How Often Do Police Kill Blacks? At Least Twice Per Week

WASHINGTON — Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI.

Fat Bastardo's Op Ed: The key word here is reported.

On average, there were 96 such incidents among at least 400 police killings each year that were reported to the FBI by local police. The numbers appear to show that the shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., last Saturday was not an isolated event in American policing.

The reports show that 18% of the blacks killed during those seven years were under age 21, compared to 8.7% of whites. The victim in Ferguson was 18-year-old Michael Brown. Police have yet to identify the officer who shot him; witnesses have said the officer was white.

Fat Bastard's Op Ed: Cops target Blacks because it is easier for them the cops to get away with killing them but if their are no Blacks available they will kill Whites and Hispanics.

While the racial analysis is striking, the database it's based on has been long considered flawed and largely incomplete. The killings are self-reported by law enforcement and not all police departments participate so the database undercounts the actual number of deaths. Plus, the numbers are not audited after they are submitted to the FBI and the statistics on "justifiable" homicides have conflicted with independent measures of fatalities at the hands of police.

Fat Bastardo's Op Ed: Cops in the US are trained and skilled liars. Many are zealous puppets for the power elite.

USA TODAY

Police in Ferguson ignite debate about military tactics

A member of the Federal Protective Service asks demonstrators to stay off the steps leading to the Thomas F. Eagleton federal courthouse during a protest in St. Louis. About 100 protesters marched from city hall to the courthouse as they continue to press for broader reforms to local and federal law enforcement following the shooting death of Michael Brown by police. (Photo: Jeff Roberson, AP)

Fullscreen

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Next Slide

About 750 agencies contribute to the database, a fraction of the 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States.

University of South Carolina criminologist Geoff Alpert, who has long studied police use of deadly force, said the FBI's limited database underscores a gaping hole in the nation's understanding of how often local police take a life on America's streets — and under what circumstances.

''There is no national database for this type of information, and that is so crazy," said Alpert. "We've been trying for years, but nobody wanted to fund it and the (police) departments didn't want it. They were concerned with their image and liability. They don't want to bother with it.''

Alpert said the database can confirm that a death has occurred but is good for little else.

"I've looked at records in hundreds of departments,'' Alpert said, "and it is very rare that you find someone saying, 'Oh, gosh, we used excessive force.' In 98.9% of the cases, they are stamped as justified and sent along.''

Despite those flaws, the FBI records remain the most complete nationwide accounting of people killed by the police.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the nation's largest group of police officials, has maintained that police use of force is rare. Citing data gathered by the Bureau of Justices Statistics in 2008, the IACP said less than 2% of the 40 million people who had contact with police reported the use of force or threatened use of force.

Fat Bastardo's Op Ed: 2% is one in fifty.  Compared to people who drive drunk that is 10 times as much. The Gestapo was probably less abusive to German citizens.

"In large part, the public perception of police use of force is framed and influenced by the media depictions which present unrealistic and often outlandish representations of law enforcement and the policing profession,'' the group said in a 2012 report.

Why Muslims and Feminists Suck

In every other country other than Muslim countries women outnumber men by close 1%. Clearly women in the Muslim countries are being killed by Muslim men on a scale that would make Hitler blush.

The feminists are to busy hating men to give a shit about girls and women in the Middle East and as fucked up as Muslims are American feminists are worse. Both filthy groups should have a bounty on them.

Related: Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace"Mohammed is God's apostle.  Those who follow him are harsh
 to the unbelievers but merciful to one another"  Quran 48:29

2014.09.19 (Ganse, Cameroon) - Four civilians are riddled with bullets by Boko Haram.

2014.09.19 (Karradah, Iraq) - Sunnis set off a bomb outside a Shiite mosque, laying out nine of their sectarian rivals.

2014.09.19 (Baghlan, Afghanistan) - Six people outside a mosque are sent straight to Allah by Religion of Peace rivals.

