Cops More Willing to Shoot Whites than Blacks, Research Finds

Valerie Richardson, Washington Times, January 5, 2015

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.

An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.

“This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group,” said the paper, which went practically unnoticed when it was published online on May 22, but took on new significance in the wake of a series of high-profile police-involved shootings involving black victims over the summer.

The results back up what one of the researchers, University of Missouri-St. Louis professor David Klinger, has found after independently interviewing more than 300 police officers: While they don’t want to shoot anybody, they really don’t want to shoot black suspects.

“Across these 300 interviews, I have multiple officers telling me that they didn’t shoot only because the suspect was black or the suspect was a woman, or something that would not be consistent with this narrative of cops out there running and gunning,” said Mr. Klinger, a former cop and author of “Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force” (2006).

“When it comes to the issue of race, I’ve never had a single officer tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was white.’ I’ve had multiple officers tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was black,’ ” Mr. Klinger said. “And this is 10, even 20 years ago. Officers are alert to the fact that if they shoot a black individual, the odds of social outcry are far greater than if they shoot a white individual.”

In fact, he said, officers involved in shootings have told him that they were actually relieved that the person they shot was white, not black.


The interviews, which he conducted for a book he’s planning to finish this year, run directly counter to the prevailing view pushed by social justice groups, politicians and others: that shooting victims such as 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson were victims at least in part of racial discrimination against blacks among cops.


The study found that the 48 participants waited longest before firing on black suspects in “shoot” scenarios, even though the participants exhibited “stronger threat responses” when facing black suspects than with white or Hispanic suspects.

Eighty-five percent of the participants were white, and none was a police officer. At the same time, a 2013 study led by Ms. James using active police, military and the general public found the same phenomenon: All three groups took longer to shoot black suspects, and participants were also more likely to fire on unarmed whites and Hispanics than blacks.


So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

What’s more, he said, black SWAT officers make up about one-third of the St. Louis force–and they commit on average about one-third of the shootings each year.

“And this is consistent with every other study that’s ever been done,” said Mr. Klinger, who, as a rookie officer in Los Angeles, fatally shot a black man armed with a knife who had stabbed his partner, Dennis Azevedo, in the chest.


Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • dd121

    As an aside, the Republicans didn’t replace Bonner today so don’t expect any conservative revolution to sweep over the congress the next two years. As I thought, the Republicans are going to take this election victory and sit on their hands.

    • JohnEngelman

      Republicans will find ways to skew things in favor of the well to do. That is what they really care about. The rest is campaign rhetoric.

      • dd121

        The Democrats have plenty of supporters who have money beyond counting so please don’t think this is only a Republican affliction. PS The dems had more money than repubs contributed in the last election.

        • JohnEngelman

          President Clinton raised taxes for the rich and left office with budget surpluses. Presidents Reagan and Bush II cut taxes for the rich and the national debt ballooned.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            John Engleman is like a Giant Squid, which has more ink than one can navigate through. He will continue to lie about Reagan, long after he has been shown conclusive evidence to the contrary. I was warned that it is a mistake to to argue with him, a warning I did not heed.

            I suppose we should just be satisfied with the fact that he at least “gets it” when it comes to “Africanus Criminalis.”

          • JohnEngelman

            Earl P. Holt III,

            Please post a statement I made about President Ronald Reagan that is not true. Please post “conclusive evidence” that it is not true.

            Now in the case of my previous statement, Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 to 28 percent. The national debt tripled.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Very easy, but I already know how he will respond, and it will be skilled obfuscation:

            Multiple times Engleman has stated that Reagan’s Supply-Side tax cuts created large deficits and were fraudulent. In fact, tax revenues to the Treasury nearly DOUBLED in the eight years Reagan was in office, even at lower Federal Income Tax Rates. (You won’t find any mention of this in the NEW YORK TIMES, however…)

            Fiscal 1980 Revenues to Treasury: $517.1 Billion. (This is the last Fiscal Year before Reagan took office, and ended September 30th, 1980.)

