Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

moon2

Frankie Machine wrote: »

None. There is no difference worth making a distinction about.

If you see no difference between a criminal gang murdering people, and law enforcement (a public body supposed to protect the civilian population) killing an unusually high proportion of people from a particular minority, then that's conversation over.

Frankie Machine

moon2 wrote: »

If you see no difference between a criminal gang murdering people, and law enforcement (a public body supposed to protect the civilian population) killing an unusually high proportion of people from a particular minority, then that's conversation over.

I see the distinction that others are trying to make, and I reject it as disingenuous.

But I see no difference to the victims, no. They're dead due to unlawful activity in either case.

Odd that an organisation allegedly dedicated to the idea that Black lives matter, have a hierarchy of victims.

I don't.

AbusesToilets

moon2 wrote: »

If you see no difference between a criminal gang murdering people, and law enforcement (a public body supposed to protect the civilian population) killing an unusually high proportion of people from a particular minority, then that's conversation over.

Except that's exactly what doesn't happen. You've nicely shown the lie at the heart of BLM's argument.

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Except that's exactly what doesn't happen. You've nicely shown the lie at the heart of BLM's argument.

You're entitled to hold whatever opinion you'd like. I'm not going to try and persuade you otherwise. No-one has been able to so far as you reject everything which goes against your beliefs. I will continue to base mine on the evidence.

AbusesToilets

moon2 wrote: »

You're entitled to hold whatever opinion you'd like. I'm not going to try and persuade you otherwise. No-one has been able to so far as you reject everything which goes against your beliefs. I will continue to base mine on the evidence.

The evidence that shows that there is no racial cause behind police shootings?

The evidence that black and Hispanic officers are more likely to kill black suspects?

The evidence that black commit the majority of murders, mostly against other black people?

That evidence?

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The evidence that shows that there is no racial cause behind police shootings?

The evidence that black and Hispanic officers are more likely to kill black suspects?

The evidence that black commit the majority of murders, mostly against other black people?

That evidence?

Amazing to think someone would advocate against police reform using the argument, 'yeah but it's other black people killing them' while simultaneously arguing there isn't institutional racism.

Thankfully, most sensible people see something not working correctly and focus on changing it, others, shrug their shoulders and say 'why bother'.

ancapailldorcha

Enough of the insults and the goading please. Posts deleted.

droidus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Except that's exactly what doesn't happen. You've nicely shown the lie at the heart of BLM's argument.

It has been well established, time and again by multiple studies that although more white people are killed by police in total, that black people are at least 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. A Harvard public health study from June of this year found that Black Americans are 3.23 times more likely than white Americans to be killed by police.

The reasons behind this can be argued, but the numbers themselves cannot.

droidus

Of course, and one could point to tens of thousands of such incidents. You could also make a very strong case for an almost uninterrupted centuries long festival of violence, domination, oppression and disenfranchisement of black Americans, of which contemporary poverty, a private industrial prison system and police brutality and murder are just more manifestations of the same old system.

AbusesToilets

droidus wrote: »

It has been well established, time and again by multiple studies that although more white people are killed by police in total, that black people are at least 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. A Harvard public health study from June of this year found that Black Americans are 3.23 times more likely than white Americans to be killed by police.

The reasons behind this can be argued, but the numbers themselves cannot.

The reasons are straightforward. black people commit more crime, and generally are more violence as a group, therefore they are policed more and as a result have more interactions with law enforcement. They tend to have more violent negative interactions as well.

Can't throw out a statistic about them having a higher level of police interactions per capita than other ethnicities, without mentioning the reasons behind it.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The reasons are straightforward. black people commit more crime, and generally are more violence as a group, therefore they are policed more and as a result have more interactions with law enforcement. They tend to have more violent negative interactions as well.

Can't throw out a statistic about them having a higher level of police interactions per capita than other ethnicities, without mentioning the reasons behind it.

It's a reason , but it's not the root cause.

The root cause is the impact of decades of systemic racism resulting in Black people being orders of magnitude more likely to be poor , uneducated and unhealthy than their peers of other ethnicities.

