|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 13 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There are reports dating back to 1999 on the issue, just from a quick search: https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highwaysThe post did an article about it a while ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/08/the-big-question-about-why-police-pull-over-so-many-black-drivers/The thurst of the piece was the intent of the office doing the stop is difficult to assess. But here is a good section: Show nested quote +The situation gets even more complicated with respect to vehicle searches. In this case, it's less likely that these other factors are at work. It's more likely either statistical discrimination (targeting black people because they're more likely to be carrying contraband) and outright prejudice (targeting black people because of animus toward them). The first would indicate that black people are searched more because they’re more likely to carry contraband, while the latter would say that black people are searched more often because the police have an antagonism toward them.
It’s an important difference — the former is a result of the police maximizing the number of offenders who are caught, whereas the latter is a result of the police seeking to punish black drivers. The former — what people usually mean when they say "racial profiling" — is ethically controversial for literally targeting people of certain skin colors, but sometimes defended as merely an efficient use of resources. The latter, not so much.
In simple terms, the impact of these two types of discrimination can be compared by looking at the rate people of each race are caught with contraband after they’ve been searched. If black drivers are consistently less likely to be caught with contraband than whites, that means the police are spending their time searching less-suspicious blacks rather than more-suspicious whites, indicating prejudice.
A 2006 study of police searches in Florida found no evidence of prejudice, but evidence of statistical discrimination. More recent figures from 2014 and 2015 published by the New York Times show blacks who are searched are around 20 percent less likely to be carrying contraband than whites who are searched. While that certainly raises the odds that prejudice is playing a role, it can't be said for certain without a more careful study. There are numerous of studies about discrimination in police departments that can be discussed. And they should be discussed by region, rather than nationally. But sadly the topic of shootings becomes challenging due to the lack of transparency by police on that specific subject.
I don't doubt racial profiling. I think that's been a big problem for a while. I also do think it seems that the system is general is more likely to send black people to prison.
As for transparency regarding shootings, what do you mean. Is that information not available?
It seems not. Well, that's ridiculous.
|
Part of the problem is how we frame the issue.
When the police started existing in this country they were unquestionably racist as a group and policed in a racist way.
Since then we have made a lot of progress (from people openly murdering black people in cold blood and at worst it being a property crime), but I don't think anyone pointing for evidence of police policing in a racist way can point to when the police stopped policing in a racist way?
It's for that reason, among others, that incomplete data that's been screened by those who could be implicated is, I think to most people, obviously lacking.
So what the real conversation being had is, "have we reached an acceptable level of racist policing", which should be apparent at this point, the answer is "Hell No!" for those that are the victims of such policing.
The argument about what the statistics say are somewhat irrelevant for reasons around both their incompleteness/bias and their distance from the real life experiences of the people in question.
|
On July 13 2016 06:52 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Forgive me if I'm going to trust the Harvard economics professor over the alleged rebuttal that no one wants to source or explain.
I'm sitting here with a reputable source and I'm being told 'this source has been rebutted' but no one can source such a rebuttal or even bother to explain why it isn't reputable. I don't think you can even blame me for being skeptical when you're offering no source to dispute the statistics put forth in this study. That's not correct. You were given the directions where to find the source. You can't be arsed to look for it. That's fine. That doesn't make your statement "irrefutable" because nobody else is doing the work for you. Especially since apparently the argument that was refuted was coming from you in the first place. Like, what the fuck.
I read the thread the first time. There was no refutation. There were people skeptical of the sources due to the sample sizes, and people are now equivocating that to 'the study has been refuted'. I read the article and was aware of the incompleteness of the study. That is not a refutation or a rebuttal either. There was no consensus then that the study is now refuted and rebutted.
This is completely new to be seeing the very same people who were there for the initial discussion somehow concluding now that the study has been rebutted and refuted when no such general consensus was reached then. (because it wasn't)
This is why I was asking for evidence of this being the case. I'm not going to be bothered to go back and dig through it when I read it the first time and know that no such consensus was reached if the people insisting such a phenomena occurred can't either.
As it turns out, they have sourced the posts they cite as the study being refuted. At best, we have backstepped from the 'study has been refuted' to 'take it with a grain of salt because the samples aren't large enough'
So yes, what the fuck?