2014.09.18 (Baghdad, Iraq) - A suicide bombing is one of three blasts in Shiite districts that lay out two dozen innocents.

2014.09.17 (Ungwar Ganye, Nigeria) - A pastor and one other person are murdered by angry Muslims.

2014.09.17 (Tarmiyah, Iraq) - Eight Iraqis are exterminated by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.

Age structure: Kuwait

0-14 years: 25.4% (male 363,001/female 334,851)
15-24 years: 15.3% (male 230,628/female 188,892)
25-54 years: 52.3% (male 910,832/female 524,690)
55-64 years: 4.7% (male 73,816/female 54,678)
65 years and over: 2.1% (male 29,312/female 32,011) (2014 est.)

Age structure: UAE

0-14 years: 20.7% (male 597,476/female 570,275)
15-24 years: 13.7% (male 457,647/female 311,673)
25-54 years: 61.5% (male 2,639,018/female 820,915)
55-64 years: 3.1% (male 132,718/female 43,624)
65 years and over: 1% (male 35,071/female 20,388) (2014 est.)

Age Structure: Saudi Arabia

0-14 years: 27.6% (male 3,869,961/female 3,681,616)
15-24 years: 19.3% (male 2,832,538/female 2,458,339)
25-54 years: 45.4% (male 7,086,004/female 5,323,373)
55-64 years: 4.5% (male 674,571/female 555,136)
65 years and over: 3.1% (male 444,302/female 420,146) (2014 est.)


Age structure; Somalia

Age structure:

0-14 years: 44% (male 2,293,746/female 2,298,442)
15-24 years: 18.9% (male 995,102/female 970,630)
25-54 years: 31.2% (male 1,681,705/female 1,571,586)
55-64 years: 3.6% (male 180,622/female 199,059)
65 years and over: 2.3% (male 92,707/female 144,444) (2014 est.)

Age structure: Sudan

0-14 years: 40.8% (male 7,356,059/female 7,131,497)
15-24 years: 20.2% (male 3,704,700/female 3,476,847)
25-54 years: 31.8% (male 5,465,816/female 5,800,619)
55-64 years: 3.9% (male 737,831/female 652,428)
65 years and over: 3.3% (male 633,083/female 523,353) (2014 est.)

Muslims are death on women. Feminists are even worse than Muslims,

Al-Qeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban ect... are the enemy. Below is a picture of the enemy.

Before any of you assholes defend Islam, READ THE KORAN and HADDITH

Dr Drew Perhaps a Bigger Scum Bag Than Dr Oz

Dr. Drew Pinsky and his Checkered History of Robbing People and Holding Back Medical Research

Last updated on September 27th, 2013 By Jason Weber

If you’ve ever seen Dr. Drew Pinsky on MTV or HLN, you’ve seen his distinct look: his lips pursed, his eyes narrowed, his head slightly tilted to stage right.  These are expressions that seem rehearsed in front of a mirror, designed to dispense precisely the right dosage of compassion to his troubled patients, tinged with disapproval — but, instead, it makes him look like his mind is somewhere else, whether it be on golfing or figuring out where his next scammed paycheck is going to come from.

Thanks to the Department of Justice (DOJ), we now know of a Dr. Drew scam large enough to trigger public outrage.  As part of its enormous $3 billion settlement with the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the DOJ unsealed documents showing that the dear doctor had taken in at least $275,000 for “services for Wellbutrin.”

Precisely how can one service an SSRI antidepressant like Wellbutrin? According to the DOJ’s complaint, Dr. Drew was hired to “deliver messages about [Wellbutrin SR] in settings where it did not appear that Dr. Pinsky was speaking for GSK.”  After Pinsky suggested that Wellbutrin might be responsible for increasing a woman’s orgasm rate—to as many as 60 orgasms in a “good” night—an internal GSK memo noted approvingly that Dr. Drew had “communicated key campaign messages” about Wellbutrin to the public.

