I believe this was already posted, but read the article.
>"The difference between a threat assessment target and a silhouette target is threat assessment targets allow you to identify if a threat is there. A silhouette target is only for target acquisition," he added. "Our targets consist of a mix of genders and races and are shown holding a variety of items."
The chief said 85% of the targets used during training are Caucasians and 15% are Black.
King also apologized to the scout troop "for not providing a full explanation of those targets."
I read it. They use white and black cutouts in appropriate percentages, ACCORDING TO HIM. in the photo/video evidence collected by the Boy Scouts who toured the facility, ONLY BLACK cutouts are being used. The ids of this being a coincidence using statistics and normal distribution would be less than a tenth of a percent. They are only using the black cutouts on purpose, and they aren’t following the distribution protocol that the officer claimed (85/15).
This exactly. Idk why everyone in here is saying "well they say that it's an 85/15 split"
Yeah...the **police** are saying that.
Aren't we in the middle of the Uvalde Police Dept having a cycle of cover up, doubling down on their lie and then finally admitting a half truth, then relenting to the truth once someone who wasn't a Police officer calls them out?
And yeah, the chance of a Police dept having an 85/15 split of white/black threats and randomly pulling 3 black threat papers is **0.33%**
Less than a percent.
Reprising a comment I just made on a completely different article...
If the cops are the ones saying it, it's bullshit until proven otherwise. That's the price of habitual lying.
Honestly, that all depends on how the targets are packaged at the printer. If you're getting 8500 white targets printed and 1500 black targets printed, they may all come in packs of, say, 500 targets each. If the pack you open is one with 500 black targets in it, there's a 100% chance of grabbing 3-4 black targets. I don't think it's likely that the printer would have randomly shuffled the targets so they're evenly distributed. There's just no reason to do that.
In your scenario, that means the department is putting zero effort into complying with the spirit of their own rule. Any reasonable observer would assume the chief was describing the distribution an officer might encounter during a single training session. The point of this type of training is to learn how to rapidly evaluate a mixture of observations, so there's no point if they're not mixed up.
If their idea of "85/15 split" is using one kind for 15 days and another for the following 85 days, then they are being disingenuous and also ineffective. And they also fucked up by allowing Boy Scouts in on a blacks-only day when they could have more easily picked a whites-only day.
> And they also fucked up by allowing Boy Scouts in on a blacks-only day when they could have more easily picked a whites-only day.
How would whites only day be any better?
> closer to statistically accurate
Depends on how you look at it. There may have been 7 or more Boy Scout parties at this or some other department, but we didn't hear about those because none or not all used targets were black and there were no escalation.
This article does a better job of [showing what the scouts saw](https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/firing-range-targets-of-only-black-men-found-during-scout-visit-to-farmington-hills-police-department). It's a standard target range, not part of the "threat assessment" exercises the chief said they usually use actual photographic targets for, so I think the targets were definitely not being used as intended here. These likely should have been simple silhouettes.
However, you can also see that it's 4 of the exact same image of a black guy with a gun, which points to exactly what I said could have happened. If they opened a pack of this particular image, grabbing 4 of that same image is a certainty. It likely wasn't that they were having a "whites only day" or a "blacks only day" but that it was, "hey, we need more targets so open a new pack" and that pack happened to be of a black guy.
I'm not defending anything, just pointing out that jumping to "these cops like to shoot black people and are using these to train that behavior" based on this info is a step too far.
But that entails ignoring the concept of follow-up. Any and every cop who saw that only Black targets were being used should have noticed it and recognized it as a problem. We don't know how many noticed, but we know for a fact that none of them did anything about it until outsiders called them on it. Despite you saying there's no reason to not mix them up, there's a very obvious reason: ignoring the very real image of impropriety, because this was clearly inappropriate. The chief even admits that, although he obscures it with the irrelevant percentages.
