CDZ What is With All of the Deadly Police Shootings?

[320 Years of History]

Young black males commit something like half of violent crimes. ....

Most of us who pay attention and read...

And I posted more reliable data that show yours to be wrong, and my point was right, as well as the point I made that you have in red. I don't really care whether you like it or not.

??? What are you talking about? You don't have any remarks between post #43 where you wrote, "Young black males commit something like half of violent crimes," and post #50 where I refuted that assertion by providing the chart. Yet at the very start of post #51, you claim I can't read well. There was nothing to read from you between posts 43 and 50 that provided any new information regarding whether "young black males commit something like half of violent crimes."

 

[Weatherman2020]

Inner city minorities raised without a father=disrespect for authority=drugs=criminal behavior=guns=using guns on innocents.

 

[320 Years of History]

Inner city minorities raised without a father=disrespect for authority=drugs=criminal behavior=guns=using guns on innocents.

??? The majority of criminal activity occurs absent guns. Just as guns do not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) criminal behavior, criminal behavior does not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) guns.

 

[Agit8r]

It seems like every other day we see or hear of another deadly shooting of someone who is armed but not posing an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to anyone. In many instances the police appear to start shooting earlier than may become necessary and, when they do, keep firing until their guns are empty.

Is this a reflection of an official policy of shoot to kill, or are these examples of poor judgement/panic on the part of individual police officers? It seems that less lethal means and training should be implemented to deal with these situations.

Is this an unrealistic proposal?

Well, it isn't anything new. There is just the technology available that it doesn't get covered up as easily as it has historically. Police haven't changed fundamentally in the last half-century

Mississippi civil rights workers' murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Weatherman2020]

Inner city minorities raised without a father=disrespect for authority=drugs=criminal behavior=guns=using guns on innocents.

??? The majority of criminal activity occurs absent guns. Just as guns do not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) criminal behavior, criminal behavior does not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) guns.

Topic is police shootings. Means the bad guy had a weapon, typically a gun.

 

[320 Years of History]

Inner city minorities raised without a father=disrespect for authority=drugs=criminal behavior=guns=using guns on innocents.

??? The majority of criminal activity occurs absent guns. Just as guns do not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) criminal behavior, criminal behavior does not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) guns.

Topic is police shootings. Means the bad guy had a weapon, typically a gun.

First, if you are clarifying the remarks to which I replied, okay, I understand the clarification you've provided. If you are instead defending their factual accuracy, to the extent you responded to the single point about which I wrote -- that of criminal behavior = guns -- "typically = guns" isn't at all the same as "equaling guns." If you don't believe the things you wrote truly and always to be equivalences, i.e., imbued with a 100% of the time causal correspondence, why did you present them that way? Seeing as what you wrote and what you meant apparently aren't precisely the same, perhaps you should have written what you meant. I cannot read your mind, only your words.

You are the one who wrote the post indicating equivalences -- each of which, except perhaps the drugs = criminal behavior and that only because I took "drugs" to mean "illegal drugs," can easily be shown to not at all be so at the frequency of equivalence (100% of the time) -- I just happened to address the first one that had to do with guns and crime. I chose that one because criminal behavior is the one thing you noted that necessarily, rightly and always (sooner or later) involves police officers.

Because I know that it sometimes does, I'm not opposed to accepting the premise that criminal behavior involves guns, as well as the possible verity of the other relationships you noted, but that it does so as often as your remarks indicate (=) is not something I'll accept merely because you say so. You essentially wrote A=B=C=D=E. That means that every term in the equivalence is equal to equal to every other. And that's clearly not so. Alternatively, if I'm correct in thinking your equals signs meant "necessarily and unavoidably leads to," (A ==> B ==> C ==> D ==> E) well, that too just isn't something that I can accept absent evidence indicating as much. If you were to have presented the idea as A --> B --> C --> D --> E, the issue there is that you're still asserting that "inner city minorities [being] raised without a father leads to using guns on innocents." That too isn't at all likely to be even "most of the time" so. (BTW, what does one's being a minority child have to do with it? Do inner city non-minorities being raised without a father lead routinely not disrespect authority?)

Second, the "bad guy" is an alleged bad guy, a suspect, not a person convicted of that for which the cops seek to apprehend them, and whether s/he is thus a "bad guy" remains in question. You may indeed ascribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," but the tone of your remarks here don't suggest that. They have a tone of "if cops think you are guilty, you are."