On July 13 2016 06:53 farvacola wrote:
Lol, literally no one suggested that we ignore the findings, rather that they do not by any stretch "prove" that police do not disproportionately target or harm minorities.
Wrong.
rebut
rɪˈbʌt/Submit
verb
1.
claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.
refute
rɪˈfjuːt/Submit
verb
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
On July 13 2016 06:29 zlefin wrote:
Well, then you should go back and find the rebuttal, or ask someone who has the thing that lets you search threads better to do it.
On July 13 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:
You wouldn’t be mocked if you didn’t hang your hat on a studied that admits is based on limited information and then claim it proves that blacks being shot by cops is not a problem.
Me basing my claim on a study of limited information is a fair criticism, but it's more data than I've seen supporting the contrary opinion here that seems to just be an assumed truth by the condescending left in this thread. I see no such mockery of the fact that it seems to be a widespread assumption that 'blacks being shot by cops is a widespread systematic racial problem'. Perhaps you should tone down the mockery as to not incite a flamewar.
On July 13 2016 06:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I'm going to say it wasn't refuted and you're just ignoring data that contradicts the absurd narrative you want to believe. than you are wrong. since several other people also remember the refutation. You're just being obstinate and refusing to do work. Consider this point of view: I cannot know for certain whether you genuinely missed the rebuttal, or were aware of it and are trolling. Putting the onus on other people to continually keep track of, and re-prove, things that were already proven, isn't good. And the onus was on you to track the point. And approximate locations for it have been provided, and you refuse to do the work for it. Also, the study itself had numerous cautionary notes, including this: "First, all but one dataset was provided by a select group of police departments. It is possible that these departments only supplied the data because they are either enlightened or were not concerned about what the analysis would reveal. In essence, this is equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing to supply a researcher with their Human Resources data! There may be important selection in who was willing to share their data. The Police-Public contact survey partially sidesteps this issue by including a nationally representative sample of civilians, but it does not contain data on officer-involved shootings. " so, no, you're wrong, and you're being an obstinate ass, and arguing poorly, and degrading the thread. Learn to follow the thread and your posts properly. You also OBVIOUSLY failed to look at the underlying study.
So maybe the thread wouldn't degrade into shit quality if you took a dictionary and looked up the definition 'refute' and 'rebut' instead of incompetently insulting me and wasting my time. The study was never refuted or rebutted. As others have noted, it was put into question at best due to the scope of the samples. I really am trying to restrain myself from flaming you for being such a moron but it's very difficult for me not to flame you back especially when the circlejerk squad comes to your defense even when you're in the wrong.
I've seen the blanket assumption thrown around that innocent blacks are being shot and murdered by racist cops as a systematic problem in our society by several posters here like plansix, zlefin, and ticklishmusic (who also have a habit of making shitty antagonistic posts against any contrarian opinion while circlejerk defending any that aligns with their own even if it's wrong - which I've come to just accept as something everyone accepts as a normal hazard of posting in this thread). There is no substantiations for these claims that racist police assassinating innocent blacks is a widespread systematic problem, it's sort of just accepted.
The second someone argues the contrary with a reputable source as statistics evidence though, it's intensely scrutinized (which would be fine in normal circumstances. the problem is, this standard only applies to contrarian opinions) and even accepted as 'refuted and rebutted' based on the fact that the samples aren't large enough and are 'only what the police have released to us (with the exception of one)'. The lack of awareness of double-standards and omnipresent biased atmosphere here ffs
|
On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages?
There is no significant data because the US police is not required to report incidents involving use of lethal force.
Which in itself is mind boggling.
|
On July 13 2016 07:37 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There are reports dating back to 1999 on the issue, just from a quick search: https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highwaysThe post did an article about it a while ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/08/the-big-question-about-why-police-pull-over-so-many-black-drivers/The thurst of the piece was the intent of the office doing the stop is difficult to assess. But here is a good section: The situation gets even more complicated with respect to vehicle searches. In this case, it's less likely that these other factors are at work. It's more likely either statistical discrimination (targeting black people because they're more likely to be carrying contraband) and outright prejudice (targeting black people because of animus toward them). The first would indicate that black people are searched more because they’re more likely to carry contraband, while the latter would say that black people are searched more often because the police have an antagonism toward them.
