The mentality evidenced in the posts [to a Police Facebook group] is going to be hard to dislodge so long as two facts hold true: the extreme racial disparities in crime rates and the impression officers often have that they are the only ones who care about the black victims of black crime.If that's too much, the standfirst of the piece is Does anyone besides the cops care about black victims of crime?
...
It only adds to officers’ frustration when some residents of poor neighborhoods seem to deliberately thwart their efforts to get criminals off the street — whether by blocking an officer’s hot pursuit of a perp or by refusing to provide evidence that would solve a crime.
...
By all means, we should condemn police behavior that deviates from that norm of equal treatment. But the unfinished business in improving police-community relations is to lower the black crime rate. Doing so requires the same community stigma against violent behavior as is regularly applied against perceived police misbehavior.
"We do not want anyone in this city to feel in any way, shape, or form that their rights are being trampled on," Nutter said. "Every Philadelphian, every American, deserves to be treated with dignity and respect."posted by running order squabble fest at 9:36 AM on December 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
"I kind of think it's important that a black male in Milwaukee is 14 times as likely to be the victim of a murder than anybody else. We can talk all we want about these arcane formulas the Journal Sentinel comes up to shoehorn their previous position against the Milwaukee Police Department and justify it. The bottom line is, we're the institution being asked by the communities afflicted with high crime rates to do something about it."Somehow I doubt the residents meant for the police to stop and search all the young black males in the neighborhood.
Flynn said that the communities his officers patrol are primarily African-American.
"In Milwaukee, those communities are primarily populated by people of color, and they're demanding that their police department get busy, mix it up on the streets with those guys who are robbing them, raping them, shooting them and breaking into their houses. That's what we're doing."
That's illegal, no?If they had found evidence of a crime, they wouldn't be able to use it in court (no warrant). However, ironically if you are totally innocent of any crime, then there is no penalty for the police entering your house illegally.
Plausibly, it's increased crime rates in the affected neighborhoods.Sure, is that guy going to want to call the cops and deal with them for any reason?
90% of the murders in NYC are committed by blacks or Hispanics (per the NY Times crime data I linked above). It's quite perverse that aFTFY.proportionateracist law enforcement focus onhigh-crime neighborhoodsblack people gets smeared as racist.
Meanwhile, a white officer put me in the back of the police car. I was still handcuffed. The officer asked if I had any marijuana, and I said no. He removed and searched my shoes and patted down my socks.Now, marijuana in NYC is supposed to be decriminalized. But what happens is that the police go through people's stuff looking for "guns" and when they find the marijuana they arrest them for "Open Display"
According to the Drug Policy Alliance, Blacks and Latinos make up 86% of marijuana arrests in New York City, despite whites use of the drug at a higher rate.
I don't agree that it's police harassment alone, or even primarily, that contributes to that erosionBecause you're an idiot?
"In Milwaukee, those communities are primarily populated by people of color, and they're demanding that their police department get busy, mix it up on the streets with those guys who are robbing them, raping them, shooting them and breaking into their houses. That's what we're doing."Except the study found that the racial disparity was even higher in communities with fewer black people.
First steps to remedy this could include: 1) specific training with this skill for police who will interact with black and latino people, 2) more opportunities for these police to interact with "unlikely criminal" black and latino people, and 3) increasing the number of police who come from the black and latino communities where this is causing a problem.IMO this is in fact likely the most efffective strategy to control criminality among the police population (well, okay, second-most: most effective is requiring this sort of training, and also that all police to wear body cameras).
I don't agree that it's police harassment alone, or even primarily, that contributes to that erosion, but I'll agree it's a factor. Instead, I'd point to the decline of the black family, a culture of dependence on economic assistance and the failure of our educational institutions as stronger contributors to this "erosion of social solidarity."Right, because all black people are on welfare. Why are people taking this racist seriously?
delmoi, that's a pretty serious charge, but it's seriously misdirected. It's a fact that 90% of black children in the US will be on food stamps at some point in their lives.100% of white children will eat food subsidized through farm subsidies. Interestingly the article said about half of children overall will be on foodstamps at some point, which means a lot of white kids too. You can still qualify for foodstamps if you have a job, and with the minimum wage being what it is lots and lots of hard working people use them.
But nowhere in this thread, that I can see, has BobbyVan "supported a racist political viewpoint."Nope, you're wrong. he's absolutely a racist. He's claimed black people are criminals so they need to be frisked 'for their own protection' and that they're all on welfare.
