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 364

post #5446 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

So when, in your opinion, did that stop being the case? 1950? 1960? 1970?  1980?  1990? 

It died on Feb. 3rd, 1959, now known as the Day the Racism Died.
post #5447 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Or if you're poor and a couple hundreds bucks in tickets makes a difference.


The Ferguson investigation showed that the police were basically out for revenue, and that it (coincidentally, I'm sure) came disproportionately from black residents. Can't imagine why a community might feel discriminated against when the government is instructing the police to fleece them for dumb bullshit on a regular basis.

It just amazes me that no one has actually taken the time to debunk the BS "Ferguson report." The DOJ assembled a handful of e-mails from city officials talking about revenue from the courts and paired it with complaints from officers to make it sound like some conspiracy instead of those being things you would find in any city in America. Wow--city managers are worried about budgets!? Cops don't like writing tickets!? Shocking! Then the DOJ says that this is racist because the cops targeted whites who would actually pay the fines blacks -- but they neglect to mention (or minimize, I'm not sure if it's buried in there somewhere) that almost half of the tickets were generated by red light cameras. And of course they didn't do a survey of who was actually driving in the city (this isn't necessarily the same as the residents) or who was actually committing traffic violations.

The whole thing comes off as a hit piece (because that's what it is).
post #5448 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

Perhaps it simply more appropriate to remove the word "systemic" from the discussion. Agree?


I mean, nobody is arguing that racism doesnt exist.

Have you actually followed this thread?
post #5449 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Guys, some citizens getting killed by agents of the state without due process is just the price we pay for living in a civilized society.  Take it from the Eastern European.

"Nobody made it to the top without breaking a few pieces of china"


post #5450 of 6081
I was curious, and it turns out (according to the one person who's actually looked at data from one county) that just maybe red light cameras are racist. Black people were TWICE as likely to get accused by the cameras compared to their share of the county.
Quote:
The cameras are located in a county composed of about
75% White and 15% Black in the general population. This composition differs
from what law enforcement in the county with cameras sees: a racial composition
of red light violators that is about 62% White and 30% Black.

While the guy is a terrible writer (as you can see from above), he goes on to show how he earned his PhD by purporting to demonstrate how a contrived list of factors, carefully weighed, explains the discrepancy, not race. I don't disagree with it entirely, as the population of the surrounding area and the proximity of the residents to the cameras are clearly going to affect who gets the tickets. Someone should tell the DOJ!

http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/46909/Police%20Quarterly-2015-Eger-1098611115586174.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
post #5451 of 6081
All disparate outcomes are racist Turk.

Unless they are not.
post #5452 of 6081
Maybe blacks, on average, are shittier drivers. My own limited sample of observations would instead suggest asians. I don't think red light cameras can be afro or sino phobic or are even self-aware ("yet", anyway..we're talkin preSkynet here).

Crucially, I think traffic ticket dispersion across race in any locality is a red herring. *The real issue is drug stops.* Rousting mofos and jackin up likely holders. The "rolled a stop sign" (or w/e BS some white guy in a tie breezes by on) is so often incidental.

So, yeah, »legalize all drugs.« As usual. The rational conclusion for any sound thinker.

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight

"Crime
 
Despite claims to the contrary,34 decriminalisation appears to have had a positive effect on crime. With its recategorisation of low-level drug possession as an administrative rather than criminal offence, decriminalisation inevitably produced a reduction in the number of people arrested and sent to criminal court for drug offences – from over 14,000 in the year 2000, to around 5,500-6,000 per year once the policy had come into effect.35 The proportion of drug-related offenders (defined as those who committed offences under the influence of drugs and/or to fund drug consumption) in the Portuguese prison population also declined, from 44% in 1999, to just under 21% in 2012."
post #5453 of 6081
Wow, 21% drug offenders. That's real progress. Go Portugal!

Maybe if they work at it they can get it down to 15.7% Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
like state prisons in the US. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf[

[And yes I realize the definitions aren't the same]
post #5454 of 6081
It is. And hopefully they can.

I'd further posit that if enacted in the US the significant reduction in fatherlessness would see a profound generational decline in proportionate black imprisonment in later decades.

However, decriminalization across all "classes" of drugs is highly controversial and still a "radical" proposition, as we all know.

Frankly, I've always been puzzled by folks who see

Someone wants to do heroin + someone wants to sell heroin = "criminal act" in the moral sense

as a true equation.

I only ask two questions to try to get at the legitimacy of any "criminal" behavior:
1 did someone get messed with?
2 did someone's property get messed with?

This black/drug conundrum seems so simple to me.

In fact, I have more trouble with the scenario of some guy leaving a rusted Camaro on his lawn in a nice neighborhood and refusing his neighbors' requests for him remove it. On one hand, it's demonstrably impacting their property values negatively. On the other, the guy goes "I like it there. It's my lawn. My property. I pay the property tax, not them. I'll do what I like." I'm all like, 'damn, he makes an excellent point.' happy.gif

Now that's a tough one! tongue.gif
post #5455 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

So when, in your opinion, did that stop being the case? 1950? 1960? 1970?  1980?  1990? 