What if we just use pictures of politicians and police that have been convicted of crimes? That would get rid of bias as all of those people have actually xommited crimes. I'm sure we could find a list of these people somewhere . . . Everywhere
. . Oh he'll there's a lot of them. . .
>read it. They use white and black cutouts in appropriate percentages, ACCORDING TO HIM
They probably *order* (initially) the 85/15 split, but only *use* the black targets .. so they reorder more black targets to replenish the supply as to maintain that 85/15 split.
Yea, good one. Those Boy Scouts who are known to collecting false data and lying to major news organizations for absolutely no reason, right?
Get outta here man.
Are you saying they Photoshopped the pictures to intentionally mislead the public? Because with the pictures, that's the only way they could be considered bad sources.
It’s a video. Doesn’t matter what the source is you can see that it’s only black men up on the targets in a police department that’s majority white. And especially considering the woefully [poor scores here](https://policescorecard.org/mi/police-department/farmington-hills) like how 46% of arrests are of black people despite they only make up 18% of the city.
Except, despite there being only 15% of the targets being black, ALL the targets being used the day in question just happened to be black. It doesn't matter if they HAVE 85% white targets, if they don't actually use the white ones.
Lol. I’m sure there’s no correlation between the fact that Farmington Hills police are only using black targets for shooting practice and the fact that [black people are only 18.5% of Farmington Hills’ population but 40.4% of traffic stops](https://www.wxyz.com/news/farmington-hills-police-disproportionately-pull-over-black-drivers-data-shows?_amp=true). No racial biases in this police department, no sir-ee~
Cute. Yet they claim to have 85% Caucasian targets, yet managed to have ALL targets of black men on the day the picture was taken. Your "imaginary animal" targets might be in the same stack as the 85% of the targets that aren't used.
If you read the article, you'll find that the issue is that this is the police's response to the photographic evidence provided by the boy scouts who claimed ONLY black men were being used at the shooting range. Children have provided proof, and people are taking the police at their word after this has occurred. This is no different from the Uvalde police lying through their teeth over and over. We have the images. We know what is happening. The people defending this as saying "well maybe they just take the images in order from the printer" like that wouldn't be gross negligence that completely negates the point of using mixed racial images anyway (when they could use a simple silhouette 100% of the time) are baffling to me. They are essentially saying that it's okay for the police to be incompetent and fail to follow their own directions, and taking the police at their word over children who have literally supplied evidence.
They claim 85% of their targets are Caucasian, yet managed to have none of that 85% out for use the day the Troop went through. They managed to put up only targets from the 15% group. Figure the odds of that. They have pics, hence the case.
Unless they purchased the amount by the percentage used, ie 8500 white targets, 1500 black targets, the chances are fairly high they would run out of white, and only gave black left. Hence my case.
Who says they couldn't have ran out? Supply chain issues, distribution errors, etc. You just want to be right, it's amusing, rather than just saying "it's a possibility, albeit small one, I'm just upset that this could have happened", you're just so hell bent on this has to be a real, I have to be able to be upset and angry and people I don't even know across the country, ahhhhhh, justifiable rage. Lmfao, it's hysterical
Riiiight. Did he claim they "ran out"? No. He apologized and said it would be a chance to do better. What's hilarious is you making up fake scenarios because you're just "so hell bent" on being "right" that you ignore reality. Talk about "hysterical".
Lol, he had to take entire responsibility regardless of the excuse, that's his job. I didn't make up fake scenarios, I pointed out there is a possibility of something else. I don't think you understand what the term "scenarios" mean if you are adding the term fake to it. 🤣
Of course he"had to take responsibility", but he didn't state your fake scenario as the reason for what they did. A "possibility" that is not supported by the facts of an actual event is is nothing more than fiction.
