|
semper wifi posted:Higher rates of jaywalking citations for blacks sounds pretty bad but really I think it's more likely that it's simply a byproduct of higher black unemployment and lower income, plus a heavier police presence in black neighborhoods. No car ownership plus a lot more free time to spending hanging out/walking around, plus increased police scrutiny - I don't think you need to come up with a big conspiracy to explain the results. What about searching blacks twice as often while finding less contraband per stop than whites? Those are rates, not raw numbers, so they can't be explained away by a higher number of blacks out and about. I think you mentioned it in your post--increased scrutiny. Increased scrutiny despite the fact that reality doesn't support their actions--that's racism.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:What about searching blacks twice as often while finding less contraband per stop than whites? Those are rates, not raw numbers, so they can't be explained away by a higher number of blacks out and about. I think you mentioned it in your post--increased scrutiny. Increased scrutiny despite the fact that reality doesn't support their actions--that's racism. sorry, but this explanation doesn't make any sense as it implies the root cause does not lie with black culture and behavior
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:What about searching blacks twice as often while finding less contraband per stop than whites? Those are rates, not raw numbers, so they can't be explained away by a higher number of blacks out and about. Except the drug dealers, I guess. Only drug-dealing white guys leave the house. There's the gedankenexperiment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:What about searching blacks twice as often while finding less contraband per stop than whites? Those are rates, not raw numbers, so they can't be explained away by a higher number of blacks out and about. I think you mentioned it in your post--increased scrutiny. Increased scrutiny despite the fact that reality doesn't support their actions--that's racism. I think lacking raw numbers and more stats it's hard to really determine how bad things are, though. For example, if 90% of the white people they searched had contraband then you could easily spin that same statistic to "Ferguson PD found contraband 70% of the time they searched a black person". And we don't know how many white people they searched, either, maybe they only searched like 20 whites and 200 blacks (obviously that in itself would be a problem). Also, the unemployment rate for blacks in Ferguson was like 25% (in 2012), compared to 6% for whites, I really don't think that can be discounted. 25% of their population has 8 "extra" hours a day where they can run afoul of the revenue retrieving Ferguson PD in some way. Honestly I'm in agreement with most of the posters here on the issue of gently caress the police etc., I just think the Grand Racist Conspiracy stuff is a little overblown and the lack of numbers in the DOJ report is curious. Popular Thug Drink posted:it's not really a conspiracy when it's widely known that the police spend more time hassling black people because the white majority of americans think it is both right and just to hassle blacks because they commit more crimes That's a factual assertion though, a definitely true thing, unless something's changed drastically since the last time I heard uh, anything at all about crime stats. semper wifi fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Well now I see why this thread goes in circles. The second we start to get some common ground on what the problems with the police are and start to talk about different ideas for reform, someone out there can't let that pass and has to blunder in with "Racism exists? Are you sure about this, because it sounds like an anti-white conspiracy made up by Obama and his black Muslim preacher Jeremiah White" E: hey to make this a more productive post: semperwifi, what do you think of Jarmak and Waco's suggestion that we get incontrovertible proof of if racism is at play or not by having cops wear body cameras, then reviewing the footage for how many petty crimes like jaywalking happened in the camera's field of view and demand an explanation if the officer's notice and enforcement of them shows a wide racial disparity? I had some concerns about practicality: what do you think? e2: semper wifi posted:That's a factual assertion though, a definitely true thing, unless something's changed drastically since the last time I heard uh, anything at all about crime stats. Just because blacks have a higher crime rate doesn't mean they should be singled out for searches at a higher rate than other races when the result of those searches is actually turning up contraband at a lower rate. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: hey to make this a more productive post: semperwifi, what do you think of Jarmak and Waco's suggestion that we get incontrovertible proof of if racism is at play or not by having cops wear body cameras, then reviewing the footage for how many petty crimes like jaywalking happened in the camera's field of view and demand an explanation if the officer's notice and enforcement of them shows a wide racial disparity? I had some concerns about practicality: what do you think? Waste of time because one, no cop is going to be stupid enough to record himself ignoring white jaywalkers and ticketing black ones. Maybe a couple but then you're into the bad apples excuse again. Two, someone will have to review the footage, and anyone reviewing the hypothetical footage is going to be appointed by someone with ties to the cops/the local government, or they will be elected and I honestly can't think of an elected official at any level who has an attitude towards police reform that isn't a variation on "bad apples". Even Eric Holder - he releases that report excoriating the PD and then two weeks later when those cops got shot he's on TV with the rest of them talking about Our Hero Cops. Not only that but the kind of person who votes in that kind of local election like that is more freeper than gently caress the police-r. I guess you could have a judge review the footage whenever someone gets cited but that still means the person who was cited has to get themselves to the courthouse somehow which seems to be a major issue in Ferguson. It's a nice idea and ideally all cops would be wired for video/audio any time they're on the job but I just don't think it would accomplish anything. quote:e2: I never suggested otherwise