One directly leads to the other and then the cycle continues.

Tell me how

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

It's quite sad that in this day and age we have people posting on public internet forums clearly racist drivel saying things like this:



Replace the word "black" with word "irish" and you could be transported into 19th century England with its Hibernophobia strand of racism

Or replace it with word "jew" and you may as well be reading something from Nazi Germany.

It's quite stunning isn't it.
I read it earlier and I actually stopped and said WTF.

Same poster has argued there is no evidence of institutional racism.

droidus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can't throw out a statistic about them having a higher level of police interactions per capita than other ethnicities, without mentioning the reasons behind it.

Quite. So what are the 'reasons', in your eyes? Are black people just inherently more violent and inclined to more criminal behaviour, or could it be something to do with how the US has treated black people for centuries?

droidus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The reasons are straightforward. black people commit more crime, and generally are more violence as a group, therefore they are policed more and as a result have more interactions with law enforcement. They tend to have more violent negative interactions as well.

And of course, you claimed that black people being murdered by the police at higher proportions than other groups was 'the lie at the heart of BLM's argument', but now, instead of disputing that point you're just saying that there are 'reasons' why this is the case.

AbusesToilets

Yes, black people, men specifically, are the most violent group in US society, that incontrovertible. Police put more resources into the areas with the highest rate of crime. That's black communities. You can debate the causes of that, and the problems faced in those communities, but those are the facts.

I don't agree that police murder large numbers period, regardless of ethnicity or background. Of the ~1000 police shootings per year, the vast majority are justified. Those that aren't deserve to be prosecuted.

AbusesToilets

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

It's quite sad that in this day and age we have people posting on public internet forums clearly racist drivel saying things like this:



Replace the word "black" with word "irish" and you could be transported into 19th century England with its Hibernophobia strand of racism

Or replace it with word "jew" and you may as well be reading something from Nazi Germany.

The only drivel in this thread are folks who push facetious arguments, devoid of evidence and willfully ignorent of clear facts.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes, black people, men specifically, are the most violent group in US society, that incontrovertible. Police put more resources into the areas with the highest rate of crime. That's black communities. You can debate the causes of that, and the problems faced in those communities, but those are the facts.

I don't agree that police murder large numbers period, regardless of ethnicity or background. Of the ~1000 police shootings per year, the vast majority are justified. Those that aren't deserve to be prosecuted.

But that fact is an Outcome , not a Cause.

There's a quality improvement methodology known as "The Five Whys" used to get to the true root cause of an issue so that you can address it.

So let's take the factual Statement below and use that methodology

"More Blacks are arrested/incarcerated than other ethnicities"

Why?

"Because Black Communities have higher crimes rates than others"

Why?

"Because Black communities are poorer and have lower Health and Education levels than other groups leading to increased crime"

Why?

"Because historically Black people have been systemically prevented from gaining access to employment and education opportunities"

Why?

"Because Black people have continued to be discriminated on the basis of race despite the removal of legal racial discrimination almost 60 years ago"

Why?

"Because underneath it all , the United States still holds an inherently racist opinion of Black people"

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But that fact is an Outcome , not a Cause.

There's a quality improvement methodology known as "The Five Whys" used to get to the true root cause of an issue so that you can address it.

So let's take the factual Statement below and use that methodology

"More Blacks are arrested/incarcerated than other ethnicities"

Why?

"Because Black Communities have higher crimes rates than others"

Why?

"Because Black communities are poorer and have lower Health and Education levels than other groups leading to increased crime"

Why?

"Because historically Black people have been systemically prevented from gaining access to employment and education opportunities"

Why?

"Because Black people have continued to be discriminated on the basis of race despite the removal of legal racial discrimination almost 60 years ago"

Why?

"Because underneath it all , the United States still holds an inherently racist opinion of Black people"

That sequence completely absolves personal responsibility. There certainly historical issues with respect to access to banking and home ownership that have contributed to a lot of those issues. There are also aspects of black culture that contribute, attitudes to education and family.