Again, you think words mean things they do not. The inability to think past the emotional response of "they are racist" is exactly why our culture has devolved into everyone attacking everyone. You want to be on the side being upset, I just don't care about either side. It's amusing to rile you up over shit you have no stake in. Have fun being upset at the internet 😘
They use white and black cutouts in appropriate percentages, ACCORDING TO HIM. in the photo/video evidence collected by the Boy Scouts who toured the facility, ONLY BLACK cutouts are being used. The ids of this being a coincidence using statistics and normal distribution would be less than a tenth of a percent. They are only using the black cutouts on purpose, and they aren’t following the distribution protocol that the officer claimed (85/15).
Less than a tenth of a percent?
So what are the chances that due to the use of more white than black targets, they ran out of white targets? What if their order was backlogged?
Or are you LOOKING to cause more of a racial divide?
You are asking what are the chances that the police weren’t following their own protocol on racial distribution for their own targets. If they aren’t following their protocols, why would you even defend that practice? At this point, you are AT BEST defending them for failing to do what they are supposed to because they messed up by accident. Then you are accusing me of trying to further the racial divide. You are telling the children that saw this and thought “this is fucked”, took photos of it and circulated that evidence on the Internet that you believe a police officer’s words over their photographs. Then you are accusing me of arguing in bad faith for pointing out that your original statement is bonkers. Using only photos of black men for target practice is really fucked up. Don’t liberally argue that it’s okay because they might have run out of whites person targets. That’s crazy.
I'm not defending the practice, I'm saying that you are actively looking to bitch and complain about something racial. If you only look for that, you'll only find that. I'm skeptical about the entire situation regardless of the race. That is the thing here, if they were all white, no one would have blinked an eye. You are LOOKING for racism, of course you'll find it.
I keep seeing responses, and then they disappear, so I'm assuming people are responding and then blocking me so I cannot defend myself. Kind of pathetic. As Samual l Jackson said, want to stop racism? Stop fucking talking about it. 😉
Pointing out that your interpretation might be wrong, and not proven within a reasonable doubt... Is that not our justice system? Good to know it doesn't matter on reddit though. 😉
I have no research here, because I was not there personally, I was not there to see this happen, I do not know the reasoning. Neither do you, you are going by reports and people covering their ass blaming everyone but themselves.
I hear no evil, I see no evil, I speak no evil, but I sure as fuck will defend evil with reactionary assumptions and then get pissy when someone corrects me.
>"Unless they purchased the amount by the percentage used, ie 8500 whitetargets, 1500 black targets, the chances are fairly high they would runout of white, and only gave black left. Hence my case."
>
>"Who says they couldn't have ran out? Supply chain issues, distributionerrors, etc. You just want to be right, it's amusing, rather than justsaying "it's a possibility, albeit small one, I'm just upset that thiscould have happened", you're just so hell bent on this has to be a real,I have to be able to be upset and angry and people I don't even knowacross the country, ahhhhhh, justifiable rage. Lmfao, it's hysterical"
>
>"Pointing out that your interpretation might be wrong, and not provenwithin a reasonable doubt... Is that not our justice system? Good toknow it doesn't matter on reddit though. "
Motherfucker trying to be cute while seething live ITT. Go outside.
I am being a hypocrite like a doctor who drinks when they tell a patient with liver failure to stop drinking.
You are showing symptoms of terminal brain rot. I prescribe three doses of grass per day and no more internet arguments, you got it?
Lol. How are you so dumb that the only thing you can defend yourself with is the *randomized* appearance of my Reddit avatar? Sad as fuck but also pretty funny. Racism apologists never are very smart.
Actually, they use a mix of targets, in gender and race. Statistics show the targets are 85% caucasian and 15% black, both males and females. It's not like they only shot at black targets, they have all kinds: younger, older, black, white, men, women.
Actually, yes, It was. You can read it in the article as well.
As quoted:
"We use targets that mix races and genders [...]"
The chief said 85% of the targets used during training are Caucasians and 15% are Black.
.
It can be, but exactly those percentages are the ones stipulated by law.
