Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (2 Viewers)

[jonessed]

police abuse of power is not in itself a significant issue unless it involves white policemen abusing minorities. We have institutionalized racism among police in our society- THAT is the story. The rare instances when black cops do something wrong are usually brought up by conservatives who try to use them as examples to disprove what is actually happening, and then complain that they aren't being reported on, which in turn is used to justify their claim of a "liberal media". The reality is these stories get little airplay because they're rare and form no pattern.

These reactions to what I wrote don't surprise me at all. I would simply point out that, often in these sorts of debates, one side brings up new examples that don't match the general rule, and then attempt to argue that those examples negate the general rule. This is not limited to conservatives; every side does it. I've done it in the past. But it's almost always a failing argument.

Based on your reasoning, it's a failing argument for people to highlight examples of white people committing violent crime against black people when discussing inter-race crime because, as a general rule based on inter-race crime statistics, black people perpetrate violent crime against white people at a far greater rate than white people perpetrate violent crime against black people.

Police forces abusing their power is a major issue regardless of race. It destroys public trust and generally involves serious civil rights violations.

The idea that it's not a significant issue unless a racial criteria is met simply muddies the water of what should be everybody's concern. It's just such backasswards thinking and unproductive. Dealing with these issues lifts all boats.

 

[timschochet]

police abuse of power is not in itself a significant issue unless it involves white policemen abusing minorities. We have institutionalized racism among police in our society- THAT is the story. The rare instances when black cops do something wrong are usually brought up by conservatives who try to use them as examples to disprove what is actually happening, and then complain that they aren't being reported on, which in turn is used to justify their claim of a "liberal media". The reality is these stories get little airplay because they're rare and form no pattern.

These reactions to what I wrote don't surprise me at all. I would simply point out that, often in these sorts of debates, one side brings up new examples that don't match the general rule, and then attempt to argue that those examples negate the general rule. This is not limited to conservatives; every side does it. I've done it in the past. But it's almost always a failing argument.

Based on your reasoning, it's a failing argument for people to highlight examples of white people committing violent crime against black people when discussing inter-race crime because, as a general rule based on inter-race crime statistics, black people perpetrate violent crime against white people at a far greater rate than white people perpetrate violent crime against black people.

Police forces abusing their power is a major issue regardless of race. It destroys public trust and generally involves serious civil rights violations.

The idea that it's not a significant issue unless a racial criteria is met simply muddies the water of what should be everybody's concern. It's just such backasswards thinking and unproductive. Dealing with these issues lifts all boats.

If we remove race from the equation, then I don't believe police abusing their power is a major issue- unless you have some statistical evidence (or some other sort of proof) which would demonstrate otherwise?

No offense, but I firmly believe that any attempt to separate police abuse from issues of race, in which it primarily occurs, is not only unproductive and backasswards thinking, but also a deliberate attempt to move us away from the issue of racism which you and others who share your opinion seem to want to avoid discussing.

 

[Josie Maran]

Why wouldn't we trust what a police officer says happened?

That might be the most blatant example of police brutality that I've seen. In most police brutality cases the cop can at least make an argument that he was trying to restrain the perp/victim or that the perp/victim posed a threat. This cop, however, just wanted a street fight against a guy who looked like he wanted no part of a street fight.

It was a black cop beating a black man..no biggie.

True. That's likely why the story is only being covered by Addicting Info and not NBC, CBS, and CNN as it would be if the cop were white.

#### like that happens literally every day in this country. You think the major networks are going to cover them all?

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Why wouldn't we trust what a police officer says happened?

That might be the most blatant example of police brutality that I've seen. In most police brutality cases the cop can at least make an argument that he was trying to restrain the perp/victim or that the perp/victim posed a threat. This cop, however, just wanted a street fight against a guy who looked like he wanted no part of a street fight.

It was a black cop beating a black man..no biggie.

True. That's likely why the story is only being covered by Addicting Info and not NBC, CBS, and CNN as it would be if the cop were white.