Examining statistics about crime and poverty in black communities is what racists do.Well, depends on their motivation. If it's to argue that police need to harass young blacks and Latinos, then yeah. And why bring up incidents of food stamp use in a totally unrelated thread?
I think this is a terrible idea, though it sounds good at first. While it might eliminate some of the worst excesses, I think this would actually lead to more harassment rather than less by taking any individual discretion or local standards out of the equation.TL:DR; If we actually start recording the police, white people would start getting hassled by the police (they won't use their 'discretion' to avoid harassing them!)
No, it's not exactly the same thing, but it is a perfect example of a standard of search being rigidly applied regardless of efficacy. at least the stop and frisks yield some results sometimes.It's also an example of people not being singled out for their race or ethnicity (although that does actually happen with the TSA). What you're arguing for is to let the cops act in secret, so they can continue to harass people like the author of the article, but not 'good' people such as, I imagine, yourself by using 'discretion'. Giving racists 'discretion' to harass minorities is the problem.
Are you so daft that you would consider that an improvement?I'm black, so, yes?
Are you so daft that you would consider that an improvement?Building on what I said earlier, of course it's an improvement if everyone is treated the same. wanting to ignore the rights and dignity of minorities so that you, personally aren't inconvenienced is a disgusting attitude. And obviously, as a black person it would be better for me, personally if I lived in NYC. So I exactly see how that could be a 'daft' opinion to hold.
We intercepted 13,709,211 prohibited items at our security checkpoints. Of this, 11,616,249 were lighters and 1,607,100 were knives.The problem is that most most people believe that stuff won't actually be used to blow up airplanes.
Delmoi: First it seems like you are arguing for white people to be harassed more, because then at least that's 'fair.'Are you literally arguing that it would be unfair for people to be treated equally? I've seen some logical contortions from time to time but that's pretty amazing.
How about just reducing the overall level of harassment, because that's what I am arguing for. Would that be acceptable to you?No, you argued that the police should not be recorded, because if they were they would no longer use their 'discretion' to heavily target minorities and leave white people mostly alone. That's what you said.
I think this is a terrible idea, though it sounds good at first. While it might eliminate some of the worst excesses, I think this would actually lead to more harassment rather than less by taking any individual discretion or local standards out of the equation."Individual discretion" in this case means targeting minorities and 'local standards' also means... targeting minorities. Plus, the argument that police should not be recorded they can use their 'discretion' to break the law is just mind blowing.
Then, you seem to be saying you would like to see white people get harassed more, because if they were, you believe that black people would in turn be harassed less.Thank you for clearly stating that you want white people to be treated better by the police then black people.
The RAND Corporation conducted a statistical study which indicated the policies do not have a racially discriminatory impactDid you actually even open that PDF? Here's what is says.
Our analysis found the following:That's on page 15 of the PDF. On page 16:
*Officers frisked white suspects slightly less frequently than they did similarly situated nonwhites (29 percent of stops versus 33 percent of stops). Black suspects are slightly likelier to have been frisked than white suspects stopped in circumstances similar to the black suspects (46 percent versus 42 percent). While there is a gap, this difference is much smaller than what the aggregate statistics indicated.
*The rates of searches were nearly equal across racial groups, between 6 and 7 percent. However, in Staten Island, the rate of searching nonwhite suspects was significantly greater than that of searching white suspects.
*White suspects were slightly likelier to be issued a summons than were similarly situated nonwhite suspects (5.7 percent versus 5.2 percent). On the other hand, arrest rates for white suspects were slightly lower than those for similarly situated nonwhites (4.8 percent versus 5.1 percent).
*Officers were slightly less likely to use force against white suspects than they were to use it against similarly situated nonwhites (15 percent versus 16 percent); however, in Queens,
Overall, after adjustment for stop circumstances, we generally found small racial differences in the rates of frisk, search, use of force, and arrest. Nonwhites generally experienced slightly more intrusive stops, in terms of having more frequent frisks and searches, than did similarly situated white suspects. While most racial differences in post-stop outcomes were small, for some outcomes in some boroughs, the gaps warrant a closer review. For example, the Staten Island borough stands out particularly with several large racial gaps in the frisk rates (20 percent of whites versus 29 percent of similarly situated blacks), search rates (5 percent for whites versus 8 percent of similarly situated blacks), and use-of-force rates (10 percent for whites and 14 percent for similarly situated blacks).Where on earth are you getting "do not have a racially discriminatory impact"? from? Did you actually even read the summary of the report? Later on they do say that there are some other factors that have an impact, but that there is still racial bias in the data:
Our results using more precise benchmarks do not eliminate the observed racial disparities. However, they do indicate that the disparities are much smaller than the raw statistics would suggest. This result does not absolve the NYPD of the need to monitor the issueposted by delmoi at 6:16 PM on December 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
On the minor derail, which I realise is my fault - I think it's probably fair to say that the number of quote-unquote knives removed by the TSA which would otherwise have been used in any form of terrorist activity or violence while in the air is negligible.Yes, of course. I was just pointing it out because the argument was made that the cops actually 'find stuff' when they do searches, compared to the TSA, but the TSA finds millions of verboten items. I remember reading that they had actually found a number of grenades (or at least dummy grenades). And I'm sure they've found some number of guns. I think the TSA is certainly over the top given the risk.