            Fiscal 1989 Revenues to Treasury: 991.2 Billion. (This is the last Fiscal Year whose Budget was written by the Reagan Administration, and for which Reagan can be held accountable: It ended Sept. 30th, 1989.)

            Thus, Treasury Revenues increased 92% under Reagan, even at the lower Federal Income Tax Rates.

            These are not MY figures, they are printed every year in the “Economic Report of the President,” and are the work product of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and the various graduate Business schools which help “vet” them.

            Happy to oblige…

          • JohnEngelman

            Earl P. Holt III,

            My figures come from the Tax Policy Center. This is “a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.” Their data in turn comes from the Office of Management and Budget, Historical tables, Table 1.3. I will follow this comment with another comment that includes the web address to this website.

            During the Carter administration the top tax rate was 70 percent. During the Reagan administration this declined to 28 percent. Again, I will follow this with a website that documents this.

            According to the Tax Policy Center Revenue figures for 1989 are $991.1 billion, rather than $991.2 billion. That is a small difference, so I will assume that your numbers are honest.

            From 1980 to 1989 revenue increased by $494.0, or 91.66%, which can be rounded off to 92%. So far, we are in agreement.

            Let’s look at comparable figures for the Carter administration, remembering that President Carter was in office half as long as Ronald Reagan.

            In 1976 combined tax revenue was $298.1 billion. In 1980 this had grown to 517.1 billion. This represents an increase in $219.0 billion, or 73.46%, which can be rounded off to 73%.

            So, you see, there was more revenue growth per year under President Carter than under President Reagan.

            During the four years Carter was president the national debt increased $227.4 billion.

            During the eight years Reagan was president the national debt increased $1,338.6 billion.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Increasing Federal Tax Revenues is NOT necessarily a good thing, because doing so merely gives the Yankee Government more wealth to transfer to what is euphemistically referred to as “Urban Welfare Spending,” which is currently $1 Trillion per year. I am merely responding to the allegation that Supply-Side Economics does not work, does not generate higher revenues at lower tax rates, and was some sort of fraud perpetrated on the American public, when it is really nothing more than the application of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns to Taxation…

            As I have explained to you on at least one other occasion, it is not the least bit surprising that revenues grew under Carter: His double-digit inflation generated during the last two years of his horrifically bad Presidency pushed taxpayers into higher tax brackets without any real gain in income, which is a blueprint for “Stagflation,” and why the Reagan Administration INDEXED Federal Income Taxes.

            The National Debt DID increase under Reagan, because the Communist Party (some prefer “Democrats”) always held the House, and took back the Senate in 1986. Attempts by Reagan to control spending are best exemplified by his deal with that fat, lying, ward-healing Bolshevik, Tip O’Neil in the so-called Tax Reform Act of 1986: As everyone SHOULD know, Reagan agreed to $1 in Federal Income Tax increases in exchange for every $3 in Federal spending cuts, in order to reduce the looming Federal Deficit.

            After the tax increases were in place, instead of making good on his agreement, O’Neil — being typical of the lying, dissembling, traitorous scum found on the Communist side of the aisle — actually INCREASED Federal spending rather than fulfill his agreement to cut spending.

            Only someone who relies upon the lying, biased and partisan frauds at the NEW YORK TIMES Editorial Page could blame Reagan for the Federal Deficits that occurred during his administration. That is because Federal Tax Revenues grew powerfully: Had there been ANY spending restraint by the communist party across the aisle, there would have been little or no increases in Federal Deficits contributing to the National Debt.

          • JohnEngelman

            Only someone who relies upon the lying, biased and partisan frauds at the NEW YORK TIMES Editorial Page could blame Reagan for the Federal Deficits that occurred during his administration.

            – Earl P. Holt III

            As I have explained in the past, the liberal bias of The New York Times consists of what it does not report. Years ago I read an article in The New York Times that said that liberals do not want to be told bad things about blacks and homosexuals. The editors of The New York Times keep this in mind, and see to it that little appears in the pages of The New York Times that is uncomplimentary to blacks and homosexuals.