It’s an important difference — the former is a result of the police maximizing the number of offenders who are caught, whereas the latter is a result of the police seeking to punish black drivers. The former — what people usually mean when they say "racial profiling" — is ethically controversial for literally targeting people of certain skin colors, but sometimes defended as merely an efficient use of resources. The latter, not so much.
In simple terms, the impact of these two types of discrimination can be compared by looking at the rate people of each race are caught with contraband after they’ve been searched. If black drivers are consistently less likely to be caught with contraband than whites, that means the police are spending their time searching less-suspicious blacks rather than more-suspicious whites, indicating prejudice.
A 2006 study of police searches in Florida found no evidence of prejudice, but evidence of statistical discrimination. More recent figures from 2014 and 2015 published by the New York Times show blacks who are searched are around 20 percent less likely to be carrying contraband than whites who are searched. While that certainly raises the odds that prejudice is playing a role, it can't be said for certain without a more careful study. There are numerous of studies about discrimination in police departments that can be discussed. And they should be discussed by region, rather than nationally. But sadly the topic of shootings becomes challenging due to the lack of transparency by police on that specific subject. I don't doubt racial profiling. I think that's been a big problem for a while. I also do think it seems that the system is general is more likely to send black people to prison. As for transparency regarding shootings, what do you mean. Is that information not available? It seems not. Well, that's ridiculous.
The FBI does release information with regards to homicides
|
On July 13 2016 06:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:44 farvacola wrote:
Holy shit is this painful to read from my phone. The study author himself cabined the findings with a few large caveats, most notably the self-selection bias inherent to data drawn from police departments that willingly share data in addition to the related problem of there being no national collection of policing data. So in the absence of all the data, we have some data that points towards the conclusion that police are less likely to shoot blacks than they are to shoot whites in the same scenario. Therefore, we ought to ignore what data we do have and conclude the opposite because the MSM reports stories that cops kill innocent blacks. I'm actually irritated at how idiotic it is that I'm being mocked for taking problem with this being defined as 'study results refuted'
These are all lessor problems that stem from the main problem in American society today, and that is legal corruption through lobbyists and illegal corruption like the Clinton Foundation. A fish rots from the head down and so does a country, what you are seeing now are just symptoms of the main problem (the Republican and Democrat establishments)...
Race relations haven't been this bad in decades, foreign policy became unhinged since the Clinton administration and has only gotten worse with every next president, the economy is run by fat-cat bankers and special interests. As I've said earlier these problems stem from the big one, and thats corruption.
Don't let yourself be bogged down with talk of non-issues. The Clinton emails are key to unraveling the Clinton Foundation which is basically confirmed under investigation by the FBI. Weeding out corruption in the government is the first step in solving most of Americas problems.
edit: The implications of electing one of the most corrupt politicians in the history of the US to the office of President are staggering for the future of not just America, but the World.
|
On July 13 2016 07:40 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:37 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There are reports dating back to 1999 on the issue, just from a quick search: https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highwaysThe post did an article about it a while ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/08/the-big-question-about-why-police-pull-over-so-many-black-drivers/The thurst of the piece was the intent of the office doing the stop is difficult to assess. But here is a good section: The situation gets even more complicated with respect to vehicle searches. In this case, it's less likely that these other factors are at work. It's more likely either statistical discrimination (targeting black people because they're more likely to be carrying contraband) and outright prejudice (targeting black people because of animus toward them). The first would indicate that black people are searched more because they’re more likely to carry contraband, while the latter would say that black people are searched more often because the police have an antagonism toward them.
It’s an important difference — the former is a result of the police maximizing the number of offenders who are caught, whereas the latter is a result of the police seeking to punish black drivers. The former — what people usually mean when they say "racial profiling" — is ethically controversial for literally targeting people of certain skin colors, but sometimes defended as merely an efficient use of resources. The latter, not so much.
In simple terms, the impact of these two types of discrimination can be compared by looking at the rate people of each race are caught with contraband after they’ve been searched. If black drivers are consistently less likely to be caught with contraband than whites, that means the police are spending their time searching less-suspicious blacks rather than more-suspicious whites, indicating prejudice.