#### like that happens literally every day in this country. You think the major networks are going to cover them all?

Certainly not, but it takes almost intentional naivete to not notice that the police brutality cases that the major networks do cover are almost exclusively white officer on black citizen.

As I stated above, the video of the above instance of police brutality is so obvious and so violent that I have little doubt it would have received far more press if it fit the networks preferred narrative regarding police brutality.

 

[kentric]

Why wouldn't we trust what a police officer says happened?

That might be the most blatant example of police brutality that I've seen. In most police brutality cases the cop can at least make an argument that he was trying to restrain the perp/victim or that the perp/victim posed a threat. This cop, however, just wanted a street fight against a guy who looked like he wanted no part of a street fight.

It was a black cop beating a black man..no biggie.

True. That's likely why the story is only being covered by Addicting Info and not NBC, CBS, and CNN as it would be if the cop were white.

#### like that happens literally every day in this country. You think the major networks are going to cover them all?

Certainly not, but it takes almost intentional naivete to not notice that the police brutality cases that the major networks do cover are almost exclusively white officer on black citizen.

As I stated above, the video of the above instance of police brutality is so obvious and so violent that I have little doubt it would have received far more press if it fit the networks preferred narrative regarding police brutality.

Major networks are looking for sensationalism. The minute there was rioting, all the major networks took hold. You can actually argue the case that rioting is beneficial in situations like this to get the word out.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Why wouldn't we trust what a police officer says happened?

That might be the most blatant example of police brutality that I've seen. In most police brutality cases the cop can at least make an argument that he was trying to restrain the perp/victim or that the perp/victim posed a threat. This cop, however, just wanted a street fight against a guy who looked like he wanted no part of a street fight.

It was a black cop beating a black man..no biggie.

True. That's likely why the story is only being covered by Addicting Info and not NBC, CBS, and CNN as it would be if the cop were white.

#### like that happens literally every day in this country. You think the major networks are going to cover them all?

Certainly not, but it takes almost intentional naivete to not notice that the police brutality cases that the major networks do cover are almost exclusively white officer on black citizen.

As I stated above, the video of the above instance of police brutality is so obvious and so violent that I have little doubt it would have received far more press if it fit the networks preferred narrative regarding police brutality.

Major networks are looking for sensationalism. The minute there was rioting, all the major networks took hold. You can actually argue the case that rioting is beneficial in situations like this to get the word out.

Major networks are looking for sensationalism that fits their preferred narrative. And, yes, all major news networks do have a preferred narrative.

For instance, the major networks covered the white California Highway Patrol Officer who brutally and repeatedly punched a fifty year old black woman. That's fine that case got national publicity because that incident also looked to be a clear case of violent police brutality, and it's good to shine a light on police brutality. That case, however, received national publicity over other cases of police brutality, in great part, because the parties in that incident fit the media's preferred narrative when discussing police brutality.

It should be noted that there was no rioting following the above referenced CHP brutality case, so rioting is not always what attracts the media to police brutality cases.

 

[Jim11]

Why wouldn't we trust what a police officer says happened?

That might be the most blatant example of police brutality that I've seen. In most police brutality cases the cop can at least make an argument that he was trying to restrain the perp/victim or that the perp/victim posed a threat. This cop, however, just wanted a street fight against a guy who looked like he wanted no part of a street fight.

It was a black cop beating a black man..no biggie.

True. That's likely why the story is only being covered by Addicting Info and not NBC, CBS, and CNN as it would be if the cop were white.

#### like that happens literally every day in this country. You think the major networks are going to cover them all?

How about some? Most of the time when the police are after someone, newscasters report the perpetrators approximate height and/or weight and/or what they were wearing, but not their color...which just could help a lot more than what they were wearing.