            Nevertheless, The New York Times, unlike Rush Limbaugh and FOX News, does not deliberately lie. If a mistake appears on the pages of The New York Times, the paper prints a retraction.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            The liberal bias of the NYT consists of a great deal more than merely stories it “spikes,” (many of which consist of the misdeeds of “Africanus Criminalis.”)

            If the NYT prints a retraction, it is only because it has been embarrassed into doing so by the likes of Limbaugh or Fox News, who have caught the NYT in a lie…

          • JohnEngelman

            The National Debt DID increase under Reagan, because the Communist Party (some prefer “Democrats”) always held the House, and took back the Senate in 1986.

            – Earl P. Holt III

            That sort of hyperbole is unimpressive to sensible people, even sensible conservatives.

            The national debt increased under President Reagan because there was little popular support for specific spending cuts, and be cause Ronald Reagan significantly increased defense spending.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I’m NOT following down that rabbit hole again, but I’ll say this: Federal Deficits increased far in excess of any increases in Defense Spending because of the lack of Fiscal Restraint on the part of the communists (some prefer “Democrats,”) who are actually the new communist party and have been so since about 1970.

            They are even more irresponsible, fiscally, than RINOS and “Establishment” Republicans…

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I’m not trying to impress anyone — sensible or otherwise — and am not concerned with what you find intemperate or hyperbolic in anything I might write…

          • Usually Much Calmer

            John Engelman is a thoughtful man and I have never read him disrespecting anyone with whom he disagrees.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I’ll grant you that he is more civil than I am: Perhaps that’s because he does not have to listen to liars re-write history on a daily basis.

            He believes Jimmy Carter was a “great President”: No one has ever found it necessary to lie about the failings of Jimmy Carter, because there is so much with which to work…

          • Usually Much Calmer

            We all have to listen to liars rewriting history, no? I think he hears the same infuriating things you and I do.

            If he comes up with a few of his own, at least they are his own. If you don’t appreciate his perspective, please let it be known and then let him be.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            The thing that bothered me the most was the gratuitous manner in which he would throw-away falsehoods about Ronald Reagan’s accomplishments — gleaned from editorial writers at the NEW YORK TIMES — none of whom will ever be worthy of cleaning Reagan’s toilet…

          • TK

            Absolute myth and an incredibly pervasive lie. When Clinton left office, the national debt was over $5 trillion. That information is easily accessible through the government website Treasury Direct dot Gov. Just plug in the date that Clinton left office. He added about $1.5 trillion to the national debt during his two terms. He came close to balancing a budget one year, but that’s it.

          • JohnEngelman

            During Clinton’s presidency the deficit declined every year until it became a surplus.

      • MannyR

        Yeah and the Democrats are lookin out for da little man! Good God, what decade do you live in?

    • Democratic republicanism doesn’t disappoint me anymore because I no longer expect anything of it.

      I think Nancy Pelosi told a handful of Democrats not to be there today in order to help Boehner win. An absent Democrat was de facto a half a vote for Boehner.

    • MBlanc46

      No Repub, Boehner or otherwise, is ever going to come out as anti-anti-racist.

      • dd121

        I think you’re absolutely right. What I was hoping for was some resistance to illegal immigration and a few other conservative agenda items. I don’t think they’ll make much of a pretense of it now. They will probably lose big in the ’16 elections and be replaced by people even more left wing than the current regime.

        • 1G25

          And don’t ask me to vote for Jeb Bush.

        • MBlanc46

          The Repubs are still essentially the party of corporate America. They’ve certainly exploited the white populist electorate for the past few decades, but they don’t care any more about white populists than the Dems really care about blacks.

  • MekongDelta69

    “Cops More Willing to Shoot Whites than Blacks, Research Finds”

    Of COURSE – That’s what the black race-hustlers and their slaves have wanted all along.

    DON’T shoot guilty people – too much grief.
    DO shoot innocent people – they won’t give you grief.


  • Luca

    All the facts, statistics, knowledge, evidence, videotapes and common sense in the world will not pry blacks away from the battle cry of “racism.” Nor will it sway their liberal handlers, who know better and don’t care.