The point that you're missing is that quotas may justify the numbers, but they don't justify the treatment. If cops were merely stopping young black men the same way that they stop (say) old white men, "Oh, sorry sir, would you mind a quick pat down? Just doing our jobs to protect the community. We apologize for any inconvenience, but we'll be as quick as possible," then people would be objecting less strongly.Yeah, exactly. I'm not even sure if I would object to 'stop and frisk' if it were actually done in a polite and non-discriminatory way -- except for the fact it seems very un-american. But from what this guy wrote that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I would say put cameras on cops and dock their pay if they're rude/abusive to innocent people.
Presumably, you and anybody else the officer looked at would also be under surveillance. Since it would all be on tape, I think the officer would be compelled to press minor offenses. -- borgesSo now you're saying cops shouldn't have cameras so that people (that the cops like) can get away with breaking the law? Honestly the best policy is to enforce all laws, and then get rid of laws people don't like being enforced. Selective enforcement just opens the doors do racial bias. Which is apparently what you want.
Then just ignore what I say then. I don't understand your compulsion to respond if you think what I am saying is dismissible and indefensible.Well, I want to make sure it's clear to everyone how disgusting and indefensible it is.
So I've got the numbers for my "Number required to give up the 4th amendment" column, can someone tell me the values for the "Number required to give up 1st amendment" column? Is that cheating? It's for Science, I swear.I agree the TSA numbers are totally inflated. But even if you filter bullshit items from that 13 million figure, the TSA still finds a lot of stuff.
I think this is a terrible idea, though it sounds good at first. While it might eliminate some of the worst excesses, I think this would actually lead to more harassment rather than less by taking any individual discretion or local standards out of the equation. -- borgesBut here 'discretion' and 'local standards' means harassing minorities, instead of white people. After all, that's what police are using their current 'discretion' to do.
Here you say it's 'daft' to want white people to be treated by the police the same as black people, obviously this means you think it's 'smart' to want white people not to be hassled by the police, even if black people are.TL:DR; If we actually start recording the police, white people would start getting hassled by the police (they won't use their 'discretion' to avoid harassing them!) -- meAre you so daft that you would consider that an improvement? -- borges
Delmoi: First it seems like you are arguing for white people to be harassed more, because then at least that's 'fair.' Then, you seem to be saying you would like to see white people get harassed more, because if they were, you believe that black people would in turn be harassed less. -- borges
No, because the users are idiots. The great majority of open use I see in my neighborhood (as well as around NYC) are young Black and Latino males. I rarely see anybody of another gender, race, or age group openly using on the street. So it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that the abundance of arrests would be represented by the that demo.Never mind you were responding to an article about people being arrested who were not openly displaying anything until they were frisked. Apparently your massive experience with 'idiot' stoner Negros/Mexicans overrides the actual text of the article I linked too.
Given that precincts with elevated crime rates have predominately minority populations, some disparity is to be expected. Indeed, it has been hypothesized that higher crime rates in minority communities fully explain the higher rate at which minorities are “stopped” in New York City. To test this hypothesis, the OAG sought to determine the extent to which differences in crime rates -- as computed by applying race-specific population counts by precinct to race-specific arrest counts by precinct -- explain the different rates at which minorities and whites were “stopped” during the covered period. As discussed below, the various regression analyses conducted by the OAG -- with the aid of Columbia University’s Center for Violence Research and Prevention -- demonstrate that differing crime rates alone cannot fully explain the increased rate of “stops” of minorities. [emphasis mine]posted by koeselitz at 9:24 AM on December 20, 2011 [3 favorites]
This is vile. It's heads I win tails you lose. The police are racists for targeting minorities... but if you point out that more crime is committed by minorities, with minority victims, in minority neighborhoods... well, you must be a racist for taking the time to look into it.If the police are harassing innocent black people due to no reason but the color of their skin, then yes it's racist, and it's still racist if you dig up crime stats. The argument is essentially, well, black people are more likely to be criminals, so of course the police should target them for stop and frisks! That's an obviously racist thing to say, since the vast majority (about 95%) of the black people frisked aren't doing anything illegal - and when they are are they're more likely to be arrested, compared to whites who are more likely to get a summons.