 

[timschochet]

Gary, white police abusing blacks is not the "preferred narrative". It's the correct narrative. There IS no narrative of black police officers abusing people; it's not a nationwide story, it's not institutionalized. Outside of very rare specific incidents, it doesn't exist. It's of no interest to people watching who aren't in the immediate area, which is why it doesn't get reported.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Gary, white police abusing blacks is not the "preferred narrative". It's the correct narrative. There IS no narrative of black police officers abusing people; it's not a nationwide story, it's not institutionalized. Outside of very rare specific incidents, it doesn't exist. It's of no interest to people watching who aren't in the immediate area, which is why it doesn't get reported.

No, it's not the correct narrative. There are countless incidents of white cops brutalizing white people as there are countless incidents of black cops brutalizing black people. if you want to address police brutality, then address police brutality. When you cherry pick only certain incidents of police brutality it's evident that there's another angle at play.

 

[kentric]

Why wouldn't we trust what a police officer says happened?

That might be the most blatant example of police brutality that I've seen. In most police brutality cases the cop can at least make an argument that he was trying to restrain the perp/victim or that the perp/victim posed a threat. This cop, however, just wanted a street fight against a guy who looked like he wanted no part of a street fight.

It was a black cop beating a black man..no biggie.

True. That's likely why the story is only being covered by Addicting Info and not NBC, CBS, and CNN as it would be if the cop were white.

#### like that happens literally every day in this country. You think the major networks are going to cover them all?

Certainly not, but it takes almost intentional naivete to not notice that the police brutality cases that the major networks do cover are almost exclusively white officer on black citizen.

As I stated above, the video of the above instance of police brutality is so obvious and so violent that I have little doubt it would have received far more press if it fit the networks preferred narrative regarding police brutality.

Major networks are looking for sensationalism. The minute there was rioting, all the major networks took hold. You can actually argue the case that rioting is beneficial in situations like this to get the word out.

Major networks are looking for sensationalism that fits their preferred narrative. And, yes, all major news networks do have a preferred narrative.

For instance, the major networks covered the white California Highway Patrol Officer who brutally and repeatedly punched a fifty year old black woman. That's fine that case got national publicity because that incident also looked to be a clear case of violent police brutality, and it's good to shine a light on police brutality. That case, however, received national publicity over other cases of police brutality, in great part, because the parties in that incident fit the media's preferred narrative when discussing police brutality.

It should be noted that there was no rioting following the above referenced CHP brutality case, so rioting is not always what attracts the media to police brutality cases.

Rioting may not always be what attracts the media, but there is no way this event would have gotten near as much publicity if there were no riots.

 

[timschochet]

Gary, white police abusing blacks is not the "preferred narrative". It's the correct narrative. There IS no narrative of black police officers abusing people; it's not a nationwide story, it's not institutionalized. Outside of very rare specific incidents, it doesn't exist. It's of no interest to people watching who aren't in the immediate area, which is why it doesn't get reported.

No, it's not the correct narrative. There are countless incidents of white cops brutalizing white people as there are countless incidents of black cops brutalizing black people. if you want to address police brutality, then address police brutality. When you cherry pick only certain incidents of police brutality it's evident that there's another angle at play.

Of course there's another angle at play. Because as I responded to jonessed, police brutality in itself, regardless of race, is not an issue in America. If you can show statistics (not anecdotes) that prove otherwise, please do so. But all you're doing now is attempting to deflect from the REAL issue, which is police racism against black people.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Tim channeling his inner Al Sharpton is always entertaining. Keep it up.

 

[timschochet]

Tim channeling his inner Al Sharpton is always entertaining. Keep it up.

You insult me.

 

[Witz]

Gary, white police abusing blacks is not the "preferred narrative". It's the correct narrative. There IS no narrative of black police officers abusing people; it's not a nationwide story, it's not institutionalized. Outside of very rare specific incidents, it doesn't exist. It's of no interest to people watching who aren't in the immediate area, which is why it doesn't get reported.

No, it's not the correct narrative. There are countless incidents of white cops brutalizing white people as there are countless incidents of black cops brutalizing black people. if you want to address police brutality, then address police brutality. When you cherry pick only certain incidents of police brutality it's evident that there's another angle at play.