You're also making a claim of discrimination about education and employment that isn't accurate. There numerous laws that demand equality in those areas, as well discrimination in favor of black people.

The attitude that all issues are external in root, is wrong and frankly infantilising. There was a good discussion between Coleman Hughes and Glen Laury that speaks on that exact tendency. Society inherently has inequality in it, that doesn't automatically mean It's racist.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That sequence completely absolves personal responsibility. There certainly historical issues with respect to access to banking and home ownership that have contributed to a lot of those issues. There are also aspects of black culture that contribute, attitudes to education and family.

You're also making a claim of discrimination about education and employment that isn't accurate. There numerous laws that demand equality in those areas, as well discrimination in favor of black people.

The attitude that all issues are external in root, is wrong and frankly infantilising. There was a good discussion between Coleman Hughes and Glen Laury that speaks on that exact tendency. Society inherently has inequality in it, that doesn't automatically mean It's racist.

I wouldn't accept that it absolves anyone of responsibility , but it does recognise that some people have a starting point that is less advantageous than others.

It absolutely categorically does not mean that "the world owes you a living" or anything like that , but recognising the inherent difficulties is necessary to close those gaps and level the playing field in terms of things like race and gender.

There will always be winners and losers in society on the basis of opportunity , effort and ability , but there shouldn't be any on the basis of race, gender or religion.

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

YPolice put more resources into the areas with the highest rate of crime.

I'd highly recommend reading the entirety of "Talking to Strangers" by Malcolm Gladwell, and then fact checking it yourself if you disbelieve it.

es, black people, men specifically, are the most violent group in US society, that incontrovertible.

If you count convictions alone this could be true.

This fails to account for the fact a black person commiting a crime has a significantly higher likelihood of receiving a criminal conviction than a white person committing the same crime. This is a great example of one of the outcomes of systemic racism. Studies showing this trend have been linked here before.

Either way - I wouldn't advocate against someone asking for increased research into parkinson's instead of lung cancer. Similarly I wouldn't advocate against a group wanting equitable treatment from their police force simply because their are other groups with (arguably) greater impact in terms of inequitable treatment.

AbusesToilets

moon2 wrote: »

I'd highly recommend reading the entirety of "Talking to Strangers" by Malcolm Gladwell, and then fact checking it yourself if you disbelieve it.


If you count convictions alone this could be true.

This fails to account for the fact a black person commiting a crime has a significantly higher likelihood of receiving a criminal conviction than a white person committing the same crime. This is a great example of one of the outcomes of systemic racism. Studies showing this trend have been linked here before.

Either way - I wouldn't advocate against someone asking for increased research into parkinson's instead of lung cancer. Similarly I wouldn't advocate against a group wanting equitable treatment from their police force simply because their are other groups with (arguably) greater impact in terms of inequitable treatment.

An examination of a weekend in Chicago and Baltimore would point to that fact, let alone decades of crime statistics for murder and violent crime.

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I wouldn't accept that it absolves anyone of responsibility , but it does recognise that some people have a starting point that is less advantageous than others.

It absolutely categorically does not mean that "the world owes you a living" or anything like that , but recognising the inherent difficulties is necessary to close those gaps and level the playing field in terms of things like race and gender.

There will always be winners and losers in society on the basis of opportunity , effort and ability , but there shouldn't be any on the basis of race, gender or religion.

Which speaks to the fact that poverty is driver for the majority of social issues, not racism. Look at the success immigrants from Africa , Nigerians are some of the most successful in the US. Doesn't support a narrative that being black is a barrier to accomplishment in American society.

droidus

Yeah, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that.

AbusesToilets

droidus wrote: »

Yeah, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that.

That doesn't equate with a racist system. As evidenced by the social achievement of Asian Americans and African immigrants.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That doesn't equate with a racist system. As evidenced by the social achievement of Asian Americans and African immigrants.

Here's an academic paper which links slavery with poverty that includes the following statement.