Third, it really doesn't matter, as go police shootings, if the suspect merely has possession of a weapon. What matters, especially with regard to the theme of the topic the OP presented for this thread, is the prudence cops exercise in using theirs, particularly their gun(s). A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk. In the Court's opinion, written by Justice White:

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.​

Fourth, though in incidents of cops shooting suspects one would expect that the suspect also had a weapon. I see nowhere that you or anyone else has established that to be so in cases where cops shoot suspects. Moreover, I don't see you establishing that the weapon the suspects have, when they have one, is always or even most often, a gun, which given that most crime occurs absent a gun, would be an important thing to show in light of the "axioms" you presented.

 

[jwoodie]

[QUOTE="Picaro, post: 13042913, member: 25684"]Young black males commit something like half of violent crimes. ....

Most of us who pay attention and read...

I am sure you read some things -- God and you only know what -- but you really need to read more...at least enough to determine whether your own speculations are at least plausible, if not verifiably accurate.

The supposed fact you offered at the start of your remarks are, absent any very dramatic changes in the past two years, and I know for 2014 it didn't, just not true. In fact, it's not even close to being true.



What may very well be true, even though your assertion isn't, is that you believe(d) it to be true or perhaps wanted to.[/QUOTE]

Aren't you just quibbling over terminology? Your chart indicates that Blacks (12% of the population) are three times more likely to commit violence than Whites (64%), and that most of that violence was committed against other Blacks.

 

[320 Years of History]

[QUOTE="Picaro, post: 13042913, member: 25684"]Young black males commit something like half of violent crimes. ....

Most of us who pay attention and read...

I am sure you read some things -- God and you only know what -- but you really need to read more...at least enough to determine whether your own speculations are at least plausible, if not verifiably accurate.

The supposed fact you offered at the start of your remarks are, absent any very dramatic changes in the past two years, and I know for 2014 it didn't, just not true. In fact, it's not even close to being true.



What may very well be true, even though your assertion isn't, is that you believe(d) it to be true or perhaps wanted to.

Are you statistically challenged? You chart indicates that Blacks (12% of the population) are three times more likely to commit violence than Whites (64%), and that most of that violence was committed against other Blacks.[/QUOTE]

??? I am most certainly not statistically or arithmetically challenged, nor do I have trouble reading charts, particularly when the relevant information they contain appears in the first line of information they present. Also, the chart doesn't present likelihoods, it presents qualitative and quantitative information about events that took place.

• Total violence committed by blacks, per the chart, is 22.4%.
• Total violence committed by whites, per the chart, is 42.9%.

For nobody but you does 22.4 = 42.9 x 3.

Notwithstanding the the share of the population comprised of blacks and non-blacks, the fact remains, and the chart shows, that blacks do not commit "something like half of violent crimes."

 

[Weatherman2020]

Inner city minorities raised without a father=disrespect for authority=drugs=criminal behavior=guns=using guns on innocents.

??? The majority of criminal activity occurs absent guns. Just as guns do not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) criminal behavior, criminal behavior does not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) guns.

Topic is police shootings. Means the bad guy had a weapon, typically a gun.

First, if you are clarifying the remarks to which I replied, okay, I understand the clarification you've provided. If you are instead defending their factual accuracy, to the extent you responded to the single point about which I wrote -- that of criminal behavior = guns -- "typically = guns" isn't at all the same as "equaling guns." If you don't believe the things you wrote truly and always to be equivalences, i.e., imbued with a 100% of the time causal correspondence, why did you present them that way? Seeing as what you wrote and what you meant apparently aren't precisely the same, perhaps you should have written what you meant. I cannot read your mind, only your words.

You are the one who wrote the post indicating equivalences -- each of which, except perhaps the drugs = criminal behavior and that only because I took "drugs" to mean "illegal drugs," can easily be shown to not at all be so at the frequency of equivalence (100% of the time) -- I just happened to address the first one that had to do with guns and crime. I chose that one because criminal behavior is the one thing you noted that necessarily, rightly and always (sooner or later) involves police officers.

Because I know that it sometimes does, I'm not opposed to accepting the premise that criminal behavior involves guns, as well as the possible verity of the other relationships you noted, but that it does so as often as your remarks indicate (=) is not something I'll accept merely because you say so. You essentially wrote A=B=C=D=E. That means that every term in the equivalence is equal to equal to every other. And that's clearly not so. Alternatively, if I'm correct in thinking your equals signs meant "necessarily and unavoidably leads to," (A ==> B ==> C ==> D ==> E) well, that too just isn't something that I can accept absent evidence indicating as much. If you were to have presented the idea as A --> B --> C --> D --> E, the issue there is that you're still asserting that "inner city minorities [being] raised without a father leads to using guns on innocents." That too isn't at all likely to be even "most of the time" so. (BTW, what does one's being a minority child have to do with it? Do inner city non-minorities being raised without a father lead routinely not disrespect authority?)