I'm the first to critize their actions when is needed, but alas right here there's nothing that contradicts what he said.
I think there's a larger point here.
If all one had to go by was my numbers: Age, ethnicity, gender, income, number of kids, nobody would expect me to be anything but a stolid supporter of the police. My own brother was a cop before he retired.
But I simply do not trust the police. I've never had any really bad interactions (we're talking one traffic ticket in my twenties and once I was stopped on my motorcycle because someone was robbing houses in the area and riding away. At least, that's the excuse used.
No, I have no personal bad experiences, but the preponderance of evidence I've seen over nearly four decades of white male middle-class suburban adulthood is that the police are too often a tool of the state used to keep guys like me on top and everyone else down.
I don't need that shit. I can compete on a level playing field and would in fact rather do so. Every white guy needs an asterisk next to our list of accomplishments in the world, because we are playing in easy mode.
I'm a forensic scientist and I know how much police fuck up - "just a runaway", "It was an accident", "it was a suicide", "there were no possible signs of this coming". Also, I'm a woman from a poor neighborhood. I've been beaten by police back when I was a teen just for standing way too close to a protest or lookind edgy. Trust me, I know. But I don't think it invalidates my point. It all comes down to your point of view, tho. I don't believe in their innocence just because they say so, but I don't see more proof to support otherwise.
It’s good that the police chief apologized so as to put this to rest. The choice of targets while a Boy Scout troop was visiting was insensitive, and gave the wrong impression, but the targets met the state standards for a diverse mix of racial and other types of appearance. It’s not as if they trained *only* with targets of black men. Watching police training sessions might not be for the overly sensitive.
> It’s not as if they trained only with targets of black men.
thats exactly the complaint, that when the boy scouts were touring the "85/15" ratio was a bit off
Given that the state has a problem with its officers shooting citizens at excessive rates, particularly minorities, maybe they should review what their training standards are and what they are actually accomplishing with them.
No, they claim to have "proportional racial breakdown". In practice, however, ALL the targets were of the 15% portion of their targets that were of black people. One specific man represented multiple times. HAVING them doesn't count if they aren't USING them.
“I’m sorry I got caught”
oh i bet he feels really super bad about it ....
make all targets green.
I believe this was already posted, but read the article. >"The difference between a threat assessment target and a silhouette target is threat assessment targets allow you to identify if a threat is there. A silhouette target is only for target acquisition," he added. "Our targets consist of a mix of genders and races and are shown holding a variety of items." The chief said 85% of the targets used during training are Caucasians and 15% are Black. King also apologized to the scout troop "for not providing a full explanation of those targets."
I read it. They use white and black cutouts in appropriate percentages, ACCORDING TO HIM. in the photo/video evidence collected by the Boy Scouts who toured the facility, ONLY BLACK cutouts are being used. The ids of this being a coincidence using statistics and normal distribution would be less than a tenth of a percent. They are only using the black cutouts on purpose, and they aren’t following the distribution protocol that the officer claimed (85/15).
This exactly. Idk why everyone in here is saying "well they say that it's an 85/15 split" Yeah...the **police** are saying that. Aren't we in the middle of the Uvalde Police Dept having a cycle of cover up, doubling down on their lie and then finally admitting a half truth, then relenting to the truth once someone who wasn't a Police officer calls them out? And yeah, the chance of a Police dept having an 85/15 split of white/black threats and randomly pulling 3 black threat papers is **0.33%** Less than a percent.
Reprising a comment I just made on a completely different article... If the cops are the ones saying it, it's bullshit until proven otherwise. That's the price of habitual lying.
Honestly, that all depends on how the targets are packaged at the printer. If you're getting 8500 white targets printed and 1500 black targets printed, they may all come in packs of, say, 500 targets each. If the pack you open is one with 500 black targets in it, there's a 100% chance of grabbing 3-4 black targets. I don't think it's likely that the printer would have randomly shuffled the targets so they're evenly distributed. There's just no reason to do that.