Within the U.S. South, blacks are at a greater disadvantage relative to whites, with respect to poverty, in places where there is a stronger historical connection to slavery compared to places with a weaker connection to slavery.

and more tellingly

Finally, although not directly addressed by my analyses I articulate two potential pathways through which slavery might be linked to the contemporary period. First, slavery might be associated with contemporary black-white inequality because local areas previously dependent on slavery continue to be dependent on exploitative economic systems. Future research should examine the historical trajectory of economic development in local areas, including contemporary economic structures, to assess the extent to which slavery was replaced with subsequent exploitative economic systems as suggested in previous historical work (Royce 1985; Shifflett 1982). Second, the legacy of slavery may indirectly affect economic disparities through its influence on educational and political institutions. The distribution of resources across and within schools in local areas with high historical concentrations of slaves may be such that blacks receive a lower quality education than whites and are therefore less qualified in the labor market.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You're also making a claim of discrimination about education and employment that isn't accurate. There numerous laws that demand equality in those areas, as well discrimination in favor of black people.

People who haven't yet reached retirement age weren't allowed to go to certain schools because they were black.

I don't know how a person can twist themselves in such a way to believe that this doesn't have an ongoing impact on people of all races who lived through that system, as well as their descendants.

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

People who haven't yet reached retirement age weren't allowed to go to certain schools because they were black.

I don't know how a person can twist themselves in such a way to believe that this doesn't have an ongoing impact on people of all races who lived through that system, as well as their descendants.

The society today isn't the one that those same people grew up in, same as Irish society isn't the one from the Famine era. The Famine had an incredible impact on Irish culture, effects of which last thru to today. Does that mean that Irish people ought to blame problems they face today on the difficulties of the past? Again, you infantalise the black community with your line of argument.

Things have improved immeasurably for black people in the US, and relative to the rest of the world, they enjoy wealth and opportunity unknown in many places. Hence the high number of immigrants who flock to the is every year.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The society today isn't the one that those same people grew up in, same as Irish society isn't the one from the Famine era. The Famine had an incredible impact on Irish culture, effects of which last thru to today. Does that mean that Irish people ought to blame problems they face today on the difficulties of the past? Again, you infantalise the black community with your line of argument.

Things have improved immeasurably for black people in the US, and relative to the rest of the world, they enjoy wealth and opportunity unknown in many places. Hence the high number of immigrants who flock to the is every year.

Those are hardly a comparable. The famine happened in 1845, while the civil and voting rights acts were in the 1960's, with protests regarding segregation running up to the 1970's.

Are you saying that within a generation post famine, tenant farmers had pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to have the same income as the landlord class? I must have missed that day in history class.

droidus

And of course, the famine and colonialism in general did have a massive impact on Irish society and the Irish psyche, the severity of which has only lessened in recent years and was ameliorated by our proximity to, and membership of, the richest trading bloc in human history.

droidus

Foxtrol wrote: »

Those are hardly a comparable. The famine happened in 1845, while the civil and voting rights acts were in the 1960's, with protests regarding segregation running up to the 1970's.

And since then we've had redlining, the CIA mediated crack epidemic, mass incarceration and a host of other factors which coincidentally, disproportionately affected the black community.

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

Those are hardly a comparable. The famine happened in 1845, while the civil and voting rights acts were in the 1960's, with protests regarding segregation running up to the 1970's.

Are you saying that within a generation post famine, tenant farmers had pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to have the same income as the landlord class? I must have missed that day in history class.

It's been 60 yrs since the Civil Rights act, yet you want to act as though society isn't massively better for black people nowadays. Everyone alive lives in a world shaped by the past, yet only one seems determined to use it as an excuse for all their failings and struggles.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's been 60 yrs since the Civil Rights act, yet you want to act as though society isn't massively better for black people nowadays. Everyone alive lives in a world shaped by the past, yet only one seems determined to use it as an excuse for all their failings and struggles.