A 2006 study of police searches in Florida found no evidence of prejudice, but evidence of statistical discrimination. More recent figures from 2014 and 2015 published by the New York Times show blacks who are searched are around 20 percent less likely to be carrying contraband than whites who are searched. While that certainly raises the odds that prejudice is playing a role, it can't be said for certain without a more careful study. There are numerous of studies about discrimination in police departments that can be discussed. And they should be discussed by region, rather than nationally. But sadly the topic of shootings becomes challenging due to the lack of transparency by police on that specific subject. I don't doubt racial profiling. I think that's been a big problem for a while. I also do think it seems that the system is general is more likely to send black people to prison. As for transparency regarding shootings, what do you mean. Is that information not available? It seems not. Well, that's ridiculous. The FBI does release information with regards to homicides
We found when comparing the FBI numbers to just stuff covered by News org's (wouldn't include back alley killings of homeless people for example) that the FBI had ~1/3- 1/4 of the killings by police. If someone is using FBI numbers they are about 2 years behind the discussion.
The point is that the reporting system allows those reporting to distort the data as they see fit and they quite directly have a motive to manipulate it.
|
On July 13 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There is no significant data because the US police is not required to report incidents involving use of lethal force. Which in itself is mind boggling.
Agreed
|
On July 13 2016 07:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There is no significant data because the US police is not required to report incidents involving use of lethal force. Which in itself is mind boggling. Agreed
It's not even slightly puzzling if you acknowledge the intention is to obfuscate the truth.
|
On July 13 2016 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:40 CorsairHero wrote:On July 13 2016 07:37 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There are reports dating back to 1999 on the issue, just from a quick search: https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highwaysThe post did an article about it a while ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/08/the-big-question-about-why-police-pull-over-so-many-black-drivers/The thurst of the piece was the intent of the office doing the stop is difficult to assess. But here is a good section: The situation gets even more complicated with respect to vehicle searches. In this case, it's less likely that these other factors are at work. It's more likely either statistical discrimination (targeting black people because they're more likely to be carrying contraband) and outright prejudice (targeting black people because of animus toward them). The first would indicate that black people are searched more because they’re more likely to carry contraband, while the latter would say that black people are searched more often because the police have an antagonism toward them.
It’s an important difference — the former is a result of the police maximizing the number of offenders who are caught, whereas the latter is a result of the police seeking to punish black drivers. The former — what people usually mean when they say "racial profiling" — is ethically controversial for literally targeting people of certain skin colors, but sometimes defended as merely an efficient use of resources. The latter, not so much.
In simple terms, the impact of these two types of discrimination can be compared by looking at the rate people of each race are caught with contraband after they’ve been searched. If black drivers are consistently less likely to be caught with contraband than whites, that means the police are spending their time searching less-suspicious blacks rather than more-suspicious whites, indicating prejudice.
A 2006 study of police searches in Florida found no evidence of prejudice, but evidence of statistical discrimination. More recent figures from 2014 and 2015 published by the New York Times show blacks who are searched are around 20 percent less likely to be carrying contraband than whites who are searched. While that certainly raises the odds that prejudice is playing a role, it can't be said for certain without a more careful study. There are numerous of studies about discrimination in police departments that can be discussed. And they should be discussed by region, rather than nationally. But sadly the topic of shootings becomes challenging due to the lack of transparency by police on that specific subject. I don't doubt racial profiling. I think that's been a big problem for a while. I also do think it seems that the system is general is more likely to send black people to prison. As for transparency regarding shootings, what do you mean. Is that information not available? It seems not. Well, that's ridiculous. The FBI does release information with regards to homicides We found when comparing the FBI numbers to just stuff covered by News org's (wouldn't include back alley killings of homeless people for example) that the FBI had ~1/3- 1/4 of the killings by police. If someone is using FBI numbers they are about 2 years behind the discussion. The point is that the reporting system allows those reporting to distort the data as they see fit and they quite directly have a motive to manipulate it.