Second, the "bad guy" is an alleged bad guy, a suspect, not a person convicted of that for which the cops seek to apprehend them, and whether s/he is thus a "bad guy" remains in question. You may indeed ascribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," but the tone of your remarks here don't suggest that. They have a tone of "if cops think you are guilty, you are."

Third, it really doesn't matter, as go police shootings, if the suspect merely has possession of a weapon. What matters, especially with regard to the theme of the topic the OP presented for this thread, is the prudence cops exercise in using theirs, particularly their gun(s). A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk. In the Court's opinion, written by Justice White:

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.​

Fourth, though in incidents of cops shooting suspects one would expect that the suspect also had a weapon. I see nowhere that you or anyone else has established that to be so in cases where cops shoot suspects. Moreover, I don't see you establishing that the weapon the suspects have, when they have one, is always or even most often, a gun, which given that most crime occurs absent a gun, would be an important thing to show in light of the "axioms" you presented.

If you want to say there is an increase in UNJUSTIFIED shootings by police, then do it.
But you can't because there is not, thus my point about the moral decay of society which has led to police being forced to use deadly force.

 

[320 Years of History]

Inner city minorities raised without a father=disrespect for authority=drugs=criminal behavior=guns=using guns on innocents.

??? The majority of criminal activity occurs absent guns. Just as guns do not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) criminal behavior, criminal behavior does not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) guns.

Topic is police shootings. Means the bad guy had a weapon, typically a gun.

First, if you are clarifying the remarks to which I replied, okay, I understand the clarification you've provided. If you are instead defending their factual accuracy, to the extent you responded to the single point about which I wrote -- that of criminal behavior = guns -- "typically = guns" isn't at all the same as "equaling guns." If you don't believe the things you wrote truly and always to be equivalences, i.e., imbued with a 100% of the time causal correspondence, why did you present them that way? Seeing as what you wrote and what you meant apparently aren't precisely the same, perhaps you should have written what you meant. I cannot read your mind, only your words.

You are the one who wrote the post indicating equivalences -- each of which, except perhaps the drugs = criminal behavior and that only because I took "drugs" to mean "illegal drugs," can easily be shown to not at all be so at the frequency of equivalence (100% of the time) -- I just happened to address the first one that had to do with guns and crime. I chose that one because criminal behavior is the one thing you noted that necessarily, rightly and always (sooner or later) involves police officers.

Because I know that it sometimes does, I'm not opposed to accepting the premise that criminal behavior involves guns, as well as the possible verity of the other relationships you noted, but that it does so as often as your remarks indicate (=) is not something I'll accept merely because you say so. You essentially wrote A=B=C=D=E. That means that every term in the equivalence is equal to equal to every other. And that's clearly not so. Alternatively, if I'm correct in thinking your equals signs meant "necessarily and unavoidably leads to," (A ==> B ==> C ==> D ==> E) well, that too just isn't something that I can accept absent evidence indicating as much. If you were to have presented the idea as A --> B --> C --> D --> E, the issue there is that you're still asserting that "inner city minorities [being] raised without a father leads to using guns on innocents." That too isn't at all likely to be even "most of the time" so. (BTW, what does one's being a minority child have to do with it? Do inner city non-minorities being raised without a father lead routinely not disrespect authority?)

Second, the "bad guy" is an alleged bad guy, a suspect, not a person convicted of that for which the cops seek to apprehend them, and whether s/he is thus a "bad guy" remains in question. You may indeed ascribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," but the tone of your remarks here don't suggest that. They have a tone of "if cops think you are guilty, you are."

Third, it really doesn't matter, as go police shootings, if the suspect merely has possession of a weapon. What matters, especially with regard to the theme of the topic the OP presented for this thread, is the prudence cops exercise in using theirs, particularly their gun(s). A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk. In the Court's opinion, written by Justice White:

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.​

Fourth, though in incidents of cops shooting suspects one would expect that the suspect also had a weapon. I see nowhere that you or anyone else has established that to be so in cases where cops shoot suspects. Moreover, I don't see you establishing that the weapon the suspects have, when they have one, is always or even most often, a gun, which given that most crime occurs absent a gun, would be an important thing to show in light of the "axioms" you presented.

If you want to say there is an increase in UNJUSTIFIED shootings by police, then do it.
But you can't because there is not, thus my point about the moral decay of society which has led to police being forced to use deadly force.