Of course there's another angle at play. Because as I responded to jonessed, police brutality in itself, regardless of race, is not an issue in America. If you can show statistics (not anecdotes) that prove otherwise, please do so. But all you're doing now is attempting to deflect from the REAL issue, which is police racism against black people.

If you can show statistics (not anecdotes) that there is police racism against black people, please do so.

 

[Sweet J]

Gary, white police abusing blacks is not the "preferred narrative". It's the correct narrative. There IS no narrative of black police officers abusing people; it's not a nationwide story, it's not institutionalized. Outside of very rare specific incidents, it doesn't exist. It's of no interest to people watching who aren't in the immediate area, which is why it doesn't get reported.

No, it's not the correct narrative. There are countless incidents of white cops brutalizing white people as there are countless incidents of black cops brutalizing black people. if you want to address police brutality, then address police brutality. When you cherry pick only certain incidents of police brutality it's evident that there's another angle at play.

Of course there's another angle at play. Because as I responded to jonessed, police brutality in itself, regardless of race, is not an issue in America. If you can show statistics (not anecdotes) that prove otherwise, please do so. But all you're doing now is attempting to deflect from the REAL issue, which is police racism against black people.

If you can show statistics (not anecdotes) that there is police racism against black people, please do so

Really?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Gary, white police abusing blacks is not the "preferred narrative". It's the correct narrative. There IS no narrative of black police officers abusing people; it's not a nationwide story, it's not institutionalized. Outside of very rare specific incidents, it doesn't exist. It's of no interest to people watching who aren't in the immediate area, which is why it doesn't get reported.

No, it's not the correct narrative. There are countless incidents of white cops brutalizing white people as there are countless incidents of black cops brutalizing black people. if you want to address police brutality, then address police brutality. When you cherry pick only certain incidents of police brutality it's evident that there's another angle at play.

Of course there's another angle at play. Because as I responded to jonessed, police brutality in itself, regardless of race, is not an issue in America. If you can show statistics (not anecdotes) that prove otherwise, please do so. But all you're doing now is attempting to deflect from the REAL issue, which is police racism against black people.

I don't remember you showing any stats proving there is institutionalized racism. I mean, you do realize that each police department is it's own entity. Do you think they have some back room deal to all be racist police departments? I'd really like you to unpack this a bit, and show some statistics to support your position as well. TIA.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why wouldn't we trust what a police officer says happened?

Hundreds of stories and videos just like this...police for the most part cant be trusted to be truthful regarding these situations ...pretty sad

An unfortunate incident for sure, but - in general - I'm not ready to trust the word of criminals over cops just yet.

You authority slobberers are hilarious. Cant wait to fall in line, can you?

Next time you're in trouble, call a criminal instead of the police.

Lame. You dim bulbs are such creative thinkers. Are those my only options? Blindly trust police or dont use their services after I pay for them?

Im a gun owner who certainly relies on police to do their job. I just dont expect much from them, and I certainly dont trust them. And the interests of law enforcement and citizens certainly do not always align.

 

[Politician Spock]

Tim channeling his inner Al Sharpton is always entertaining. Keep it up.

I gotta admit... it's these Tim momments that make me appreciate his presence here.

This is priceless stuff!

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim channeling his inner Al Sharpton is always entertaining. Keep it up.

You insult me.

I'm pretty sure that if Al Sharpton is a regular reader of this forum he's the one who's feeling insulted here.

 

[Jim11]

Tim channeling his inner Al Sharpton is always entertaining. Keep it up.

You insult me.

I'm pretty sure that if Al Sharpton is a regular reader of this forum he's the one who's feeling insulted here.

Could it be that Sharpton IS on here, using the handle "timschochet"? Whoever Tim is, he certainly seems to agree with Al.