When government stopped implementing anti-black policies, I don't think you can make a solid case that there are laws targeting black people on purpose atm (jim crow, black codes, anti-miscegenation laws etc). You could make a case that nixon drug war was a regulation that was 'institutional' or 'systemic' racism and it was designed to target blacks and probably few others in recent past. If you have gov agencies pushing these types of regulations you can speak of systemic racism imo. Now you have pretty much the reverse of it, you have a president who is pardoning non-violent black offenders mainly because most of them are black and you have for example affirmative action. I don't see how institutions nowadays are desgined to keep black man down.

That being said there are dysfunctional PD's and indivdual racist cops, ofc there are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Guys, some citizens getting killed by agents of the state without due process is just the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Take it from the Eastern European.

Dude, i'd take police from my country or pretty much any other EU country over USA's police. I never said those examples of police incompetnence are justified. I just don't thibk they are result of 'systemic racism' majority of them at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

Perhaps it simply more appropriate to remove the word "systemic" from the discussion. Agree? I mean, nobody is arguing that racism doesnt exist.

yes
post #5456 of 6081
It's kind of irrelevant to the poor bastard with his face in the pavement whether Jim Crow is still on the books or not. Forget federal/state legislation. It's the dozens(?) of county/parish/township copshops that have an ad hoc policy of treating the black community differently than the rest of the communities (eg white/tourist/business) they have a mandate to enforce the laws in.

Of course, these cops would cite all their drug collars in the dark part of town as the reason why. Hence, I wouldn't reflexively yell "racism!" like the typical SJW would. I'd change the laws the cops are mandated to enforce. Ergo, ref:my prior poast.
post #5457 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post


When government stopped implementing anti-black policies, I don't think you can make a solid case that there are laws targeting black people on purpose atm (jim crow, black codes, anti-miscegenation laws etc). You could make a case that nixon drug war was a regulation that was 'institutional' or 'systemic' racism and it was designed to target blacks and probably few others in recent past. If you have gov agencies pushing these types of regulations you can speak of systemic racism imo. 

 

Well the federal government was supposed to stop Jim Crow in the 1950s but clearly throughout the 1960s and 1970s many state and local governments still implemented overtly anti-black policies

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post


Now you have pretty much the reverse of it, you have a president who is pardoning non-violent black offenders mainly because most of them are black 

 

Are you SURE that your statement is accurate?  Are you sure most of the non-violent offenders are black and they are being pardoned because they are black or did you read that on some website somewhere

 

President Barack Obama meets for lunch with formerly incarcerated individuals

President Barack Obama meets for lunch with formerly incarcerated individuals who have received commutations, at Busboys and Poets in Washington, D.C., March 30, 2016. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

you have for example affirmative action. 

 

Affirmative action benefits all minorities as well as women, not just blacks.  Blacks are not the largest minority group in America, Latinos/Hispanics are.  And the largest recipients of Affirmative Action policies are women

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

I don't see how institutions nowadays are desgined to keep black man down.
 
Take a segment of the population and  ostracize them from the rest of society by setting up a series of laws that forces them to live in the unwanted lands and communities, provide substandard education to that group for generations, ignore the spread of drugs and alcohol in those closed communities, daily reinforce the message that members of those groups are not worthy of anything and they are beneath everyone because of the will of God, establish laws that punishes members of that group much more harshly than members of the dominant group for identical crimes.  

Sounds familiar?  This is the reality for the poorest and least well off group in America, the Native American.  And this is also the reality for the African American.

Now make this official government policy for hundreds of years until one day as a collective you decide, "We have been wrong.  We will change" yet the same people in charge of  implementing and enforcing those policies are still in charge of implementing and enforcing the new policies.  So how quickly will change come?  Overnight?  In a year?  In 5 years?  In 10 years?  And how long will it take for the effects of those changes to filter down to all members of those affected groups?  

Meanwhile redlining is still happening, police brutality is still a real issue, substandard schools in minority neighbourhoods is still the norm but you don't see how "institutions nowadays are designed to keep the black (or native) man down".  Amazing!

Edited by Rumpelstiltskin - 8/17/16 at 6:34am
post #5458 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

So when, in your opinion, did that stop being the case? 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980? 1990?

Racism isn't the cause of problems in the black community, but if your goal is to make sure things don't improve, blaming most of their problems on racism is quite literally the most perfect way to make that happen. The other day Charles Krauthammer said there is no political solution to the problem, and fixes have to come from within the community. He's correct except for the fact that politicians play an important part by simply acknowledging that they can't fix crime and poverty in the black community. Anyone wanna take bets on when that's going to happen?

On another note, CNN doing what they do best - running an edited clip and claiming the sister of the deceased in Milwaukee was calling for peace.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/08/16/media-falsely-portrays-sister-man-shot-milwaukee-police-calling-peace/

post #5459 of 6081
Repubs want to blame the problem on culture, Dems want to deny individual agency.

Seems on target with this conversation.


So, policies like "stop and frisk." Do they take place vastly in majority black neighborhoods? Tell me that's not de jure racism.
post #5460 of 6081
They are directed at places where violent crime happens, not places where people of any given color live.
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?