Thanks I was not aware of this
|
On July 13 2016 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:40 CorsairHero wrote:On July 13 2016 07:37 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There are reports dating back to 1999 on the issue, just from a quick search: https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highwaysThe post did an article about it a while ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/08/the-big-question-about-why-police-pull-over-so-many-black-drivers/The thurst of the piece was the intent of the office doing the stop is difficult to assess. But here is a good section: The situation gets even more complicated with respect to vehicle searches. In this case, it's less likely that these other factors are at work. It's more likely either statistical discrimination (targeting black people because they're more likely to be carrying contraband) and outright prejudice (targeting black people because of animus toward them). The first would indicate that black people are searched more because they’re more likely to carry contraband, while the latter would say that black people are searched more often because the police have an antagonism toward them.
It’s an important difference — the former is a result of the police maximizing the number of offenders who are caught, whereas the latter is a result of the police seeking to punish black drivers. The former — what people usually mean when they say "racial profiling" — is ethically controversial for literally targeting people of certain skin colors, but sometimes defended as merely an efficient use of resources. The latter, not so much.
In simple terms, the impact of these two types of discrimination can be compared by looking at the rate people of each race are caught with contraband after they’ve been searched. If black drivers are consistently less likely to be caught with contraband than whites, that means the police are spending their time searching less-suspicious blacks rather than more-suspicious whites, indicating prejudice.
A 2006 study of police searches in Florida found no evidence of prejudice, but evidence of statistical discrimination. More recent figures from 2014 and 2015 published by the New York Times show blacks who are searched are around 20 percent less likely to be carrying contraband than whites who are searched. While that certainly raises the odds that prejudice is playing a role, it can't be said for certain without a more careful study. There are numerous of studies about discrimination in police departments that can be discussed. And they should be discussed by region, rather than nationally. But sadly the topic of shootings becomes challenging due to the lack of transparency by police on that specific subject. I don't doubt racial profiling. I think that's been a big problem for a while. I also do think it seems that the system is general is more likely to send black people to prison. As for transparency regarding shootings, what do you mean. Is that information not available? It seems not. Well, that's ridiculous. The FBI does release information with regards to homicides We found when comparing the FBI numbers to just stuff covered by News org's (wouldn't include back alley killings of homeless people for example) that the FBI had ~1/3- 1/4 of the killings by police. If someone is using FBI numbers they are about 2 years behind the discussion. The point is that the reporting system allows those reporting to distort the data as they see fit and they quite directly have a motive to manipulate it.
Who are "we"?
|
On July 13 2016 07:40 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 06:44 farvacola wrote:
Holy shit is this painful to read from my phone. The study author himself cabined the findings with a few large caveats, most notably the self-selection bias inherent to data drawn from police departments that willingly share data in addition to the related problem of there being no national collection of policing data. So in the absence of all the data, we have some data that points towards the conclusion that police are less likely to shoot blacks than they are to shoot whites in the same scenario. Therefore, we ought to ignore what data we do have and conclude the opposite because the MSM reports stories that cops kill innocent blacks. I'm actually irritated at how idiotic it is that I'm being mocked for taking problem with this being defined as 'study results refuted' Race relations haven't been this bad in decades, foreign policy became unhinged since the Clinton administration and has only gotten worse with every next president, the economy is run by fat-cat bankers and special interests. As I've said earlier these problems stem from the big one, and thats corruption.
I would argue that this isn't the result of a resurgence of white supremacy racism, rather the MSM and establishment are creating more racial problems in society by drastically blowing out of proportion what racial problems do still exist, which serves only to incite further racial tensions. All-the-while they are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of those same racial problems still present in modern society, which results in an ineptitude in the ability to appropriately address and present solutions for said problems.
|
On July 13 2016 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:40 CorsairHero wrote:On July 13 2016 07:37 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Source? Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There are reports dating back to 1999 on the issue, just from a quick search: https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highwaysThe post did an article about it a while ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/08/the-big-question-about-why-police-pull-over-so-many-black-drivers/The thurst of the piece was the intent of the office doing the stop is difficult to assess. But here is a good section: The situation gets even more complicated with respect to vehicle searches. In this case, it's less likely that these other factors are at work. It's more likely either statistical discrimination (targeting black people because they're more likely to be carrying contraband) and outright prejudice (targeting black people because of animus toward them). The first would indicate that black people are searched more because they’re more likely to carry contraband, while the latter would say that black people are searched more often because the police have an antagonism toward them.
