and a randomly chosen set of interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified but was not used – I find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics. Investigating the intensive margin – who shoots first in an encounter with police or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences."
2018 Study from Rutgars University and Kookmin University and Purdue College concluded: "This article aims to answer this question: are white police officers more likely to use lethal force on minority suspects or people of a specific race? To answer this question, the authors construct a data set of all confirmed uses of lethal force by police officers in the United States in 2014 and 2015. They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers"
2016 Study from the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation, Curtin University, University of Columbia found: "On average, an estimated 34 people were killed or medically treated for injury by law enforcement per 10 000 stops/arrests. That ratio is surprisingly consistent by race/ethnicity. Blacks have high arrest and stop rates, and per capita are much more likely than whites to die at the hands of police. However, when blacks are stopped or arrested, they are no more likely than whites to be injured or die during that incident.Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites, and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates. A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation. However, one study found blacks were more likely than whites to face force during compliance checks. The PPCS survey also found that blacks were more likely to experience physical force and to perceive the threat of force during a stop, although few respondents actually were injured by the force applied. The large majority of incidents that those stopped perceived as undue force was stops where officers shouted at or threatened people, presumably to deter resistance."