GSK got hauled into court, in part, because it is illegal for a pharmaceutical company to promote a non-FDA approved use of a drug (FDA recognizes Wellbutrin as an antidepressant and smoking cessation aid, not as an orgasm enhancer).  But it’s not illegal for a doctor to promote or prescribe such off-label uses — Pinsky was not charged with any crime.  In astatement to Forbes, Dr. Drew said, “My comments were consistent with my clinical experience.”  Furthermore, a GSK spokeswoman wrote that “The complaint does not reflect what would be allowed in GSK today” … “We have increased our controls to require disclosure of financial relationships.”  Off-label uses can be very lucrative to a company marketing a drug.  This is one reason why so much drug-company money has been winding up in the pockets of physicians — including, quite possibly, YOURS.

Dr Drew – GSK – Justice Department – Click to enlarge

Related:

• Rogues Gallery: DOJ Lists the Worst-Behaved Drug Companies of 2010
• $5B: The Cost to the Taxpayer of Drug Company Pricing Fraud
• $928 for a Bag of Salt: How Drugmakers Rip Off Taxpayers
• Exclusive: How Abbott Labs Allegedly Got Medicaid to Pay $3.3M for Popsicles$

In Dr. Drew’s case, the Justice Department isn’t the first to point out that he’s been taking money from pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers.  In January, while researching conflicts of interest caused by pharmaceutical payments, Slate.com discovered that Pinsky had taken $115,000 from Janssen Pharmaceuticals.  When the news went public, Janssen was the first to defend Pinsky, stating that the money was for a program “aimed at educating teens, parents, and educators about the prevalence and serious risks of teen prescription drug abuse in the U.S. …”  And Alison Rudnick, a spokesperson for CNN’s Headline News network, home of the showDr. Drew, emailed Slate.com to confirm that, if appropriate, “Dr. Drew would provide an on-air disclaimer if he were to do a story involving Janssen Pharmaceuticals.”  Be that as it may, there was no such disclaimer last week when the subject of the Dr. Drew show was gastric bypass surgery — even though the Los Angeles Times had an article in December questioning the propriety of Pinsky’s role as a spokesperson for 1-800-GET-THIN, a lap-band surgery marketing firm (a source at Headline News says that the lap-band deal had elapsed by the time the gastric bypass show aired, so no disclosure was necessary).

Dr Drew Lying About GSK Fraud – Click to enlarge

It’s not just celebrity doctors like Pinsky who are getting lots of attention — and cash — from big pharmaceuticals.  Thanks to lawsuits like the recent GSK one, we’re beginning to get hints of just how much the drug industry is paying physicians in hopes of getting them to talk up and prescribe its wares.  As a result of court battles, a number of big drug companies, such as Pfizer, Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Johnson & Johnson, have been forced to disclose the money they’ve paid to medical providers. The nonprofit investigative journalism organization ProPublica collected all of those disclosures (along with a number of others that were voluntary) from 12 drug companies.  All told, the database contains more than $760 million in payments for such services as consulting, speaking, and research, although it’s probable that a large proportion of these gigs are “work” in name only, such as the lavish consulting meetings in Jamaica that the government alleges were intended to reward physicians prescribing large amounts of Wellbutrin to their patients.

It’s not surprising that some doctors would take drug company cash — even when doing so potentially runs counter to the interests of their patients.  But the $760 million figure gives a sense how widespread the problem has become.  Throw a few names into the ProPublica database — names of medical doctors you know — and there’s a reasonable chance you’ll discover that one has been suckling from Big Pharmaceutical’s teat.

Worse yet, you can often catch a whiff of drug company money on the FDA, which decides which pharmaceuticals are allowed on the market, and the NIH, which funds some $30 billion of medical research annually. That controversial decision last year to screen children for cholesterol — and potentially put them on cholesterol-lowering drugs?  Big Pharmaceutical was there. The decision about whether diabetes drug Avandia should be off the market?  Big Pharmaceutical was there.  In Slate.com’s own investigations, they found a number of people serving on key NIH advisory panels who were taking money from pharmaceutical firms.  When they used the Freedom of Information Act to get the agency to turn over certain documents that might shed light on these payments, the agency refused to do so.  Slate.com sued.  The judge ordered the NIH to turn over some of the documents Slate.com requested; the government is now deciding whether or not to appeal the decision.  This money is potentially influencing which compounds get researched, what drugs get approved, and what medicines wind up in your bathroom cabinet. 

