|
Florida Betty posted:Ugh, that's so disgusting. I'm reminded of the case in Texas a few years ago where an 11 year old girl was gang raped on camera by 20 guys and everyone in town was angry at her for ruining the lives of so many nice young men. But at least in that case, they were charged and convicted. No girl is too young to be called a slut, apparently. It's unbelievable - in this hyper-tough-on-crime environment, why the gently caress would a DA walk away from multiple slam-dunk felonies with max terms up to life? Who gives a poo poo if she was raped, take the multiple free statutory cases and get the promotion. How awful of a person do you have to be to poo poo on your own career just to spite a victim of a crime? How integrated are the DC police? I know the residents of DC are majority black, but departments in minority-majority districts seem to love recruiting from the suburbs instead.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
SpeedGem posted:http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-police-kick-noel-carter-video-20150608-story.html Not sure if the guy on the video was in that car pulled over there, or if he was one of the local homeless that the cops like to treat like poo poo. Some of them may be annoying when asking for a handout but they're all loving harmless, unlike "orlando's finest." I have a story about this particular shithole department, too! Too loving long ago (nearly 20 years now) I was a dumb college student at UCF who signed up to assist with an evening event in orlando. Big deal, all the streets closed off and people going from bar to bar, having a good time. At 2am sharp, instead of letting the crowd disperse, a line of baton-wielding thugs backed up by a wall of horse-mounted officers marched lockstep through the streets, pushing everyone in a single direction. All side roads were closed off, so everyone was forced into one big herd. Anyone who didn't move fast enough was beaten then left ziptied in the road as the wall moved on. I'd never seen anything like it - it wasn't a loving riot, this was a city-sanctioned event that had concluded less than 30 seconds ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Just like any individual rejection of a black candidate for a job may not be racism, but given what we know about employers rejecting black applicants at a much higher rate than whites (resumes of equivalent strength with black names get rejected far more often than those with white names) some of them definitely are rejections because of race. You're really understating the effects of racism in the application process: A black man with no criminal record is about equal to a white man fresh out of the pen for a felony. Being black is as bad as being a felon when applying for a job. Senf posted:You admit that we have no idea why he wanted her out of the car and that there was no good reason for her to be removed from the car... except that the law permits it, so that's reason enough? The part that's sad is we know exactly what would have happened: He'd have made her comply with his orders until he felt sufficiently respected, or placed her under arrest when she got tired of being his plaything. She was arrested for contempt of cop, and was always going to be arrested ever since he said "put out the cigarette". Harik fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Cole posted:this is quite the hyperbole. hyperbole posted:In developing the tester profiles, emphasis was placed on adopting characteristics that were both numerically representative and substantively important. In the present study, the criminal record consisted of a felony drug conviction (possession with intent to distribute, cocaine) and 18 months of (served) prison time. A drug crime (as opposed to a violent or property crime) was chosen because of its prevalence, its policy salience, and its connection to racial disparities in incarceration.16 It is important to acknowledge that the effects reported here may differ depending on the type of offense.17 The Mark of a Criminal Record Devah Pager, Northwestern University But yes, I misstated it: You're better off being a white felon than a black man when applying for a job. Dead Reckoning posted:The problem is that this thread absolutely loves extrapolating statistics to individual cases. You can say that you're more likely to get pulled over and searched if you're black, and I'll agree with you, but if you say that this particular motorist got pulled over because she was black and that a white person would not have been pulled over in the same situation, that's a ridiculous counterfactual. That's the disconnect. The problem is that you can apply that logic to literally every case, so since it's never racism ever it must not be systemic racism at work. This goes with the study I posted as well: Since you can't prove any specific lack of a callback is due to racism there's obviously no racism in the hiring process, since 100% of all rejections cannot be proved to be based on racial grounds. In short, it's a bullshit argument designed to deflect and distract. Harik fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Cole posted:Do you have anything more recent? A good majority of those sources are around 20 years old. To get this straight: Is your contention that we've eliminated racism in the past 20 years?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Christ almighty am I not comfortable with authority figures "joking" like this The only joke is the $1. If someone did it the gofundme would hit a half million, easy. Edit: Whoops, meant to edit this into my previous post. Harik fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yea from what I remember those studies have lots of methodological and analysis issues. Well then I'm sure you're going to present a peer-reviewed rebuttal of it instead of just insinuating that "racism is over" because "you remember the study was wrong." Because otherwise that's 12 extra words when you meant to say "Nuh uh." Harik fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Cole posted:nobody said racism was over. you are a horrible transcriber. Then what exactly did you mean by "Do you have anything more recent? A good majority of those sources are around 20 years old."