It’s an important difference — the former is a result of the police maximizing the number of offenders who are caught, whereas the latter is a result of the police seeking to punish black drivers. The former — what people usually mean when they say "racial profiling" — is ethically controversial for literally targeting people of certain skin colors, but sometimes defended as merely an efficient use of resources. The latter, not so much.
In simple terms, the impact of these two types of discrimination can be compared by looking at the rate people of each race are caught with contraband after they’ve been searched. If black drivers are consistently less likely to be caught with contraband than whites, that means the police are spending their time searching less-suspicious blacks rather than more-suspicious whites, indicating prejudice.
A 2006 study of police searches in Florida found no evidence of prejudice, but evidence of statistical discrimination. More recent figures from 2014 and 2015 published by the New York Times show blacks who are searched are around 20 percent less likely to be carrying contraband than whites who are searched. While that certainly raises the odds that prejudice is playing a role, it can't be said for certain without a more careful study. There are numerous of studies about discrimination in police departments that can be discussed. And they should be discussed by region, rather than nationally. But sadly the topic of shootings becomes challenging due to the lack of transparency by police on that specific subject. I don't doubt racial profiling. I think that's been a big problem for a while. I also do think it seems that the system is general is more likely to send black people to prison. As for transparency regarding shootings, what do you mean. Is that information not available? It seems not. Well, that's ridiculous. The FBI does release information with regards to homicides We found when comparing the FBI numbers to just stuff covered by News org's (wouldn't include back alley killings of homeless people for example) that the FBI had ~1/3- 1/4 of the killings by police. If someone is using FBI numbers they are about 2 years behind the discussion. The point is that the reporting system allows those reporting to distort the data as they see fit and they quite directly have a motive to manipulate it.
Source?
|
On July 13 2016 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There is no significant data because the US police is not required to report incidents involving use of lethal force. Which in itself is mind boggling. Agreed It's not even slightly puzzling if you acknowledge the intention is to obfuscate the truth.
I would love to see the data before concluding this and I'm sure you'd love for the data to be made public as well so in that we're united.
|
I'll just drop this one quickly to show FBI numbers are totally inaccurate. But this is just comparing the FBI to a sample of Police agencies own reporting
http://graphics.wsj.com/justifiable-homicides-by-police/
On July 13 2016 07:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2016 07:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There is no significant data because the US police is not required to report incidents involving use of lethal force. Which in itself is mind boggling. Agreed It's not even slightly puzzling if you acknowledge the intention is to obfuscate the truth. I would love to see the data before concluding this and I'm sure you'd love for the data to be made public as well so in that we're united.
I think what you and many others fail to realize, is while many of you are just showing up, this is a question we've been asking for decades in one form or another. The opposition to it is clear for those of us who didn't just start asking these questions.
What is it you are imagining is the reasonable explanation for refusing to share this data for so long, other than intentionally obfuscating the truth?
|
On July 13 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:22 travis wrote:On July 13 2016 07:15 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 07:09 travis wrote:
Does no one think that common sense might say it's likely that our police sometimes use excessive force during arrests or stops, and that a large percentage of arrests and stops involve black people? And then that some percentage of those might be racially motivated because racists do exist and do racist stuff?
Isn't this all common sense?
So then the onus would be on providing statistics or data that point towards black people being disproportionally targetted in a significant way, which for the life of me I haven't seen. All I see is anecdotal evidence that for some reason people think is proof of a bigger problem. Which isn't to say that a bigger problem doesn't exist, but maybe we should attempt to gain an accurate perspective on the actual scale of this problem instead of relying on emotion. Whoa you are like 30 pages late on this! Well did anyone post any statistics or actual data that validate the current narrative in those 30 pages? There is no significant data because the US police is not required to report incidents involving use of lethal force. Which in itself is mind boggling.
And any use of force that might be improper is investigated by the local DA or internally. Which is a conflict of interest anyplace else in goverment.