While the other says 'things are better for you, stop complaining, so what if you still aren't treated equally all the time'.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's been 60 yrs since the Civil Rights act, yet you want to act as though society isn't massively better for black people nowadays. Everyone alive lives in a world shaped by the past, yet only one seems determined to use it as an excuse for all their failings and struggles.

Where you saying that about Catholics in the north during the troubles? 'Stop complaining about injustices in society, you had it worse in the past'

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

Where you saying that about Catholics in the north during the troubles? 'Stop complaining about injustices in society, you had it worse in the past'

I'd say it today, if they were using the past as excise for their failures now.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'd say it today, if they were using the past as excise for their failures now.

The injustices are happening to the black community now. Gerrymandered districts so their votes count for less, underfunded and basically segregated education, limited job prospects, wealth inequality, discriminatory law and order practices, police brutality...

To deal with the bold they tore up the RUC and created a whole new entity, something that you've been completely against when it comes to the US (despite examples showing it has worked where it was tried).

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

An examination of a weekend in Chicago and Baltimore would point to that fact, let alone decades of crime statistics for murder and violent crime.

Its reassuring that you didn't find the main points
of my statement inaccurate enough to warrant a correction. I'll take it you've done the research and are in agreement!

I do hope the crime rates in Chicago and Baltimore could be addressed systematically. If you'd like to start a thread to cover those topics I'd read it with interest!

AbusesToilets

moon2 wrote: »

Its reassuring that you didn't find the main points
of my statement inaccurate enough to warrant a correction. I'll take it you've done the research and are in agreement!

I do hope the crime rates in Chicago and Baltimore could be addressed systematically. If you'd like to start a thread to cover those topics I'd read it with interest!

I wouldn't agree that there is implicit racism in policing. While there certainly is widely divergent outcomes in the legal system, I'm not sure you can put that down to racism, versus being poor, and thus unable to afford proper representation.

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that there is implicit racism in policing. While there certainly is widely divergent outcomes in the legal system, I'm not sure you can put that down to racism, versus being poor, and thus unable to afford proper representation.

I appreciate you don't have the knowledge to make the determination yourself, however there has been research which answers the question you're considering in your final sentence

The colour of your skin is a primary deciding factor for your outcome. The darker your skin, the increased likelihood you'll be incarcerated.

One of the many studies covering this topic is "The color of punishment: African Americans, skin tone, and the criminal justice system". The conclusion is that within the bounds of what the study could measure, there was a direct link between severity of punishment in the criminal justice system and the darkness of the defendents skin.

Wikipedia also links to research in this area. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color .

The evidence backing this statement can be found in the extensive range of research papers covering the topic of skin colour.

Retr0gamer

I wouldn't bother. Abusestoilets has clearly found evidence that the experts some how missed.

Foxtrol

Unsurprising for anyone that has seen the demographics of the lines to vote in the US but this shows how difficult it is made for non-white people to vote.

Hard to balance the viewpoint that there is 'nothing to see here' when people are consistently being disenfranchised from the basic right of voting.

https://twitter.com/franklinleonard/status/1315985668884041728?s=20

Foxtrol

The gun toting St Louis couple, who Trump later had speak at his convention, have been indicted on 2 felonies, not only on guns but also evidence tampering (something that innocent people always do...).

The governor said he would pardon them but I've seen some talk that by them accepting guilt via a pardon that they'd lose their law licenses.

I'd say they are stuck between a rock and a hard place but many of their supporters claimed that there is no way they'd be found guilty so they should be happy to take their day in court and prove it

https://twitter.com/SollenbergerRC/status/1316394833200795652?s=20

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

The gun toting St Louis couple, who Trump later had speak at his convention, have been indicted on 2 felonies, not only on guns but also evidence tampering (something that innocent people always do...).

The governor said he would pardon them but I've seen some talk that by them accepting guilt via a pardon that they'd lose their law licenses.