? At the most charitable interpretation I can come up with is "I admit systemic racism was a problem 20 years ago" followed by "but you can't prove it's still a problem today." Put forth an actual argument you want to advance instead of a cryptic oneliner with leading implications if you want people to not see your obvious implications. My argument is that systemic racism has been, continues to be, and will be a severe problem that urgently needs to be addressed. I provided both a study to back my point and a non-scientific video to illustrate it. Your turn.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Cole posted:i'm actually being really nice to you and it's pretty common for people to ask for more recent sources when the world has changed so much since the sources you posted were published. First off, it's a 2003 paper, where their own research is new. The white-felon-vs-black-man effect was not 20+ years ago, it was 12. They cited fairly current research for when their paper was written - frequently between 3-5 years old, although older and well-regarded papers from farther back were cited as well. It's not like racism is a brand new phenomenon, people have studied it for decades. Secondly "you would have failed this class I just made up" is also not an argument. If you even want to pursue something so ridiculous, you have to cite college class writing guidelines that state the age of sources allowed. Not just a single class - that's not representative of systemic "agism" in citations. You'll need to sample a large number of class guidelines and compile the data on their citation age limit, or provide a peer-reviewed study that does the same. Or, you could stop using dumb distractions and present a counter-argument yourself. Cole posted:i bolded the key phrase. i didn't say whether i am right or wrong, nor did i say whether you are right or wrong. i just said your studies don't prove anything one way or another for the topic presented (it being harder for a black man to get a job than a white felon) when you apply it to 2015, and since you know where to find a study from 2003, maybe you know where to find one that is more recent. Just asking questions, are we? Well I've got proof and evidence on my side, you've got a gut feeling on yours. Since this isn't CNN, I'm right and you're not.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Cole posted:3-5 years ago in 2003 is pre-9/11 era. if you don't think 9/11 would impact previous studies, then i don't know what to tell you. 2003 is after 9/11/2001, since you seem to be bad at math. Which means this study was done AFTER the previous ones, and AFTER the "impact" that it may have had. You may be confusing "citation" with "meta-study". This is not a meta-study, it was an experment conducted after 2001. I'm going to take your continued lack of engagement as a concession.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
nm posted:He's talking about the research, which someone said is probably 3-5 years older than the publication date. Let me see if I can get a definitive timeline on it. Edit: It was funded by the National Institute of Justice in 2002 (search for 2002-IJ-CX-0002). While there was probably research and preparatory work done before the funding was given, it would require money to go out and do the study. I can't prove it was done after 2002, but that seems like a strong conclusion. EDIT: thatdarnedbob posted:The fieldwork for the experiment itself was done in Milwaukee between June and December of 2001 (page 951), which does seem to render this result vulnerable to the "9/11 changed everything" argument, odd as that argument is. So it was mid-late 2001, before AND after 9/11. Moving the rest of my post below since I edited it and the conversation has moved on. Harik fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted:The fieldwork for the experiment itself was done in Milwaukee between June and December of 2001 (page 951), which does seem to render this result vulnerable to the "9/11 changed everything" argument, odd as that argument is. Thanks, I'm not sure how I missed that when searching for dates. Which means either they got the grant I found after they did their fieldwork, or Fiscal Year 2002 means "all grants since 2001 and before 2002". I'll edit my previous post to include this. I think there'd be a great paper in "effects of 9/11 on racism by employers" since they had pre-and-post 9/11 data. They didn't note any effect, and nobody has brought up any studies that non-arab-looking groups were strongly affected by it. Edit: Moved from my above edit since this thread is moving fast for this late at night. But you know what time linearity says happened after 9/11/2001? 2009, when Devah Pager did a followup study in New York that showed that a black man with a conviction faced a 75% penalty to a black man with no conviction, while a white felon only faced a 30% penalty for his conviction compared to a non-convicted white peer. I'm not sure that the table on page 200 (6 of the PDF) means that things have improved - this is a different study, not a repeat of the 2003 study, and they're studying based on interviews granted - so everyone that simply threw away a resume for any reason isn't included. Harik fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Cole posted:What else is law enforcement supposed to do? This isn't regards to killing anyone, this is strictly about getting involved in a situation where the kid poses a threat to them/they posed a threat to him. Just let him continue to damage property and break the law? Yes. Absolutely, yes. Life is always more important than property - no officer should risk their life to prevent property damage, and as such no officer should have ever been in a position to be threatened by this guy and wouldn't have needed to shoot him. It's entirely their fault, because current training is to aggressively maximize risk then use that threat as justification for summary execution. The