Found this gem during my search. The driver was blind drunk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/us/2-years-after-116-police-bullets-flew-few-answers.html?_r=0
Shortly before 4 a.m., police radio reports streamed in of a “fleeing” vehicle traveling at “a high rate of speed” down Collins Avenue. The police later said the driver was on the wrong side of the road, driving recklessly, endangering pedestrians and almost slamming into several officers on bike patrol. One officer was injured, the police said.
A police officer tried to stop the fleeing Hyundai. When it continued, four Hialeah officers fired shots toward it.
“Shots fired. Shots fired,” officers are heard saying over the radio. But nobody said anything about who fired the shots — officers, bystanders, Mr. Herisse — leaving officers to guess.
As the car traveled another two blocks down Collins Avenue, eight Miami Beach police officers saw it coming toward them, which is when the YouTube video starts. The car’s windows are tinted, and they cannot see inside.
Nobody has yet explained what set off the barrage of gunfire a full minute after the car stopped.
Like how does anyone justify lethal force in this? Let alone a full minute of shooting. They put 116 bullets in that car and injured for other people during the gunfire. But apparently no one was charged, because they are police and its cool.
Not shocked at all. Mostly depressed. Being held accountable is not something police departments like.
|
On July 13 2016 07:26 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +CLEVELAND — Republicans crafting a party platform in Cleveland quietly voted Monday in favor of building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, ratifying one of presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump’s most controversial proposals.
The language added to the party’s platform does not say anything about who will pay for the wall. Trump has repeatedly promised he will make Mexico pay for it, though the Mexican president has said there is “no way” that will happen.
The platform will express support for a “border wall” that must cover “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.”
The measure, proposed by Trump supporter Kris Kobach, the secretary of state from Kansas, was approved unanimously in the subcommittee meeting on Monday.
In the full committee hearing on Tuesday, the new language did not attract any opposition or amendments. That policy plank of the party’s platform was adopted without even passing debate about the wall or immigration reform.
The 2016 Republican Platform Committee has strengthened the wording in its policy document to match the presumptive nominee’s campaign promise.
The 2012 platform stated that “the double-layered fencing” that was authorized by Congress in 2006 but never completed “must finally be built.”
The 2016 working draft of the platform called for “construction of a physical barrier” — language that Trump supporters saw as being open to alternate, and weaker, interpretations of his suggested wall. Source
So, the wall is just for pandering, eh...
|
On July 13 2016 07:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:26 CorsairHero wrote:CLEVELAND — Republicans crafting a party platform in Cleveland quietly voted Monday in favor of building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, ratifying one of presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump’s most controversial proposals.
The language added to the party’s platform does not say anything about who will pay for the wall. Trump has repeatedly promised he will make Mexico pay for it, though the Mexican president has said there is “no way” that will happen.
The platform will express support for a “border wall” that must cover “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.”
The measure, proposed by Trump supporter Kris Kobach, the secretary of state from Kansas, was approved unanimously in the subcommittee meeting on Monday.
In the full committee hearing on Tuesday, the new language did not attract any opposition or amendments. That policy plank of the party’s platform was adopted without even passing debate about the wall or immigration reform.
The 2016 Republican Platform Committee has strengthened the wording in its policy document to match the presumptive nominee’s campaign promise.
The 2012 platform stated that “the double-layered fencing” that was authorized by Congress in 2006 but never completed “must finally be built.”
The 2016 working draft of the platform called for “construction of a physical barrier” — language that Trump supporters saw as being open to alternate, and weaker, interpretations of his suggested wall. Source So, the wall is just for pandering, eh...
Platform means nothing, same for Democrats as Republicans
|
Like how does anyone justify lethal force in this? Let alone a full minute of shooting. They put 116 bullets in that car and injured for other people during the gunfire. But apparently no one was charged, because they are police and its cool.
They didn't shoot for a minute. I just watched the video. They literally unloaded. That's it. You can even hear that one or two persons are still shooting when the rest already stopped - because they still had ammo in the clip.