I'd say they are stuck between a rock and a hard place but many of their supporters claimed that there is no way they'd be found guilty so they should be happy to take their day in court and prove it

https://twitter.com/SollenbergerRC/status/1316394833200795652?s=20

They've been running around town handing out postcards with their autographs :rolleyes:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/indicted-st-louis-lawyers-left-pancake-house-employee-a-signed-photo-of-themselves-pointing-guns-at-protesters/

https://twitter.com/ChrisNagusKMOV/status/1316132423369994245?s=20

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

The gun toting St Louis couple, who Trump later had speak at his convention, have been indicted on 2 felonies, not only on guns but also evidence tampering (something that innocent people always do...).

The governor said he would pardon them but I've seen some talk that by them accepting guilt via a pardon that they'd lose their law licenses.

I'd say they are stuck between a rock and a hard place but many of their supporters claimed that there is no way they'd be found guilty so they should be happy to take their day in court and prove it

https://twitter.com/SollenbergerRC/status/1316394833200795652?s=20

The tampering charge is based on the fact that the pistol was assembled with the firing pin spring backwards. From July https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/gardner-staffer-ordered-crime-lab-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun/63-be112149-d06c-4f54-a225-6545e74b5c2d

ST. LOUIS — The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis police crime lab, but a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's staff ordered crime lab experts to disassemble and reassemble it and wrote that it was “readily capable of lethal use” in charging documents filed Monday, 5 On Your Side has learned.

In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it is used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged.

Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab staff members to field strip the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side.

[...]

Patricia McCloskey and her husband, Mark McCloskey, have said the handgun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable because they had used it as a prop during a lawsuit they once filed against a gun manufacturer. In order to bring it into a courtroom, they made it inoperable.

Given that it applies to only one of the two weapons, and that the use of the pistol as a prop in a court case can presumably be confirmed, it's going to be a bit of a push to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pistol was reassembled only after the confrontation.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

The tampering charge is based on the fact that the pistol was assembled with the firing pin spring backwards. From July https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/gardner-staffer-ordered-crime-lab-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun/63-be112149-d06c-4f54-a225-6545e74b5c2d

Given that it applies to only one of the two weapons, and that the use of the pistol as a prop in a court case can presumably be confirmed, it's going to be a bit of a push to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pistol was reassembled only after the confrontation.

I'm not so sure. Why was a 'prop' at a random court case at such easy access to wave around with only a few moments notice? Was it kept with the functional gun, if so why? Do the McCloskey's have the knowledge to reassemble a gun. Is there evidence that the gun was ever used previously? Was the gun in same state when it was originally inoperable?

There is some leg work but not that big

droidus

Some interesting findings in this study which are germane to this topic:

https://twitter.com/AmarAmarasingam/status/1317091246175850499

AbusesToilets

droidus wrote: »

Some interesting findings in this study which are germane to this topic:

https://twitter.com/AmarAmarasingam/status/1317091246175850499

Seems rather light on details. What are they considering a "Protest event"? 5 people, 50, 500? It also doesn't break down the where the majority of the rioting and looting occurred.

Dyr

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

It's quite sad that in this day and age we have people posting on public internet forums clearly racist drivel saying things like this:



Replace the word "black" with word "irish" and you could be transported into 19th century England with its Hibernophobia strand of racism

Or replace it with word "jew" and you may as well be reading something from Nazi Germany.

Replace the word "black" with the word "male" and no one would bat an eyelid Because men commit more crimes than women. Facts dont care about racism or sexism

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Seems rather light on details. What are they considering a "Protest event"? 5 people, 50, 500? It also doesn't break down the where the majority of the rioting and looting occurred.

It sounds like you're dismissing the study as the summarised results are not detailed enough.

Have you gone and read the full study? You can analyse their data too!

AbusesToilets

moon2 wrote: »

It sounds like you're dismissing the study as the summarised results are not detailed enough.

Have you gone and read the full study? You can analyse their data too!

I didn't see a link to said study? Also no mention of the real world value of said damages, conveniently enough.

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I didn't see a link to said study? Also no mention of the real world value of said damages, conveniently enough.

So rather than trying to inform yourself, you're simply going to disregard it because you weren't spoonfed the information and links?

Let me know if you do end up researching the topic further and want to discuss the merits of the study.