correct thing to do, and that they need to be fired for not doing: Call for more backup and an ambulance, then dogpile him. Subdue him by outnumbering him, cuff him, then immediately get the EMTs to check him out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Cole posted:i don't think it's built in to the training to do that for that purpose, but i have never been to the police academy or trained with cops, so i am not in position to say. I don't care if there's no signed memo stating that the academy needs to train recruits to close within 20 feet then use that to legally murder someone, it's the far-too-frequent outcome and it needs to be changed because of that. If the best we can do is "the officer violated their training and department policy and is being let go" then that's better than a 2-week paid vacation and back out there risking lives again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Once again. He was not shot for smashing cars. He was shot for his alleged behavior once law enforcement arrived. He was shot because he posed a threat to the officers. He posed a threat because they recklessly approached someone acting erratically without regard for their own safety. They approached because their training is awful and is entirely about shows-of-force and escalation until they achieve compliance. They arrived at the scene with that training because he was smashing cars. That is how causation works. The immediate cause is #1, but #3 is the reason he's dead.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:This isn't really fair though is it. If someone was smashing up someones house or car and the police arrived, I'd expect them to try and get them to stop. Police don't even have a duty to step in to protect your life, so no, I don't expect them to needlessly risk their own lives to prevent a smash-and-grab on my car stereo. I expect them to act professionally, and if that means in their judgment it would needlessly endanger themselves or the suspect to approach alone that they should document the theft and follow the suspect while waiting for backup. When I say judgment, I mean after retraining on acceptable use of force and de-escalation and how not to be an idiot cowboy with a hip full of courage. Cole posted:tell me what they do for training, specifically http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/ Harik fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Cole posted:what the gently caress do you think police are for? Intended? Suppression of minorities, protection of business interests, revenue gathering and a veneer of civilization. That's the historic resposne. "Protect and serve" is the current blue-washing but they've fought against being held to that, as Jose pointed out. The police exist to protect the status quo, not you, and not your property. They're agents of the state, not bodyguards or mall security.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
nm posted:The problem here is that generally police don't have the benefit of hindsight to know when they are going to kill someone. Yes, but as a society we can collectively look at their actions, and how they're trained, and determine that that aggressive assert-control-at-all-costs style does, in fact, result in needless shootings. Then we can change that, because as a society we do have the benefit of hindsight to shape future policy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Cole posted:they are knee jerk reacting to a report that says it isn't constitutionally mandated that police protect you. They're not legally mandated to either, or it wouldn't have become that particular constitutional question. Aside from their "protect and serve" slogan, what do you have that documents the police's obligation to you?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Harik posted:http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/ I should have posted an excerpt with that, me culpa: quote:Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift. But cops live in a hostile world. They learn that every encounter, every individual is a potential threat. They always have to be on their guard because, as cops often say, “complacency kills.” Edit: expanded the quotes. Harik fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Right, so that's not a great source. It's a former Tallahassee police officer, current law school professor at U of SC who's been making the rounds based on his former police status to sell confirmatory writing to a few different audiences. His statements are categorical and unsourced. That's fine, this isn't a legislative session, this isn't being put into law. I'm fine with an informal op-ed as a response to a question posed to me as an all-lowercase oneliner. If you have a better source I'd like to read it, though. Even/especially if it disagrees with mine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Cole posted:but somebody else, that "some property" could be how they make a living. destroy that and you destroy their life because you didn't want to physically stop someone from breaking their poo poo. Yes, it is. Then the person who damaged it will be in jail instead of in a grave, and your plight will be noticed instead of the outcry over yet another unarmed black teenager shot by police. This isn't that difficult. Property is less important than people.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
mastervj posted:I think the point here is that before handling a real-time execution to someone, you make drat sure that they are in the process of killing or seriously hurting others. Otherwise, if you shoot and kill someone you should be charged with at least manslaughter more or less by default. I don't think they were trigger happy. The usual problem is that they're reckless, approach the suspect without properly appraising the situation, he spooks them and then he's "too close" to do anything but immediately magdump and congratulate each other on a good shoot. People focus on when the trigger was pulled, but that's not when everything went wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 18:09
|
|