    • Frank_DeScushin

      I shared this article on an online forum. Predictably, one of that sites uber-Liberal white posters was the first to comment. He stated that the whole study is invalid because one of the people involved in conducting the study is a white officer who shot and killed a black man. Mr. White Guilt completely (and intentionally) omitted the part where the black man was stabbing the officer’s partner at the time, and the shooting was ruled justified.

      As you correctly point out, Luca, white Liberals will always look for any excuse to stick with their narrative of evil whites oppressing innocent blacks.

      • Sick of it

        Because anti-racism is, in reality, the hatred of white people.

      • Nancy

        Remember: “Dey done HACK dat video! Dat video FAKE! Big Mike, he din’ be stealin’ sheeeet! Hey PAY for dat!”

        Remaining stubbornly, willfully ignorant in the face of irrefutable evidence is the specialty of the Left. And the mentally ill.

        (Redundancy not intended.)

        • MannyR

          The number of people that believe the KKK, CIA, NSA, NRA, FBI…doctored the video/ photographs are truly shocking. Somehow all those government agents are moonlighting at Industrial Light and Magic on the side.

    • MBlanc46

      I’m not sure that their handlers know better. They should know better, of course, but they ignore and deny and rationalize to the nth degree to keep from knowing.

    • Albert

      Blacks are like superheroes in that they are absolutely impervious to logic. If only we can find their weakness.

  • Easyrhino

    Considering the times this makes perfect.

    Why risk your career and pension by incurring the wrath or the racist duo of Obama and Holder just for doing your job when there’s a good chance that the perp will get killed by one of his brethren anyway?

  • John Ambrose

    I guess this is due to that white privilege we keep hearing about…

  • JohnEngelman

    Question: Why are blacks more likely to be shot?

    Answer: They are more likely to be shooters.

    I wish all of life’s questions were this easy.

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    All police officers understand this basic fact of life in todays society. If they shoot a white person they will be judged on the facts and the circumstances at the time. If they shoot a black they are automatically judged guilty by the black community, and many white liberals, and even facts and circumstances won’t alter that narrative.

  • What’s more, he said, black SWAT officers make up about one-third of the St. Louis force–and they commit on average about one-third of the shootings each year.

    They are about that percentage of the SLPD in general.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Killing a White doesn’t bring marchers into the streets, race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson “out in force,” government agencies like the DOJ down your throat to file “civil rights violations,” media taking the side of black criminals like Gardner and Brown, nor will you find your career destroyed or your family subjected to death threats.

    Better to walk on by, unless shot at.

    • BernieGoetzFan

      If Darren Wilson had been attacked by a white man he would still have a job today. Though he did not get lynched, his career is over. All because he was attacked by a racially privileged criminal.

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        He’s also deep in hiding. He should be allowed to go into the witness protection program, but the Feds and the current administration are hostile toward him and are still rattling on about trying him on “civil rights violations.”

        I sincerely hope he’s OK – last I heard, he was not going to get any kind of severance pay or a retirement from the Ferguson police dept.

        His career is not only over, it’s been destroyed.

        • Jim Barlow

          He should be allowed to go into the white-ness protection program.

  • John Smith

    Plus if you factor in that whites per capita commit far fewer crimes than blacks, white suspects per capita do get shot more often than black suspects.

    I also wonder about the rate of black cops shooting suspects (of any race).

  • superlloyd

    Yet again negro and libtard myths and lies are confounded by hard, empirical data. These idiots simply cannot construct logical or valid arguments but that matters not at all to the craven media and the criminals in Washington.

    • drattastic

      Yet the false narrative remains prevalent.

  • Johnny Harper

    This “research” makes sense. The penalties for shooting a black is MUCH higher than that for a White.

    This isn’t shocking at all.

    • WR_the_realist

      When was the last time whites burned down a neighborhood because some white criminal got shot?

      • RationaliseThis

        What effect would burning down a part of a neighbourhood have?
        I have the I,Preston that police were told to hold off at NY and Ferguson.