...this Report, which presents data reflecting activity during 1998 and the first three months of 1999...delmoi, I have nothing more to say to you.
No, I think it's vindictive and stupid to fight harassment by increasing harassment.First of all, I never said harassment should be increased, I said people should be treated equally. Not all contact with the police counts as 'harassment', if they wore cameras it's likely that they would be much more polite to everyone. It would be a lot better if black people were treated the way white people are treated now. But everyone should be treated the same.
No, I think it's vindictive and stupid to fight harassment by increasing harassment.Clearly you mean: It's stupid to fight harassment by increasing harassment against white people
That is literally what you said.And apparently the mechanism by which you think we should allow cops to harass black people but not whites is to prevent the police from accountability for their actions by video taping them. -- meAgain, a really weird logical leap.
I think this is a terrible idea, though it sounds good at first. While it might eliminate some of the worst excesses, I think this would actually lead to more harassment rather than less by taking any individual discretion or local standards out of the equation.Quite clearly, you want the police not to have to account for their preferential, 'nice' treatment of white people -- which apparently involves not arresting them for breaking the law in such a way that it would be obvious if you saw a video of them in public. You never specified exactly what it is these people would be doing that they ought to be arrested but aren't, which isn't surprising since it's a nonsensical argument.
Well I'm pretty racist then. Thanks for helping me figure that out.Consider yourself enlightened.
That is oft-repeated, but I haven't ever seen a shred of evidence that it is true. Seen plenty of people get nabbed for open use, though.Since you're apparently too lazy to click links
Organizers called out Bloomberg’s hypocrisy, noting that when Bloomberg ran for Mayor in 2001, he admitted to having smoked and enjoyed marijuana, but continues to support using loopholes in the stop-and-frisk law to orchestrate mass arrests of young people of color for small amounts of marijuana. Under Mayor Bloomberg, marijuana arrests have surpassed those under Mayors Koch, Dinkins, and Giuliani combined. Despite a tight budget and the stripping of federally funded social programs and education, the city pumped $75 million into arresting more than 50,000 people for small amounts of marijuana last year.But, no we should take your word for it that you see wild negros smoking weed in public all the time so obviously every black person ever arrested was 'openly displaying' and that anyone who claims police arrest people for 'open display' after forcing them to empty their pockets is lying. Or something.
Spokesman for the Drug Policy Alliance Tony Newman called the arrests “a numbers game” that allows officers to clock in overtime and make easy, low-level arrests to add to the war on drug statistics.
The disparity of arrests by race and socioeconomic status is alarming. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, Blacks and Latinos make up 86% of marijuana arrests in New York City, despite whites use of the drug at a higher rate. Last year, in Councilwoman Melissa Mark Viverito’s Precinct 25 (East Harlem), police arrested 1,069 people for marijuana, while only 34 were arrested in Mayor Bloomberg’s neighborhood, Precinct 19 (Upper East Side), despite the neighborhood (and Central Park’s) reputation for being a smoke-spot.
...
Mark-Viverito, who attended the rally, said she is committed to revisiting the unjust policy. “When you see the disparity in numbers of people who are being arrested, it’s really an unjust policy and a corruption of the original intent of the law,” she said. “That law was intended to decriminalize marijuana, and they have been corrupting it and incarcerating our kids, criminalizing our young people.”
Speaking at the action on behalf of VOCAL-NY, Bobby Tolbert painted a picture of the policy to attendees and passers-by. “The kids are in the corner. One of them has a bag of his weed in his pocket. Police officer pulls up and says up against the wall. Empty your pockets,” Tolbert said. “Now, it is against the law to openly display marijuana when it is burning or in open display, but if police stop you and ask you to open your pocket, once that bag of weed falls out your pocket that is open display and you are subject to arrest.”
What I mean is that nobody seems to have produced the numbers for simple possession conditioned on a stop and frisk. But they say most are.borges says this, then does 'math' gives a supremum of 71.4% for the number of people arrested on marijuana charges who were arrested via stop and frisk, but he doesn't bother to include that figure...
« Older The train they call the City of New Orleans began ... | The War Nerd (previously) brea... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by BobbyVan at 7:52 AM on December 19, 2011