I won't say that because I don't know if there is or is not. I suspect that there may be such an increase, but fleeting is the information I would want to see to arrive at a conclusion about whether there is or is not. If you have any info that clearly and credibly shows there is or is not, please do share.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Inner city minorities raised without a father=disrespect for authority=drugs=criminal behavior=guns=using guns on innocents.

??? The majority of criminal activity occurs absent guns. Just as guns do not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) criminal behavior, criminal behavior does not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) guns.

Topic is police shootings. Means the bad guy had a weapon, typically a gun.

First, if you are clarifying the remarks to which I replied, okay, I understand the clarification you've provided. If you are instead defending their factual accuracy, to the extent you responded to the single point about which I wrote -- that of criminal behavior = guns -- "typically = guns" isn't at all the same as "equaling guns." If you don't believe the things you wrote truly and always to be equivalences, i.e., imbued with a 100% of the time causal correspondence, why did you present them that way? Seeing as what you wrote and what you meant apparently aren't precisely the same, perhaps you should have written what you meant. I cannot read your mind, only your words.

You are the one who wrote the post indicating equivalences -- each of which, except perhaps the drugs = criminal behavior and that only because I took "drugs" to mean "illegal drugs," can easily be shown to not at all be so at the frequency of equivalence (100% of the time) -- I just happened to address the first one that had to do with guns and crime. I chose that one because criminal behavior is the one thing you noted that necessarily, rightly and always (sooner or later) involves police officers.

Because I know that it sometimes does, I'm not opposed to accepting the premise that criminal behavior involves guns, as well as the possible verity of the other relationships you noted, but that it does so as often as your remarks indicate (=) is not something I'll accept merely because you say so. You essentially wrote A=B=C=D=E. That means that every term in the equivalence is equal to equal to every other. And that's clearly not so. Alternatively, if I'm correct in thinking your equals signs meant "necessarily and unavoidably leads to," (A ==> B ==> C ==> D ==> E) well, that too just isn't something that I can accept absent evidence indicating as much. If you were to have presented the idea as A --> B --> C --> D --> E, the issue there is that you're still asserting that "inner city minorities [being] raised without a father leads to using guns on innocents." That too isn't at all likely to be even "most of the time" so. (BTW, what does one's being a minority child have to do with it? Do inner city non-minorities being raised without a father lead routinely not disrespect authority?)

Second, the "bad guy" is an alleged bad guy, a suspect, not a person convicted of that for which the cops seek to apprehend them, and whether s/he is thus a "bad guy" remains in question. You may indeed ascribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," but the tone of your remarks here don't suggest that. They have a tone of "if cops think you are guilty, you are."

Third, it really doesn't matter, as go police shootings, if the suspect merely has possession of a weapon. What matters, especially with regard to the theme of the topic the OP presented for this thread, is the prudence cops exercise in using theirs, particularly their gun(s). A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk. In the Court's opinion, written by Justice White:

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.​

Fourth, though in incidents of cops shooting suspects one would expect that the suspect also had a weapon. I see nowhere that you or anyone else has established that to be so in cases where cops shoot suspects. Moreover, I don't see you establishing that the weapon the suspects have, when they have one, is always or even most often, a gun, which given that most crime occurs absent a gun, would be an important thing to show in light of the "axioms" you presented.

If you want to say there is an increase in UNJUSTIFIED shootings by police, then do it.
But you can't because there is not, thus my point about the moral decay of society which has led to police being forced to use deadly force.

I won't say that because I don't know if there is or is not. I suspect that there may be such an increase, but fleeting is the information I would want to see to arrive at a conclusion about whether there is or is not. If you have any info that clearly and credibly shows there is or is not, please do share.

Then your subject line is misleading. There is a lot less shootings by police today.
When I was thinking of becoming a cop in the 70's and taking training, there was only one solution for a person not putting down a knife - shoot them. Today tasers and rubber bullets resolve most of the situations.

The shootings today are mostly a direct result of one root cause - the decline of the family unit.

 

[jwoodie]

[QUOTE="Picaro, post: 13042913, member: 25684"]Young black males commit something like half of violent crimes. ....

Most of us who pay attention and read...

I am sure you read some things -- God and you only know what -- but you really need to read more...at least enough to determine whether your own speculations are at least plausible, if not verifiably accurate.

The supposed fact you offered at the start of your remarks are, absent any very dramatic changes in the past two years, and I know for 2014 it didn't, just not true. In fact, it's not even close to being true.



What may very well be true, even though your assertion isn't, is that you believe(d) it to be true or perhaps wanted to.

Are you statistically challenged? You chart indicates that Blacks (12% of the population) are three times more likely to commit violence than Whites (64%), and that most of that violence was committed against other Blacks.