I'm sorry. I don't wish people bad things, but anyone trying to even remotely justify 116 rounds fired at a person sitting in a carseat, injuring four bystanders (one has the bullet still close to his heart, apparently) should be locked away. Together with the cops. And not in some form of "special treatment jail", but right in there with gangbangers etc. With announcement.
edit: youtube comment on the video: "this looks like a mafia hit to me.". He's right, it actually does look like a "statement kill", don't know what the english word is for that.
edit2: and they don't open fire together. It's one person who fired a shot, with the rest joining in. You figure.
|
This isn't even going very far back but it reinforces the idea that this isn't a new discussion, people have just been forced to engage in it.
Unfortunately, they haven't been forced to do any research about what's already been discussed. So they end up saying things (like referencing the FBI stats, or the piece GG is referencing not to pick on you) that have been long since discussed and properly placed in context.
This is from the 90's...
The District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department have shot and killed more people per resident in the 1990s than any other large American city police force.
Many shootings by Washington police officers were acts of courage and even heroism. But internal police files and court records reveal a pattern of reckless and indiscriminate gunplay by officers sent into the streets with inadequate training and little oversight, an eight-month Washington Post investigation has found.
Washington's officers fire their weapons at more than double the rate of police in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago or Miami. Deaths and injuries in D.C. police shooting cases have resulted in nearly $ 8 million in court settlements and judgments against the District in the last six months alone.
"We shoot too often, and we shoot too much when we do shoot," said Executive Assistant Chief of Police Terrance W. Gainer, who became the department's second in command in May.
The shootings involve a small proportion of the District's 3,550 officers. But the details of individual cases can be chilling even to police veterans: An off-duty police officer out walking his dog in August 1995 fired 11 times while trying to stop an unarmed motorist who had hit a utility pole and left the scene of the accident. An off-duty police officer fishing in May 1995 shot an unarmed man three times after arguing with him on the banks of Rock Creek. In August, an officer ended a police chase of an irrational truck driver who had rammed several cars by firing 38 times into the truck's cab, killing the unarmed driver.
The extent and pattern of police shootings have been obscured from public view. Police officials investigate incidents in secret, producing reports that become public only when a judge intercedes. In a small hearing room closed to the public, nine of every 10 shootings are ruled justified by department officials who read the reports filed by investigating officers but generally hear no witnesses.
The spate of police shootings in the District this decade is closely tied to the training and supervision of officers and the way the department investigates cases and holds officers accountable, records and interviews show.
Police shootings began to rise at the beginning of the decade with a huge infusion of new, ill-prepared recruits and the adoption of the light-trigger, highly advanced Glock 9mm handgun as the department's service weapon. By the mid-1990s, shootings by officers had doubled to record levels even as a succession of police administrations failed to accurately track shooting patterns or correct acknowledged deficiencies in firearm skills.
Among the findings of The Post's investigation:
In the last five years, D.C. officers shot and killed 57 people -- three more than police reported in Chicago, which has three times the police force and five times the population. During that period, D.C. officers were involved in 640 shooting incidents -- 40 more than the Los Angeles Police Department, which has more than double the officers and serves six times the population. Since 1990, Washington police have shot and killed 85 people.
District officers in the last five years shot at 54 cars they said drove at them or others in "vehicular attacks." The shootings have killed nine people -- all of them unarmed -- and wounded 19. Police officers in the District and elsewhere are instructed to get out of the way and not shoot at moving cars, except in the gravest circumstances, because bullets can ricochet and because cars with wounded drivers can become unguided missiles. In New York City -- with 10 times the number of officers and 14 times the population -- officers shot at only 11 cars in vehicular attacks in the last three years.
In addition to the incidents in which officers fired into cars, D.C. police in the last five years shot nine unarmed men on foot, killing two. Five of the surviving men were charged with assaulting a police officer, but the charges were dropped in all but one case.
In 11 cases from 1992 to 1997, D.C. police ruled shootings justified despite eyewitness accounts or forensic evidence that contradicted officers, an examination of internal investigative records showed. Investigations were sometimes marked by errors, omissions and internal inconsistencies.
Nearly 75 percent of the District officers who used their weapons in 1996 failed to meet the District's basic firearms standards for using the Glock semiautomatic handgun, a weapon that requires a high degree of training and skill. There have been more than 120 unintentional discharges of the gun in the past decade; 19 officers have shot themselves or other officers accidentally.
Source
What people seem to conveniently forget, is up until recently, everyone was just denying this was the reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