  • curri

    USG is hiding something when it comes to police shootings. Likely what they’re hiding is the number of relatively harmless unprivileged whites who are killed by police.

    From Reason(dot) com, dated 010515:

    “As noted often here at Reason, there is no national database compiling data on shootings by police. Nothing that matches the overall number of shootings against the ones deemed “justified.” Nothing that allows trends to be studied based on crime rates, officer training, local gun laws, or any other relevant metric. Nothing at all. Which is why sports websitesand a few journalists and academics have volunteered to pick up the slack.

    The FBI issues a “Uniform Crime Report,” but does not require individual police agencies to supply them with info on police shootings, even justifiable homicides, so most agencies simply keep that info to themselves. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, police agencies in Utah reported 18 justifiable homicides by law enforcement from 2007-2012, contrasting with the Tribune’s review identifying 59 homicides over that same six-year span…The Tribune cites one federal effort to create an “Arrest-Related Deaths” report, by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), “but when an audit found too many deaths missing in the BJS national data, the program was discontinued. No data after 2009 will be available.” Translation: the government tried to find out how often its agents were killing its citizens, failed in its mission, and promptly gave up.

    It remains difficult to fathom how a federal government which studies the effects of video game violence every few years and employs a National Security Agency (NSA) operating on a “collect all the data” mantra would be unable to compel local police agencies, a great many of which receive gratis military equipment from the feds, into supplying basic data on the most sensitive incidents a police officer can be involved with, the shooting of a citizen.”

  • JustSayin

    So in effect, White lives don’t matter. That’s what we’re being told at least.

    • anony

      The entire media are screaming that at us 24/7 and have been for a long, long time.

  • Alexandra1973

    I should show this to my mom. She claims that Mike Brown wouldn’t have been shot if he was white. I said, no, he would have.

    • JimBass56

      Correct. Happens daily for less. But his white neighbors would not have looted and burned their own neighborhood because of it, nor white civil-rights agitators and hustlers (wait….there are none) swooping in to make it a national issue.

  • Ograf

    Of course it is the behavior of the blacks that causes them to be shot. Recently in Albany N.Y. a black man who had just got out of prison about a week before was wanted for an armed robbery. The police stopped the SUV he was riding in. The man as he exited the car as the police had told him comes out with a 9mm handgun and starts pointing it toward the Officers. Naturally they immediately shot him down and killed him. The city nearly had a riot, they became disorderly when the White police chief was explaining what happened. Of course the blacks didn’t believe it , or didn’t want to believe it. Their answer was that the police were murdering their children on the streets of the city. Given the circumstances how could anyone, including delusional black people think that the shooting was unjustified and wrong ? There is no answer, except to segregate or at least have all black neighborhoods patrolled by all black police officers, and vice versa for the White neighborhoods. I often times curse the people who introduced slavery into this country. How nice it would be if that had never happened.

    • Nancy

      Don’t forget that slavery wouldn’t have happened nearly to the scale that it did without the wholesale cooperation of African Negroes who were enslaving their own brethren and selling them to European traders by the thousands.

      Yet the false narrative of evil white explorers running through the African “jungles”, raiding poor villages and capturing the natives likewise persists.

      • MBlanc46

        It would have been virtually impossible without the slave-catching, slave-transporting, and slave-selling by Africans.

        • mael

          Brought by ships owned by squids.

        • Nancy

          I’m currently covering the “real” slave trade for my 8-year-old daughter, since she’s learning it in “social studies” at school and obviously will be kept in the dark about such salient facts as black slave owners, Africans selling each other, etc.

          I can just imagine how NEXT month will be, with the whole Black History Month farce.

          • Albert

            Be sure to teach her how its been going on since at least the 1300’s. Back when global trade was beginning to bloom, slaves were Africa’s major export. They’ve been selling their own for centuries.

          • MBlanc46

            The whole subject of slavery in Africa appears to be completely ignored in the US.