??? I am most certainly not statistically or arithmetically challenged, nor do I have trouble reading charts, particularly when the relevant information they contain appears in the first line of information they present. Also, the chart doesn't present likelihoods, it presents qualitative and quantitative information about events that took place.

• Total violence committed by blacks, per the chart, is 22.4%.
• Total violence committed by whites, per the chart, is 42.9%.

For nobody but you does 22.4 = 42.9 x 3.

Notwithstanding the the share of the population comprised of blacks and non-blacks, the fact remains, and the chart shows, that blacks do not commit "something like half of violent crimes."[/QUOTE]

22.4 (percent of violence) divided by 12 (percent of population) = 1.87 ratio for Blacks
42.9 (percent of violence) divided by 64 (percent of population) = 0.67 ratio for Whites

1.87 divided by 0.67 = 2.8 times more likely to commit violent crimes.

 

[320 Years of History]

22.4 (percent of violence) divided by 12 (percent of population) = 1.87 ratio for Blacks
42.9 (percent of violence) divided by 64 (percent of population) = 0.67 ratio for Whites

1.87 divided by 0.67 = 2.8 times more likely to commit violent crimes.

What Picaro wrote, and what I refuted, is that "young black males commit something like half of violent crimes." That is simply not accurate, which is what I stated back at post #50, and that's what the Bureau of Justice Statistics information (shown in that post) indicates. Of the 6.4 million violent crimes committed (per the char), blacks (of any age cohort) committed neither half of them nor "something like" half of them. Period.

If the member wanted to assert a disproportionality of crimes committed with regard to the population of individuals of the two noted races, respectively, that is what he should have written, but that is not what he wrote.

 

[Picaro]

What Picaro wrote, and what I refuted, is that "young black males commit something like half of violent crimes." That is simply not accurate, which is what I stated back at post #50, and that's what the Bureau of Justice Statistics information (shown in that post) indicates. Of the 6.4 million violent crimes committed (per the char), blacks (of any age cohort) committed neither half of them nor "something like" half of them. Period.

If the member wanted to assert a disproportionality of crimes committed with regard to the population of individuals of the two noted races, respectively, that is what he should have written, but that is not what he wrote.

Like I said before, you can't read very well.

Table 43

Murder-52.1%, rape-30.7, aggravated assault-33%, other assaults-30.8%,offenses against the family-32.6%

• 
  
  
  • Of adults arrested for murder, 52.1 percent were black, and 45.5 percent were white.
  • Black juveniles comprised 53.3 percent of all juveniles arrested for violent crimes. White juveniles accounted for 59.7 percent of all juveniles arrested for property crimes.

And of course this table lumps other minorities under 'white'; blacks commit the largest percentage of violent crimes.

 

[320 Years of History]

What Picaro wrote, and what I refuted, is that "young black males commit something like half of violent crimes." That is simply not accurate, which is what I stated back at post #50, and that's what the Bureau of Justice Statistics information (shown in that post) indicates. Of the 6.4 million violent crimes committed (per the char), blacks (of any age cohort) committed neither half of them nor "something like" half of them. Period.

If the member wanted to assert a disproportionality of crimes committed with regard to the population of individuals of the two noted races, respectively, that is what he should have written, but that is not what he wrote.

Like I said before, you can't read very well.

Table 43

Murder-52.1%, rape-30.7, aggravated assault-33%, other assaults-30.8%,offenses against the family-32.6%

• 
  
  
  • Of adults arrested for murder, 52.1 percent were black, and 45.5 percent were white.
  • Black juveniles comprised 53.3 percent of all juveniles arrested for violent crimes. White juveniles accounted for 59.7 percent of all juveniles arrested for property crimes.

And of course this table lumps other minorities under 'white'; blacks commit the largest percentage of violent crimes.

However poorly I read, at least, as I wrote earlier, "I am sure you read some things -- God and you only know what -- but you really need to read more." I suppose you didn't bother to check anything having to do with the methodology the FBI used to compose Table 43 before tossing it out to support your claim. If you had, you'd have noted that the site expressly states:

Because a person may be arrested multiple times during a year, the UCR arrest figures do not reflect the number of individuals who have been arrested; rather, the arrest data show the number of times that persons are arrested, as reported by law enforcement agencies to the UCR Program.​

Thus, Table 43 cannot be used as a source of data for anything having to do with how many black persons or white persons, or Martians for that matter, have been arrested for a given crime. So tell, me, if I can't read very well, and you by contrast can, how is it that you apparently read and misunderstood the super clear statement shown above that the FBI publishes in association with Table 43?