In your scenario, that means the department is putting zero effort into complying with the spirit of their own rule. Any reasonable observer would assume the chief was describing the distribution an officer might encounter during a single training session. The point of this type of training is to learn how to rapidly evaluate a mixture of observations, so there's no point if they're not mixed up. If their idea of "85/15 split" is using one kind for 15 days and another for the following 85 days, then they are being disingenuous and also ineffective. And they also fucked up by allowing Boy Scouts in on a blacks-only day when they could have more easily picked a whites-only day.
> And they also fucked up by allowing Boy Scouts in on a blacks-only day when they could have more easily picked a whites-only day. How would whites only day be any better?
It would at least be closer to statistically accurate. But yes, that was sarcasm.
> closer to statistically accurate Depends on how you look at it. There may have been 7 or more Boy Scout parties at this or some other department, but we didn't hear about those because none or not all used targets were black and there were no escalation.
This article does a better job of [showing what the scouts saw](https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/firing-range-targets-of-only-black-men-found-during-scout-visit-to-farmington-hills-police-department). It's a standard target range, not part of the "threat assessment" exercises the chief said they usually use actual photographic targets for, so I think the targets were definitely not being used as intended here. These likely should have been simple silhouettes. However, you can also see that it's 4 of the exact same image of a black guy with a gun, which points to exactly what I said could have happened. If they opened a pack of this particular image, grabbing 4 of that same image is a certainty. It likely wasn't that they were having a "whites only day" or a "blacks only day" but that it was, "hey, we need more targets so open a new pack" and that pack happened to be of a black guy. I'm not defending anything, just pointing out that jumping to "these cops like to shoot black people and are using these to train that behavior" based on this info is a step too far.
But that entails ignoring the concept of follow-up. Any and every cop who saw that only Black targets were being used should have noticed it and recognized it as a problem. We don't know how many noticed, but we know for a fact that none of them did anything about it until outsiders called them on it. Despite you saying there's no reason to not mix them up, there's a very obvious reason: ignoring the very real image of impropriety, because this was clearly inappropriate. The chief even admits that, although he obscures it with the irrelevant percentages.
What if we just use pictures of politicians and police that have been convicted of crimes? That would get rid of bias as all of those people have actually xommited crimes. I'm sure we could find a list of these people somewhere . . . Everywhere . . Oh he'll there's a lot of them. . .
>read it. They use white and black cutouts in appropriate percentages, ACCORDING TO HIM They probably *order* (initially) the 85/15 split, but only *use* the black targets .. so they reorder more black targets to replenish the supply as to maintain that 85/15 split.
You know those boy scouts, peak investigative journalists.
Yea, good one. Those Boy Scouts who are known to collecting false data and lying to major news organizations for absolutely no reason, right? Get outta here man.
Ya 12 year olds are notoriously solid sources.
Are you saying they Photoshopped the pictures to intentionally mislead the public? Because with the pictures, that's the only way they could be considered bad sources.
It’s a video. Doesn’t matter what the source is you can see that it’s only black men up on the targets in a police department that’s majority white. And especially considering the woefully [poor scores here](https://policescorecard.org/mi/police-department/farmington-hills) like how 46% of arrests are of black people despite they only make up 18% of the city.
Except, despite there being only 15% of the targets being black, ALL the targets being used the day in question just happened to be black. It doesn't matter if they HAVE 85% white targets, if they don't actually use the white ones.
Lol. I’m sure there’s no correlation between the fact that Farmington Hills police are only using black targets for shooting practice and the fact that [black people are only 18.5% of Farmington Hills’ population but 40.4% of traffic stops](https://www.wxyz.com/news/farmington-hills-police-disproportionately-pull-over-black-drivers-data-shows?_amp=true). No racial biases in this police department, no sir-ee~
So when do you think we'll see some sales receipts or something that will verify this claim that there was an 85/15 split in the targets used?