Dr. Drew Calls Jodi a Narcissist – Click to enlarge

In lay terms, big pharmaceuticals and corrupt sycophants like Dr. Drew Pinsky are holding back the progress of medical research that could and should be available to all, simply out of greed and their own personal agenda, and that’s simply wrong.  And they’re doing this under the guise of “caring physicians”. 

The payments to Dr. Drew are just a tiny symptom of a much bigger malaise.  There are volumes of laws and regulations that are supposed to keep the public safe from ineffective or dangerous drugs.  Publicly, the drug companies and their supporters say those rules threaten to stifle medical progress.  But in reality, the deep pockets of the pharmaceutical industry make it relatively simple to get around mere laws and federal regulations.  And when a company gets caught, it’s no biggie.  GlaxoSmithKline stock didn’t suffer despite the enormous fine — as Slate intimated; GSK’s stock price is up more than a percent from the day before the settlement was announced.  When you sell some $44 billion worth of drugs annually, even a $3 billion settlement is just the cost of doing business.  A quarter of a million dollars to an unctuous TV doc isn’t even a blip on the radar.

Dr. Drew HLN Propaganda – Click to enlarge

Dr. Drew is most recently known for his neoconservative views on the law with anti-American, anti-constitutional frauds like Katie Wick and Janeen Driver, another scam artist, appearing on his show regularly, as his effort to shift the burden of the proof to the defense in judicial cases has made him  hero among many, yet a villain to those who support the constitutional right to due process and the presumption of innocence.  Pinsky frequently uses terms on the accused that actually describe himself, including “psychopath”, “sociopath”, and “narcissist”, among others.

Dr. Drew Pinsky has also picked up on the modus operandi of HLN, using sensationalism in an attempt to rouse emotions in order to brainwash Americans into neglecting to use their intellect.  Can you trust anything that comes out of this clown’s mouth?

The next time you flip past the Dr. Drew Pinsky show on HLN, keep flipping.  But if you happen to pause, remember that you’re listening to an egocentric narcissist who cares only about himself and his bank account.  And think of all he’s done to hold medical research back — research that could have saved many lives, as he’s hindered the progress of much medical research development to fit his agenda:  making himself rich.

As always, leave your thoughts and comment(s) below on what you think of this fraud, Dr. Pinsky.

Adrian Peterson's Son

I rarely speculate on events and I rarely report on things I don't feel are news worthy such as the the Ray Rice media storm. We don't even know if Peterson whooped his 4 year old son. but we do know that one of his kid was killed by one of his ho baby mama's boyfriends. Chances are that Peterson did not do this.

A 2-year-old son of Minnesota Vikings star running back Adrian Peterson died on Friday in a Sioux Falls, S.D., hospital, the victim of alleged abuse by a man who was dating the boy's mother, police confirmed.

Peterson's father, Nelson Peterson, confirmed Friday afternoon that the child is Adrian Peterson's. Peterson met with the media Friday, hours before the boy passed away, and said at the time he still planned to play in Sunday's game against Carolina, but declined to get into details about the case.

Peterson posted a statement on his Twitter account after news of the child's death.

"Thank you to my family, my fans and fans of other teams for their support. The NFL is a fraternity of brothers and I am thankful for the tweets, phone calls and text messages from my fellow players. God Bless everyone and thank u so much," Peterson wrote in three tweets.

Police arrested Joseph Robert Patterson, 27, who was initially charged with aggravated assault and aggravated assault on an infant. Sioux Falls police said additional charges are being considered.