Waiting for those stats showing that the police are racist against blacks, Tim.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Haven't seen this one around here though maybe I missed it. As bad as the act is the inevitable coverup always seems just as disturbing to me.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois/lynwood/video-allegedly-shows-lynwood-officer-beating-handcuffed-suspect/article_8a15e8e8-a91c-5b9b-b21a-0ddd0ca9b346.html

''Im sure he deserved it'' -{Jim11}

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Tim channeling his inner Al Sharpton is always entertaining. Keep it up.

You insult me.

I'm pretty sure that if Al Sharpton is a regular reader of this forum he's the one who's feeling insulted here.

Could it be that Sharpton IS on here, using the handle "timschochet"? Whoever Tim is, he certainly seems to agree with Al.

Waiting for those stats showing that the police are racist against blacks, Tim.

Well, I agree with Tim that police brutality statistics (if there were reliable stats), would likely show a higher rate of police brutality toward black people.

I'll even agree with Tim that part of that higher rate is due to racism.

The greater part of that higher rate, in my opinion, is due to the fact that the police are in contact with black males more often by virtue of black males committing a higher rate of crime so there are more opportunities for abuse against black males in particular; and black males are the demographic that have the highest rate of both violent crime and attacking officers so officers are more defensive and tighter wound around them. Tim may chalk that higher rate of contact and that greater feeling of wariness as racism, I do not.

None of the above negates the fact that police brutality is larger issue than just white cops vs. black people.

 

[Jim11]

Haven't seen this one around here though maybe I missed it. As bad as the act is the inevitable coverup always seems just as disturbing to me.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois/lynwood/video-allegedly-shows-lynwood-officer-beating-handcuffed-suspect/article_8a15e8e8-a91c-5b9b-b21a-0ddd0ca9b346.html

''Im sure he deserved it'' -{Jim11}

They should give that dude a pardon from all past, present and future crimes as well as 10 million dollars and a trip to Disneyworld.- BustedKnuckles

 

[jon_mx]

Gary, white police abusing blacks is not the "preferred narrative". It's the correct narrative. There IS no narrative of black police officers abusing people; it's not a nationwide story, it's not institutionalized. Outside of very rare specific incidents, it doesn't exist. It's of no interest to people watching who aren't in the immediate area, which is why it doesn't get reported.

No, it's not the correct narrative. There are countless incidents of white cops brutalizing white people as there are countless incidents of black cops brutalizing black people. if you want to address police brutality, then address police brutality. When you cherry pick only certain incidents of police brutality it's evident that there's another angle at play.

Of course there's another angle at play. Because as I responded to jonessed, police brutality in itself, regardless of race, is not an issue in America. If you can show statistics (not anecdotes) that prove otherwise, please do so. But all you're doing now is attempting to deflect from the REAL issue, which is police racism against black people.

If you can show statistics (not anecdotes) that there is police racism against black people, please do so

Really?

You seem to be confused at what the term means.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why wouldn't we trust what a police officer says happened?

Hundreds of stories and videos just like this...police for the most part cant be trusted to be truthful regarding these situations ...pretty sad

An unfortunate incident for sure, but - in general - I'm not ready to trust the word of criminals over cops just yet.

You authority slobberers are hilarious. Cant wait to fall in line, can you?

Next time you're in trouble, call a criminal instead of the police.

Lame. You dim bulbs are such creative thinkers. Are those my only options? Blindly trust police or dont use their services after I pay for them?

Im a gun owner who certainly relies on police to do their job. I just dont expect much from them, and I certainly dont trust them. And the interests of law enforcement and citizens certainly do not always align.

Then don't ####### trust them OR call them. I don't care.

It's clear you "got your own gun" (which for some reason you bring up in every conversation anyone ever has with you - maybe you figure others won't think you're that big of a extreme left jack-###?) and can take care of yourself, right? I think the dim bulb here is the one that would rather trust a criminals word over a police officer. I'm not ready to lose my trust in the police over a small percentage of these incidents.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, back from a meeting.

It astonishes me that anybody could ask me to provide statistical information on police racism towards black people in this country. At first I considered posting some stuff. But the problem is, there is simply too much information out there to choose from. Shall I quote from Congressional reports throughout the last few decades? From the United Nations? From the American Civil Liberties Union? From WWW.Policemisconduct.net? From the Institute of Justice? From the NAACP?