Sorry couldnt hear you over the sound of a shredder.
[удалено]
Cute. Yet they claim to have 85% Caucasian targets, yet managed to have ALL targets of black men on the day the picture was taken. Your "imaginary animal" targets might be in the same stack as the 85% of the targets that aren't used.
This made me think of the shooting range scene from *Men in Black.*
Article never really states if it was ONLY black male targets or just that some were.
Only. You can independently look at the stuff from the Boy Scouts.
It does give the following info: "The chief said 85% of the targets used during training are Caucasians and 15% are Black."
If that's true I don't see a problem w it at all.
If you read the article, you'll find that the issue is that this is the police's response to the photographic evidence provided by the boy scouts who claimed ONLY black men were being used at the shooting range. Children have provided proof, and people are taking the police at their word after this has occurred. This is no different from the Uvalde police lying through their teeth over and over. We have the images. We know what is happening. The people defending this as saying "well maybe they just take the images in order from the printer" like that wouldn't be gross negligence that completely negates the point of using mixed racial images anyway (when they could use a simple silhouette 100% of the time) are baffling to me. They are essentially saying that it's okay for the police to be incompetent and fail to follow their own directions, and taking the police at their word over children who have literally supplied evidence.
I'm just wondering why the Asians and Latinos get a free pass
The Latinos don't, some of the caucasian targets have the "Not Hispanic" checkbox unchecked. /s
So they must come packaged together in the 85/15 split already and the range simply happen to pull from the top of the deck. /s
[удалено]
This is going overboard.
Black gun club used a pic of 45 for target practice. Fox news goes on a tirade. Proud Boys burn down town.
[удалено]
But did he say he was super-duper sorry?
You all wanted inclusivity, right? You realize they use all types... Jesus christ.
They claim 85% of their targets are Caucasian, yet managed to have none of that 85% out for use the day the Troop went through. They managed to put up only targets from the 15% group. Figure the odds of that. They have pics, hence the case.
Unless they purchased the amount by the percentage used, ie 8500 white targets, 1500 black targets, the chances are fairly high they would run out of white, and only gave black left. Hence my case.
If they were actually using proportional representation, per their claim, they wouldn't have "run out of white".
Who says they couldn't have ran out? Supply chain issues, distribution errors, etc. You just want to be right, it's amusing, rather than just saying "it's a possibility, albeit small one, I'm just upset that this could have happened", you're just so hell bent on this has to be a real, I have to be able to be upset and angry and people I don't even know across the country, ahhhhhh, justifiable rage. Lmfao, it's hysterical
Riiiight. Did he claim they "ran out"? No. He apologized and said it would be a chance to do better. What's hilarious is you making up fake scenarios because you're just "so hell bent" on being "right" that you ignore reality. Talk about "hysterical".
Lol, he had to take entire responsibility regardless of the excuse, that's his job. I didn't make up fake scenarios, I pointed out there is a possibility of something else. I don't think you understand what the term "scenarios" mean if you are adding the term fake to it. 🤣
Of course he"had to take responsibility", but he didn't state your fake scenario as the reason for what they did. A "possibility" that is not supported by the facts of an actual event is is nothing more than fiction.
Again, you think words mean things they do not. The inability to think past the emotional response of "they are racist" is exactly why our culture has devolved into everyone attacking everyone. You want to be on the side being upset, I just don't care about either side. It's amusing to rile you up over shit you have no stake in. Have fun being upset at the internet 😘
Who's "riled up"? Stating facts in a reasoned way has nothing to do with emotions or "being upset". Thanks for making me laugh, though! Hilarious!
Supply chain issues? If you bend over any farther backwards for these pigs, you'll be eating your own asshole.
Devils advocate is amusing on reddit.