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Mmm same enforcement issues I had with it then. Okay, just for the sake of argument, imagine some weird counter-earth where a police department were actually enforcing misdemeanors and conducting searches at traffic stops selectively and inconsistently and the pattern seems to indicate a bias against one group of taxpayers. Surely we must agree that all other concerns aside, such a thing would be an inefficient waste of precious tax dollars and harmful to the effectiveness of the force because there's some other factor interfering with their police work. Is there any we could obtain evidence of this so we could stop it? Or is the scenario of a biased policeman just too far-fetched to be applicable to real life?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mmm same enforcement issues I had with it then. The problems with the Ferguson PD are ingrained and there's no magic bullet. I mean even if you catch them red handed, on video or whatever, the only thing that's going to happen is the people directly involved get fired. They don't have a source of racist power you can find and destroy, and I'd be surprised if even a single officer there actually intentionally set out to target black people. The only way to fix the department is to fire every single person in it and rebuild it from scratch into something approaching an acceptable PD. And even that's not going to fix the problem overall because there's no way for Ferguson and the Ferguson PD to have a healthy "relationship" ever again at this point. I think a more productive argument would be about how and why the Ferguson PD (and others) became so predatory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
I agree that the underlying predation is a huge problem. Can we talk about which race they are preying on and how that became acceptable to the city officials, or do we have to avoid mentioning that out of political correctness?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:I think lacking raw numbers and more stats it's hard to really determine how bad things are, though. For example, if 90% of the white people they searched had contraband then you could easily spin that same statistic to "Ferguson PD found contraband 70% of the time they searched a black person". And we don't know how many white people they searched, either, maybe they only searched like 20 whites and 200 blacks (obviously that in itself would be a problem). Also, the unemployment rate for blacks in Ferguson was like 25% (in 2012), compared to 6% for whites, I really don't think that can be discounted. 25% of their population has 8 "extra" hours a day where they can run afoul of the revenue retrieving Ferguson PD in some way. so just to make it clear, you're factually asserting that african americans commit more crimes because they are unemployed and then you whine about how d&d called you racist
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so just to make it clear, you're factually asserting that african americans commit more crimes because they are unemployed No no, they deserve to get searched more because they're unemployed, loitering around, swaggering at cars, etc, so we should expect that those searches will find they are committing possession crimes at lower rates than searches of whites do because African Americans are instigating all these situations that lead to unnecessary searches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I agree that the underlying predation is a huge problem. Can we talk about which race they are preying on and how that became acceptable to the city officials, or do we have to avoid mentioning that out of political correctness? What evidence is there that the PD actively targeted blacks? Seems much more likely to me that it was just an incidental thing. Popular Thug Drink posted:so just to make it clear, you're factually asserting that african americans commit more crimes because they are unemployed since when is "poor people commit more crime" controversial or racist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No no, they deserve to get searched more because they're unemployed, loitering around, swaggering at cars, etc, so we should expect that those searches will find they are committing possession crimes at lower rates than searches of whites do because African Americans are instigating all these situations that lead to unnecessary searches. honestly dude seems like you're just projecting your own stereotypes onto me because i never said anything remotely like that. also, you need to try and balance your message out a little you come off kind of schizophrenic, one post you're trying to gently prod me into saying the PD was intentionally racist and then in the next you're accusing me of all kinds of wild poo poo that i never even hinted at in any post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
