or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 88

post #1306 of 6095
Ever torn I am between consistent application of my principles and the seizing of the MSM/far left's weaponry to use against them.

Jonah Goldberg takes the high road. I don't think its necessarily bad, though, that the Soros, Krugman, Occupy crowd be forced to drink their own acid.

Quote:
Going by objective standards of reason and fairness, Al Sharpton is not to blame for the assassination of two New York City cops over the weekend. Nor are New York mayor Bill de Blasio, U.S. attorney general Eric Holder, President Obama, or any of the protesters and activists they supported, encouraged, and allied themselves with. Going by what we know, the only person to blame is the man police identified as the killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley.

This is the standard I’ve upheld in this space for years, when one madman after another has killed and maimed in the name of one cause or another. It’s also been necessary to uphold this standard when madmen have killed for no political cause whatsoever, but politicians and journalists have been determined to claim otherwise.

The most glaring example of this was the horrible 2011 shooting spree in Tucson that claimed six lives and horribly wounded then-U.S. representative Gabrielle Giffords. The shooting occurred during a period of maximum liberal paranoia about the tea-party movement. And in a riot of groupthink, much of the elite media convinced itself — absent any evidence — that the killer, Jared Loughner, was inspired by, variously, Sarah Palin’s Facebook map of congressional races (there were targets over various districts where Palin wanted Democrats defeated), Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann’s overheated speeches, and other forms of what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called “eliminationist rhetoric.”

Indeed, Krugman’s response to the Tucson shooting was indicative of this thinking. In a column titled “Climate of Hate,” Krugman began: “When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen? Put me in the latter category.”

In other words, Krugman, like countless others, had his explanation ready before the event even transpired.

This has become something of a cottage industry for some left-wing activist groups, eager to implicate their political opponents in murder. No doubt this knee-jerk reaction is often sincere. When a radical Islamic terrorist left a bomb in Times Square, New York’s then-mayor Michael Bloomberg no doubt meant it when he speculated that the culprit was an opponent of Obamacare.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/395303/print
post #1307 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Are these numbers adjusted for age demographics? I doubt it. I have some other suspicions about how they come up with that number. I think you may have already, but would you mind giving me the link to your source again?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-statistical-debate-behind-the-stop-and-frisk-verdict

Raw report
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Expert_Report_JeffreyFagan.pdf


They did look at age. The strongest correlations were against race.
post #1308 of 6095
My point is that age distribution is not the same between the races, especially in cities.
post #1309 of 6095
I'm sure you're welcome to run your own statistical analysis of the data, but the existing evidence supports a stronger relationship for race than age. Unless you actually have some analysis to show otherwise, you're pretty much just looking for reasons to ignore data that doesn't support what you want to believe.
post #1310 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Blech. Don't bother us with your old fashioned "facts" and "statistics" and "reality."

We've moved way beyond that, pal.

Narratives, modalities, conversations . . . .

That's where it is, man.

What do you mean "reality"?

Check out these tweets at @AntonioMartin

https://twitter.com/hashtag/antoniomartin?f=realtime&src=hash

I'm gonna sic the nation's Civil Rights leader, Al Sharpton, on your Ass, Lighthouse.



Listen to this tape starting at 14:20 The Mayor tells the man "you seem very intelligent"
post #1311 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Blech. Don't bother us with your old fashioned "facts" and "statistics" and "reality."

We've moved way beyond that, pal.

Narratives, modalities, conversations . . . .

That's where it is, man.

This is amusing because you guys are the ones ignoring an actual statistical study because it doesn't gel with the narrative you'd prefer.

Irony++
post #1312 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I'm sure you're welcome to run your own statistical analysis of the data, but the existing evidence supports a stronger relationship for race than age. Unless you actually have some analysis to show otherwise, you're pretty much just looking for reasons to ignore data that doesn't support what you want to believe.

It doesn't matter whether there's a stronger relationship to race than age -- age is still a large factor of statistics like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

From the studies on Stop and Frisk, minorities were more likely to be arrested and more likely to have violent police responses even in white/low crime areas. Close to double the rate of whites, actually.

Moreover, (and I do not know exactly what these statistics represent), I would expect the cops to find more contraband or weapons on whites than on blacks for one reason: "frisk" searches are done when the cop has a reason to fear for his safety. That happens in two situations -- when the cop is investigating a specific crime and when he's out suppressing crime by walking around and talking to people. Cops who are trying to suppress crime in high-crime areas (read: where minorities live) are going to frisk more innocent people than cops that are investigating crimes. That's unavoidable.

Furthermore the statistics seem to show that the cops were getting contraband or weapons from one out of every eight or one out of every ten searches, regardless. That's pretty darn good.
post #1313 of 6095
A typical Antonio Martin supporter,



And to all, A Merry Christmas




https://twitter.com/hashtag/antoniomartin?f=realtime&src=hash
post #1314 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

A typical Antonio Martin supporter,

I'm curious what they think a reasonable threat to an officer's life would be. Shots fired? Maybe they were just warning shots. You gotta actually get winged before you can defend yourself.
post #1315 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It doesn't matter whether there's a stronger relationship to race than age -- age is still a large factor of statistics like this:
In other words, you're not actually provide any evidence to support your case.

Well, alright.

Quote:
Cops who are trying to suppress crime in high-crime areas (read: where minorities live) are going to frisk more innocent people than cops that are investigating crimes. That's unavoidable.
Except (for like the tenth time) they stop and frisked more minorities even in low crime areas and/or white areas, and were less successful even in those areas.
Quote:
Furthermore the statistics seem to show that the cops were getting contraband or weapons from one out of every eight or one out of every ten searches, regardless. That's pretty darn good.