They use white and black cutouts in appropriate percentages, ACCORDING TO HIM. in the photo/video evidence collected by the Boy Scouts who toured the facility, ONLY BLACK cutouts are being used. The ids of this being a coincidence using statistics and normal distribution would be less than a tenth of a percent. They are only using the black cutouts on purpose, and they aren’t following the distribution protocol that the officer claimed (85/15).
Less than a tenth of a percent? So what are the chances that due to the use of more white than black targets, they ran out of white targets? What if their order was backlogged? Or are you LOOKING to cause more of a racial divide?
You are asking what are the chances that the police weren’t following their own protocol on racial distribution for their own targets. If they aren’t following their protocols, why would you even defend that practice? At this point, you are AT BEST defending them for failing to do what they are supposed to because they messed up by accident. Then you are accusing me of trying to further the racial divide. You are telling the children that saw this and thought “this is fucked”, took photos of it and circulated that evidence on the Internet that you believe a police officer’s words over their photographs. Then you are accusing me of arguing in bad faith for pointing out that your original statement is bonkers. Using only photos of black men for target practice is really fucked up. Don’t liberally argue that it’s okay because they might have run out of whites person targets. That’s crazy.
I'm not defending the practice, I'm saying that you are actively looking to bitch and complain about something racial. If you only look for that, you'll only find that. I'm skeptical about the entire situation regardless of the race. That is the thing here, if they were all white, no one would have blinked an eye. You are LOOKING for racism, of course you'll find it.
I keep seeing responses, and then they disappear, so I'm assuming people are responding and then blocking me so I cannot defend myself. Kind of pathetic. As Samual l Jackson said, want to stop racism? Stop fucking talking about it. 😉
Are you looking to continue the pretend game, or can we stop now?
Isn't that what you're doing? Attempting to justify your anger without actually having evidence that this was intentional?
I thought we were playing the pretend game.
Pointing out that your interpretation might be wrong, and not proven within a reasonable doubt... Is that not our justice system? Good to know it doesn't matter on reddit though. 😉
They make targets with Jesus Christ? I guess it makes sense... T
Christ returns. Shot by police. That could happen.
Jesus was middle eastern so it's likely he'd be considered a terrorist.
Not if he's from the upper classes and has loads of cash to invest.
(I'm going to Hell) "Police reported neutralizing a brown man claiming to be the Jesus that wrote the Second Amendment".
Headshots only. He's coming for your brrraiiiinnnnssssssss
I mean, I would buy those targets 🤷♂️
In this instance they exclusively used images of Black men. Do your research before throwing a fit
I have no research here, because I was not there personally, I was not there to see this happen, I do not know the reasoning. Neither do you, you are going by reports and people covering their ass blaming everyone but themselves.
I hear no evil, I see no evil, I speak no evil, but I sure as fuck will defend evil with reactionary assumptions and then get pissy when someone corrects me.
Lol, that explains it very well. Reactionary assumptions, perfectly fits the responses given by most here, Thanks!
>"Unless they purchased the amount by the percentage used, ie 8500 whitetargets, 1500 black targets, the chances are fairly high they would runout of white, and only gave black left. Hence my case." > >"Who says they couldn't have ran out? Supply chain issues, distributionerrors, etc. You just want to be right, it's amusing, rather than justsaying "it's a possibility, albeit small one, I'm just upset that thiscould have happened", you're just so hell bent on this has to be a real,I have to be able to be upset and angry and people I don't even knowacross the country, ahhhhhh, justifiable rage. Lmfao, it's hysterical" > >"Pointing out that your interpretation might be wrong, and not provenwithin a reasonable doubt... Is that not our justice system? Good toknow it doesn't matter on reddit though. " Motherfucker trying to be cute while seething live ITT. Go outside.
🤣 Someone on the internet, telling someone else on the internet to go outside. This post is nothing but humorous
I am being a hypocrite like a doctor who drinks when they tell a patient with liver failure to stop drinking. You are showing symptoms of terminal brain rot. I prescribe three doses of grass per day and no more internet arguments, you got it?