No you didn't say exactly that. You never really say exactly anything, do you? Just 1. Black people are unemployed 2. Without noble work their idle hands wander and they find themselves around cops who naturally want to search them 3. ...? 4. Those searches of blacks at higher rates that turned up contraband at lower rates were clearly justified 5. What subtext? Obviously you're the real racist. Anyway, I don't expect any amount of prodding will ever get you to admit racism exists, because even unambiguously Nazi-style eugenics jokes about abortions on black women being crime prevention being forwarded through the PD don't seem to raise an eyebrow. Just kind of generally curious how far along someone who is ideologically committed to not acknowledging racism will go before the political-correctness shields come up. It's pretty easy to get someone, especially leaning libertarian, to go along with evidence of police malfeasance. Everyone has dealt with a dick cop and gotten a fine they thought was bullshit before. They'll agree that some departments are corrupt, that some cops shake down citizens for money...but then you ask "oh by the way, which races are targets of this predation" and boom, crimethink! Well obviously those people are more criminal and deserve it, because cops might be corrupt assholes but they are definitely never racist, no sir!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Waste of time because one, no cop is going to be stupid enough to record himself ignoring white jaywalkers and ticketing black ones. Good! That solves the problem then, wouldn't it? If, under increased scrutiny, racist cops no longer act racist then we have solved the problem of racist enforcement. Of course deep down the cops are still racist, so we could certainly try semper wifi posted:The problems with the Ferguson PD are ingrained and there's no magic bullet. I mean even if you catch them red handed, on video or whatever, the only thing that's going to happen is the people directly involved get fired. They don't have a source of racist power you can find and destroy, and I'd be surprised if even a single officer there actually intentionally set out to target black people. The only way to fix the department is to fire every single person in it and rebuild it from scratch into something approaching an acceptable PD. And even that's not going to fix the problem overall because there's no way for Ferguson and the Ferguson PD to have a healthy "relationship" ever again at this point. I think disbanding the department and starting from scratch with civilian input would go along way towards fixing the Ferguson PD's relationship with the people. Finally, getting people directly involved in racism fired is exactly the "source of racist power" you can find and destroy. Let them be an example to the others to change their racist actions. As we have argued throughout this thread, actions are how we can judge racism. They might be racist inside, but if they can hide it and learn to interact appropriately with the public, then improvement will have been made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No you didn't say exactly that. You never really say exactly anything, do you? 1 is something I said and it's true, I don't understand why there's two of you now hassling me for saying that. It was in the last census. 2 - are you going to try and tell me unemployment and poverty don't lead to more interaction with the police? The rest of those are things I never said. I never tried to justify the higher rates of searches and I'm pretty sure in that same post I said they weren't acceptable. "nazi-style eugenics jokes" lmao. come on. Yeah it's not okay to be sending that kind of thing around in an email but it's not exactly the stormfront newsletter either. It's only an off-color joke. quote:political-correctness shields quote:but then you ask "oh by the way, which races are targets of this predation
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
But they weren't meth jokes or crack jokes. They were black jokes. Come on, there's a pretty big difference between "meth-heads do this" which sure is problematic coming from people who deal with them, and "all people of this race are criminals and eugenics is the solution to crime haha!", that's just straight-up  from people entrusted with authority over the public.E: and it's not like this was a surreptitious recording of their annual drunken Thanksgiving rant. These were things they felt comfortable sharing in their office's professional environment. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
I'm shocked that a bunch of white, antigovernment gun nerds are shilling for a notoriously oppressive police force in a metro area that makes large parts of the south look tolerant in comparison
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
There's also the fact that the statistics on the twice-as-high search rates were during traffic stops, so the poverty and unemployment rates among the black population should make them less likely to own cars and therefore police should be finding a black driver behind the wheel of a traffic stop vs a white one less often than demographics would suggest, not more often as semper wifi was suggesting as the cause.The DOJ posted:Ferguson’s law enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African Americans. Data collected by the Ferguson Police Department from 2012 to 2014 shows that African Americans account for 85% of vehicle stops, 90% of citations, and 93% of arrests made by FPD officers, despite comprising only 67% of Ferguson’s population. African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search. But of course, the raw numbers of stops and searches are unimportant because the DOJ is citing rates, not raw numbers,and the two years of data collection were reviewed so there's no room to argue that it was just statistical noise from a few incidents as he also suggested. So semper wifi, although I'm convinced that nothing I could say will change your mind and I'm okay with that...just from a personal examining-your-own biases standpoint, that your immediate response to me bringing up something from the report was (instead of reading the report or asking for relevant quotes) to immediately throw out explanations and objections that were either (a) answered in the report (was there a long enough timeframe to average out noise) or (b) completely spurious (blacks are unemployed so they walk more and police see them, when the relevant section was about traffic stops), that should say something about whether you're honestly considering the evidence here or whether you're adjusting the facts to fit into a preconceived worldview. E: niceness. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
The next poster that mentions a loving internet forum in this thread is getting probated. "D&D" and "GiP" and which forum has what threads has gently caress-all to do with Michael Brown, and I've posted this warning like 4 times in this thread now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Edit: Nevermind!
Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:
It is not, the correlation between poverty and crime is incredibly well established. That's the problem with everyone throwing around stats when they have no idea what they represent or what controls were used when computing them. Also just because a study says they controlled for things doesn't make it true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
They are saying now that they have caught the shooter of the two cops. Supposedly they were shot by accident. I think that is a shame, considering how racist the police are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
What does shot by accident mean? Do you have a link?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:They are saying now that they have caught the shooter of the two cops. Supposedly they were shot by accident. eSporks posted:What does shot by accident mean? Do you have a link? Was someone taking shots at the protesters and hit the cops (who aren't FPD anyway) instead? Because that's darkly hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
eSporks posted:What does shot by accident mean? Do you have a link? Suspect admits to firing shots that struck two officers in Ferguson  quote:St. Louis County Police have confirmed that the suspected shooter of two police officers early Thursday morning outside of the Ferguson police department is in custody. Jeffrey Williams, 20, of north St. Louis County, has been charged with two counts of first-degree assault, firing a weapon from a vehicle, and two counts of armed criminal action. He is in custody with cash-only bail set at $300,000. If it wasn't for all the racism, this innocent African-American would not have been shooting at police officers from a car. He is the true victim, not those racist police officers. Besides, he wasn't even trying to kill the police officers (as evidenced by their survival)... he was trying to murder someone else. The police officers were said to have had their hands up, and there are claims that they asked Jeffrey Williams not to shoot them. The ironing is delicious. Jakcson fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:Suspect admits to firing shots that struck two officers in Ferguson 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
I heard it was legit in Ferguson to shoot at someone you think might possibly have committed a robbery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I heard it was legit in Ferguson to shoot at someone you think might possibly have committed a robbery. But only if you and the robber are both African-American. I've heard from a few coworkers that are neither black or white that they think the media is just trying to get people riled up about this because they want people to riot, or have a civil war, or something like that, because blood sells papers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I heard it was legit in Ferguson to shoot at someone you think might possibly have committed a robbery. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
I think he may be lying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
lol how fat were those cops to be hit by a stray bullet from 100 yards away
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:lol how fat were those cops to be hit by a stray bullet from 100 yards away Perhaps they spent a lot of time at the trough. Being hogs. Packing on the lard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Perhaps they spent a lot of time at the trough. Being hogs. Packing on the lard. bacon
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:I think he may be lying. Give up (attempted) cop killer cred and take the rap for it anyway? Why lie?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:I think he may be lying. why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why? Admitting to targeting and killing a police officer in a capital-punishment state is generally a bad idea. Edit: Turns out they were wounded, not killed. That's good to hear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:Admitting to targeting and killing a police officer in a capital-punishment state is generally a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:Admitting to targeting and killing a police officer in a capital-punishment state is generally a bad idea. but he hasn't done anything of the sort? he claims he was trying to shoot a protestor that was trying to rob him and his shots killed neither of the officers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Condiv posted:but he hasn't done anything of the sort? he claims he was trying to shoot a protestor that was trying to rob him and his shots killed neither of the officers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:19
|
|