Not sure where you're finding that number. The numbers I see are:
Quote:
Weapons were seized in 1.0 percent of the stops of blacks, 1.1 percent of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4 percent of the stops of whites.

Contraband other than weapons was seized in 1.8 percent of the stops of blacks, 1.7 percent of the stops of Hispanics, and 2.3 percent of the stops of whites.

6% of all stops resulted in some kind of arrest, or 3 out of 50. You've just created 47 unnecessary interactions with the police, and almost 25% of those interactions ended up involving violence. Yes, sure, those people shouldn't resist arrest by an officer. But they also never should have been facing detention in the first place, since there's no evidence they had done anything wrong. You have massively increased the number of negative interactions with police, and it's no wonder that the community doesn't trust them.
post #1316 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

6% of all stops resulted in some kind of arrest, or 3 out of 50. You've just created 47 unnecessary interactions with the police, and almost 25% of those interactions ended up involving violence. Yes, sure, those people shouldn't resist arrest by an officer. But they also never should have been facing detention in the first place, since there's no evidence they had done anything wrong. You have massively increased the number of negative interactions with police, and it's no wonder that the community doesn't trust them.

+1. If those numbers were closer to 80%, I might be okay with the program, but with numbers in the single digits, this is awful.
post #1317 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

In other words, you're not actually provide any evidence to support your case.

Say what? You admitted the correlation between age and (justified) police interest. I assume you don't dispute the racial disparity in age groups, either. Black/Hispanic is going to be a much larger share of the 15-25 male demographic. But when you talk about stops versus populations, you're using overall populations. That's manipulation.
Quote:
Except (for like the tenth time) they stop and frisked more minorities even in low crime areas and/or white areas, and were less successful even in those areas.

You keep saying that, but you don't say what these "areas" are. It turns out that report (and let's not forget that it's advocacy and not some kind of neutral study) used police precincts (read: large areas) as the smallest unit of area even though the author admits there was more detailed data available. Certainly the police are not applying uniform attention or policies throughout each precinct. That would be insane. But the author does it anyway, probably because when he ran the numbers it produced the results he wanted.
Quote:
Not sure where you're finding that number. The numbers I see are:

I got it from the NY ACLU: http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data
Quote:
6% of all stops resulted in some kind of arrest, or 3 out of 50. You've just created 47 unnecessary interactions with the police, and almost 25% of those interactions ended up involving violence. Yes, sure, those people shouldn't resist arrest by an officer. But they also never should have been facing detention in the first place, since there's no evidence they had done anything wrong. You have massively increased the number of negative interactions with police, and it's no wonder that the community doesn't trust them.

I am not sure where you're getting these numbers, or even what you're talking about. The author of the report you cited says that only about 7% of the frisks were unauthorized (based on the reasons given and his reading of the law). And, again, I would reiterate that "frisk" searches were not created by or unique to the so-called "stop and frisk" program. Police (even in NYC) frisk lots of people in the ordinary course of their jobs. These are going to be mixed in with the "stop and frisk" frisks. And, of course, you are going to get more results when you are searching someone while investigating a specific report rather than based on suspicion arising while wandering around high-crime areas.
post #1318 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

 I would expect the cops to find more contraband or weapons on whites than on blacks for one reason: "frisk" searches are done when the cop has a reason to fear for his safety.

 

Are you suuuuuuurrrrrreeeeee???

 

 

http://bulletsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/uf250front.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yCYRsYPdOk4/UWWM12DWrAI/AAAAAAAAGJY/R7H3ubouyhY/s1600/uf250back.jpg

post #1319 of 6095
They don't call it "stop" and "frisk" for nothing. They're two distinct things. The cop can "stop" someone to investigate if he has reasonable suspicion they've committed or are about to commit a crime. The "frisk" is to look for weapons for the cop's safety.
post #1320 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

. The author of the report you cited says that only about 7% of the frisks were unauthorized (based on the reasons given and his reading of the law).

"Unauthorized" is completely distinct from "did not produce results." The unauthorized stops were ones that had no legal justifications even under the extremely generous framework NYC allowed. A stop for "furtive movement" or "high crime area" counts as justified, even if it the person stopped ends up having done literally nothing wrong. 10% of the people stopped were "completely innocent" (I assume this means they were violating no laws whatsoever), and only 6% were doing anything serious enough to warrant arrest. Those are not good returns.



I have no issue with police frisking people as part of ensuring police safety during normal police work. That's obviously necessary for their safety. I do really question the sanity of telling police to go out and hassle people when they're not doing anything wrong beyond "looking suspicious" completely within the discretion of the police. It sets up obvious conditions for bias to develop, but additionally just creates an enormous number of additional negative interactions with police. All those innocent people didn't need to be "actively policed" and I'm going to guess they don't particularly appreciate the experiences.

You're looking at more than a half million unnecessary police interactions with innocent civilians some years. How on Earth is the community going to have a positive view of the police after that?


30% of the actual arrests were for marijuana possession, the most common citation. Really making the community safer there, dragging pot smokers off the street.
Quote:
You admitted the correlation between age and (justified) police interest. I assume you don't dispute the racial disparity in age groups, either. Black/Hispanic is going to be a much larger share of the 15-25 male demographic. But when you talk about stops versus populations, you're using overall populations. That's manipulation.
You are lacking any actual support for your argument. Surely you can be bothered to produce some actual evidence that might support this claim that age demographics offset the very significant racial correlations.
Quote:
They don't call it "stop" and "frisk" for nothing. They're two distinct things. The cop can "stop" someone to investigate if he has reasonable suspicion they've committed or are about to commit a crime. The "frisk" is to look for weapons for the cop's safety.
Half of stops led to frisks. They're not synonymous, but the frisks weren't exactly rare.
Edited by Gibonius - 12/25/14 at 7:13pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?