mywan

This article was linked elsewhere where I provided a explanation of why it differs from other studies.

https://np.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/comments/4saj54/surprising_new_evidence_shows_bias_in_police_use/d583n0z

Further down I explain, in detail, how a trap box works. Something defense attorneys nee to be very aware of.

Basically the difference is that in the study you quoted they didn't count the number of interactions police have with blacks relative to the black population. They merely counted the number of interactions with blacks that resulted in shootings verses the number of whites, and other races, that resulted in shootings. It's an entirely different metric that doesn't even count how much more likely blacks are forced into interactions with police.

That police are almost as likely to shoot non-black people they interact with just shows that police are more likely to interact with people are are suspicious of, and shoot those people they are suspicious of with fairly closely the same regularity. It doesn't even try to include the interaction ratios that show how much more likely a black person interacts with police simply because the officer thought the color of their skin made them suspicious.

I also explained, in the above link, how in the cops mind what they are triggering on is socioeconomic status, rather than race. Then implicitly assuming the color of their skin is an indicator of socioeconomic status. Hence they (mostly) aren't trying to be racist even if they are.

Given the time I've spent being homeless making a living from dumpster diving, mainly aluminum cans, food, and some durable goods, people really do need to better understand their own trash. Even the mail thrown in the dumpster at lawyers offices were uprising. I also collected computer from dumpsters and kept connected with the computers I built from parts. Some of those computers had complete tax records for entire families with no missing bits of information. People worry about hackers but are completely oblivious to what they dump in the trash.

Said what? The question got deleted :/

When you headline your report “Russia loses territory in Kherson Oblast” it implies that Russia HAD territory in Kherson Oblast, which it didn’t — Kherson Oblast is a part of Ukraine.

For better or worse this is not a battle you can win in western media. We understand that Russia has no claim to anything in Ukraine, including Crimea. The Budapest Memorandum alone makes that clear. Ukraine has inspired the entire world because Ukraine is standing up and fighting righteously in an unjust war without faltering in fear or politics. We also know that support is being hampered by more calculating leaders around the world. Your success will bring tears of happiness to countless people around the world. Not because of how we parse the word “HAD,” But because Ukrainians have stood up strong in an unjust war.

Even if the west was fighting this war on our own land the news would still use “HAD” in the same way after every battle. At least in the English speaking nations. And that would in no way imply that Russia had some claim to our land, even momentarily. I suspect it simply has a slightly altered connotation when translated.

I also know that Ukraine must fight for hearts and minds as much as the war itself. But Ukraine is doing the best job imaginable in that respect as well. The world is awaiting your victory. If a lot of leaders are playing a more cautious game understand that you don't have to submit to every expectation that might hamper your war effort as long as basic justifiable rules of engagement are followed. Otherwise do what you have to do and be proud of having the backbone to do it. The semantics of “HAD” isn't going to make a difference.

How do you feel about the goals of those who killed your father then and now?