      • Cid Campeador

        Let’s not forget the Arabs (Muslims) who raided the villages and captured the future slaves. Yes they did work in concert with other rival tribes who were more than happy to collect slaves for the Mussies. I’d imagine that they got in some serious rapin’ during their slaving raids.

  • antiquesunlight

    Nice detective work, Klinger.

    Speaking of which, the Great Detective was born 161 years ago today. Happy Birthday, Mr. Sherlock Holmes.

  • LHathaway

    “Cops more willing to shoot white suspects”
    Smart people will read this and say, “See, police aren’t targeting blacks!” It’s over for whites in multicultural nations. .

    • Cid Campeador

      It’s NEVER over unless we allow it to be “over”!

      • LHathaway

        lol, good one. I think it is, “It’s never over until we say it’s over”?

  • MannyR

    Somewhat off topic but… If you have dogs that you care about, under no circumstances should you in anyway call 911 to your house/ domicile. The staggering amount of online videos of police officers shooting people’s pets for no reason whatsoever is huge. This is one area I feel they needs to be serious ramifications for law enforcement that are found to be unjustified in using their weapons, shooting dogs. Not shooting blacks. Just so we’re all clear.

  • WR_the_realist

    100% guarantee: This study will get very little mention in the mass media, and none at all on MSNBC.

  • Dr.Bazzi

    Just a thought , if we were an homogenous society (white) there would be no ‘research articles” on whether cops shoot more blacks.
    Integration… the failure that keeps on giving!

    • Augustus3709

      Exactly. Homogeneity is the only long-term solution.

      Unfortunately, it is an obstacle to radical leftism which seeks to unite the people through a common identity (i.e. no identity at all), but on the other side big capitalism also supports mixing since it only cares about profit, regardless of the race of the purchaser.

      The solution is to be anti-egalitarian, anti-communist, and only pro-capitalism when it supports the people of your nation.

  • MrGJG

    This finding doesn’t surprise me in the least. I’ve been making this exact claim for years and people look at me cross eyed. The fact is, it’s white lives that don’t matter.

  • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

    I guess they have to say that to look not racist.

  • Augustus3709

    This is quite an amazing finding but also understandable.

    In any case it is the result of 2 factors:

    # 1. A main stream media and culture which is openly racist against White people, and

    # 2. Evolutionary genetics which causes Whites to be calmer and more rational in comparison to lower IQ races.

    The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Whites don’t make enough of a stink. Furthermore when we DO try to stand up for ourselves, the collective left breathes its fire at us to shut us down, when our agenda is entirely fair and legitimate.

  • John Smith

    I believe the most recent incident stats back this up, IIRC.

  • John R

    Yeah, okay. But too bad I have had to come to American Renaissance to read this. You think that MSNBC, or Eyewitness News (in Philly, where I live) is going to talk about this? Do you think president Obama is going to mention this in any speech? Is mayor DeBlasio of New York going to note this? That is the problem: We only hear over and over, “black suspects shot by police; blacks profiled; racist police; black parents worried about their sons because of police; racial bias by police….” As Goebbels knew so well, tell the same lie over and over enough times and people will believe it.

    • Cid Campeador

      Is Mike Nutter going to note it? When he first got elected I thought that maybe he’d be different. When the first so called “flash mob” incident occurred, I remember him coming out strongly against the “teens” who perpetrated it. I seems as though he’s backing off on it lately.
      Remember the Mardi Gras celebrations on South Street that after three seasons, if I’m not mistaken were discontinued due to the usual outrageous Black behavior. The local news and Inquirer characterized them as ‘fights’ breaking out. However the videos revealed the truth. The “fights” were actually attacks perpetrated by the Mau Mau against unsuspecting Whites. I saw none where Blacks were fighting with other Blacks.
      CRIME HAS GONE DOWN? No. It’s the reporting of it that’s going down.

  • rob

    In San Francisco recently,the Po-leece shot and killed a man ,white, who pulled a fake pistol on them . It was clearly a case of suicide by cop. He wrote a lengthy suicide note, and in it he said that he wasnt blaming the Po-leece.Many other whites have been killed by them, some of them not justifiably.(Peejay in Frisco)