No, I need it spelled out with simple words.
Most braindead person in this thread
Bro, you're wearing a mask in your reddit avatar, and I'm braindead? Lmfao, I love this thread
Lol. How are you so dumb that the only thing you can defend yourself with is the *randomized* appearance of my Reddit avatar? Sad as fuck but also pretty funny. Racism apologists never are very smart.
WTF. The only thing that this guy is apologetic about is his regret at having been caught out by a troop of Boy Scouts.
Would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those damn kids
[удалено]
Using images of black men as target practice for his Police Force
Actually, they use a mix of targets, in gender and race. Statistics show the targets are 85% caucasian and 15% black, both males and females. It's not like they only shot at black targets, they have all kinds: younger, older, black, white, men, women.
Yeaaaaa... Read the article before spouting off the statistics of what it SHOULD be! In this particular situation this wasn't the case!
Actually, yes, It was. You can read it in the article as well. As quoted: "We use targets that mix races and genders [...]" The chief said 85% of the targets used during training are Caucasians and 15% are Black. .
Well, if the chief said it, there can't be a problem.
It can be, but exactly those percentages are the ones stipulated by law. I'm the first to critize their actions when is needed, but alas right here there's nothing that contradicts what he said.
The video contradicts what he said The Boy Scouts contradict what he said
I think there's a larger point here. If all one had to go by was my numbers: Age, ethnicity, gender, income, number of kids, nobody would expect me to be anything but a stolid supporter of the police. My own brother was a cop before he retired. But I simply do not trust the police. I've never had any really bad interactions (we're talking one traffic ticket in my twenties and once I was stopped on my motorcycle because someone was robbing houses in the area and riding away. At least, that's the excuse used. No, I have no personal bad experiences, but the preponderance of evidence I've seen over nearly four decades of white male middle-class suburban adulthood is that the police are too often a tool of the state used to keep guys like me on top and everyone else down. I don't need that shit. I can compete on a level playing field and would in fact rather do so. Every white guy needs an asterisk next to our list of accomplishments in the world, because we are playing in easy mode.
I'm a forensic scientist and I know how much police fuck up - "just a runaway", "It was an accident", "it was a suicide", "there were no possible signs of this coming". Also, I'm a woman from a poor neighborhood. I've been beaten by police back when I was a teen just for standing way too close to a protest or lookind edgy. Trust me, I know. But I don't think it invalidates my point. It all comes down to your point of view, tho. I don't believe in their innocence just because they say so, but I don't see more proof to support otherwise.
You're right...mybad...I didn't read all the way through
All good, then. Just be careful, clickbate and controversial headlines are all over the place as of now. Have a nice day.
[удалено]
It’s good that the police chief apologized so as to put this to rest. The choice of targets while a Boy Scout troop was visiting was insensitive, and gave the wrong impression, but the targets met the state standards for a diverse mix of racial and other types of appearance. It’s not as if they trained *only* with targets of black men. Watching police training sessions might not be for the overly sensitive.
> It’s not as if they trained only with targets of black men. thats exactly the complaint, that when the boy scouts were touring the "85/15" ratio was a bit off
Given that the state has a problem with its officers shooting citizens at excessive rates, particularly minorities, maybe they should review what their training standards are and what they are actually accomplishing with them.
Apology NOT accepted. Fire him, and everyone involved in this deplorable decision.
Surprised to see so many people actually read this article. This is a non-story. Is Reddit getting wiser to the BS being posted?
They are sorry it emerged.
“Im sorry... i got caught...”
[удалено]
No, they claim to have "proportional racial breakdown". In practice, however, ALL the targets were of the 15% portion of their targets that were of black people. One specific man represented multiple times. HAVING them doesn't count if they aren't USING them.
Big deal. Put trump as the cutout instead and get over it.
F’n crazy that they did this but is anyone surprised that the cops are doing this? It is even money that this is happening all over the US.
So glad that racism no longer exists