If only the FBI used the same zeal in going after the perpetrators of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wk-mRv1Nlo
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Sometimes when states fail to prosecute, or fail to get a conviction, the Feds will prosecute. But the original crime might not be a federal crime, so they prosecute under something else (there are ~3000 federal laws to choose from).
For example, sometimes when police kill citizens, and DAs don't prosecute, the Feds will. But the murder isn't in federal jurisdiction, so they charge them with "color of law"[2][3], which is a federal crime.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Jur...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)
[4] https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-l...
Philly Inquirer article has more on other cases where "alleged arsonists" are being caught via social media posts.
In 2015, according to [0], the average was about half that.
> minimum sentence of 5 years is going to run 1.2 mil
How do you get from 70K (presumably per year) to $1.2M over five years? On average it should be more like $135K, with some cheaper states spending about half that.
[0] https://www.vera.org/publications/price-of-prisons-2015-stat...
People shot to death by police in the US by race (technically not the same number as are killed, but should be close enough): https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
Percentage of population by race: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/IPE120218
Homicides by race: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Violent crimes by race (2016): https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
If you are looking at black people in particular, they make up ~23% of the people shot by police while making up ~13% of the population of the US. They commit ~50% of the homicides, and more than 23% of violent crimes such as robbery, assault, and burglary so to me this shows that the police do not have a significant bias towards killing black people, as if there was no discrimination at all you would expect the number of police killings to match the violent crime rates (since violent crimes generally lead to justified police shootings).
The root cause of black people being so over-represented in violent crimes may be discrimination. However, the reality is that right now black people commit a significant portion of the violent crimes in the US, and as a result you would expect them to be over-represented in the number of people being killed by police, even without any discrimination by the police. This does not show that police never discriminate against black people, or that police brutality is not a problem, it just shows that when it comes to police killings, it does not seem to be an issue caused by police targeting black people.
Personally, I think that the biggest issue is that in the US there seems to be a number of dense areas of significant poverty and violence, which are predominantly black. If you grow up in one of these areas, there is a good chance you will be pulled into this violence and continue the cycle. Discrimination and over-policing of minor crimes just makes this problem worse, as black people in these areas are kept in poverty and with limited options to get out, and people who have the means to move get out of the area just leaving behind the people with no other options.
[1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
See: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/what-its-like-to-get...
Specifically - "Although firefighters had earlier drenched the building prior to the bombing, after the fire broke out, officials said they feared that MOVE would shoot at the firefighters, so held them back.
Goode later testified at a 1996 trial that he had ordered the fire to be put out after the bunker had burned. Sambor said he received the order, but the fire commissioner testified that he did not receive the order. Ramona Africa, one of the two MOVE survivors from the house, said that police fired at those trying to escape"
From the links, 60 neighboring homes burned down from it, no fire department presence. So...regardless of the reason, "the fire was allowed to burn".
https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alab...
[0] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17253155/united-states-...
King survived, but two innocents were murdered by a black man who sought to assassinate Koon[0].
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200604062152/https://www.latim...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wirecard-shares-slump-over-mi...
In light of your magnanimous question (inquiring after the views of another is called conversation, not charity), here's my rationale as to why one is justified in using lethal force to defend property.
Let's take an extreme case: Say I'm an immigrant from a third-world nation who arrives in America at a young age. I spend my life working to build a successful small business. I pour my blood, sweat, and tears into it. Now, someone comes along, full of "justified anger" and ready to burn it down. By doing this, he is destroying a huge portion of my life. While this is less severe than murder, it's on the same spectrum of evil; one is destroying another's entire life, the other, only part of another's life. Therefore, a man is justified in any amount of force necessary to protect his property.
I'm aware this isn't a common way to view, but I'm happy to answer more questions and defend it further. I don't believe life has any absolute importance over property because property represents a part of another life. While a person represents more life than a thing in most cases, a thief or arsonist forfeits his rights by committing crimes against another.
[0]: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
[1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=316114562717856...
However, I haven't really seen others support it, aside from the obvious lunatics on television (many of whom simply want to grab free stuff). I'm not sure which sites I'd have needed to frequent to see such support, but I'm always looking to expand my knowledge base, so would appreciate a few recommendations.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/02/07/google-location-pol...
I'm reluctant to give my best recommendation, because it's a fragile community, but hopefully this thread is far enough along that it doesn't have a lot of traffic at this point.
Currently, the discussion at http://slatestarcodex.com is the best that I've found on the internet for hearing intelligent views from people I otherwise disagree with. The "open threads" are very long, and contain a lot (50%?) of dross, but there are also a lot of gems within them. Post-Floyd, I was surprised by how many people whose opinions I generally respect were at least conditionally supportive of burning the police precinct office in Minneapolis.
If you are interested in this question, you could pose it there. It would be considered "culture war", and thus only acceptable in the "fractional" open threads. That is, the ones that end with ".25", ".5", or ".75". To reduce visibility, these aren't officially listed on the front page, but are available from the Recent Posts or from the Archives link. Create an account, post the question there in as fair and open-ended a manner as you can, and I think you'd get good responses.
Well, first of all, "police brutality" is not the worst problem or the problem that incited these protests. Police murder is.
Second, if you're concerned about both of these things, then there's no reason to talk about putting protestors in jail. She didn't set fire to a police car because she didn't know there might be consequences. She set fire to a police car because those consequences don't matter to her. If you care about both police murder and arson, then you should be talking about stopping police murder, because that's the cause of the arson.
Focusing on the violent components of the protests is part of a strategy that controls the narrative. At every turn, kneeling on a man's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds while he begs for his life and slowly dies is being downplayed--calling it "police brutality"--the same term used for slamming someone against a cop car while you handcuff them. And at every turn, things like burning a police car are being played up, calling it arson--the same term used for torching a city block with children inside. And in fact, people in this thread won't even call it arson when Philly PD actually did torch 61 homes, killing 5 children[1]. Where are the people insisting that we call that arson and bring the perpetrators to justice?
So yeah, it's possible to be concerned about both police brutality and arson, but "police brutality and arson" is not what's happening. "A police officer murdering a man and a woman setting fire to two unoccupied, isolated police cars" is a much more proportional description of the events. And if your main concern here is making sure that the woman who lit the police cars on fire is brought to justice, you aren't proportionally concerned about both these things.