Screw it. If you're truly interested in this topic, google "police racism statistics" or "racial profiling statistics" and look through it yourself.

 

[timschochet]

Here's just a taste of what's available out there: These are statistics on African-Americans who are stopped for "Driving While Black:":

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/dwb03.htm

By any standard, the results of Lamberth's analysis are startling. First, the turnpike violator census, in which observers in moving cars recorded the races and speeds of the cars around them, showed that blacks and whites violated the traffic laws at almost exactly the same rate; there was no statistically significant difference in the way they drove. Thus, driving behavior alone could not explain differences in how police might treat black and white drivers. With regard to arrests, 73.2% of those stopped and arrested were black, while only 13.5% of the cars on the road had a black driver or passenger. Lambert notes that the disparity between these two numbers "is statistically vast." The number of standard deviations present--54.27--means that the probability that the racial disparity is a random result "is infinitesimally small." Radio and patrol logs yielded similar results. Blacks are approximately 35% of those stopped, though they are only 13.5% of those on the road--19.45 standard deviations. Considering all stops in all three types of records surveyed, the chance that 34.9% of the cars combined would have black drivers or occupants "is substantially less than one in one billion." This led Lamberth to the following conclusion:

Absent some other explanation for the dramatically disproportionate number of stops of blacks, it would appear that the race of the occupants and/or drivers of the cars is a decisive factor or a factor with great explanatory power. I can say to a reasonable degree of statistical probability that the disparity outlined here is strongly consistent with the existence of a discriminatory policy, official or de facto, of targeting blacks for stop and investigation. . . .. . . .. . . Put bluntly, the statistics demonstrate that in a population of blacks and whites which is (legally) virtually universally subject to police stop for traffic law violation, (cf. the turnpike violator census), blacks in general are several times more likely to be stopped than non-blacks.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Here's just a taste of what's available out there: These are statistics on African-Americans who are stopped for "Driving While Black:":

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/dwb03.htm

By any standard, the results of Lamberth's analysis are startling. First, the turnpike violator census, in which observers in moving cars recorded the races and speeds of the cars around them, showed that blacks and whites violated the traffic laws at almost exactly the same rate; there was no statistically significant difference in the way they drove. Thus, driving behavior alone could not explain differences in how police might treat black and white drivers. With regard to arrests, 73.2% of those stopped and arrested were black, while only 13.5% of the cars on the road had a black driver or passenger. Lambert notes that the disparity between these two numbers "is statistically vast." The number of standard deviations present--54.27--means that the probability that the racial disparity is a random result "is infinitesimally small." Radio and patrol logs yielded similar results. Blacks are approximately 35% of those stopped, though they are only 13.5% of those on the road--19.45 standard deviations. Considering all stops in all three types of records surveyed, the chance that 34.9% of the cars combined would have black drivers or occupants "is substantially less than one in one billion." This led Lamberth to the following conclusion:

Absent some other explanation for the dramatically disproportionate number of stops of blacks, it would appear that the race of the occupants and/or drivers of the cars is a decisive factor or a factor with great explanatory power. I can say to a reasonable degree of statistical probability that the disparity outlined here is strongly consistent with the existence of a discriminatory policy, official or de facto, of targeting blacks for stop and investigation. . . .. . . .. . . Put bluntly, the statistics demonstrate that in a population of blacks and whites which is (legally) virtually universally subject to police stop for traffic law violation, (cf. the turnpike violator census), blacks in general are several times more likely to be stopped than non-blacks.

You realize you are wasting your time with these guys? All this stuff has been said and re said for years and years and years here. You aren't going to get anywhere no matter what you post.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim,

Nothing you've posted shows "institutionalized racism." No one is disputing that blacks are arrested more frequently than whites, or stopped, or anything else. The question is WHY. As I stated earlier, every police department is it's own entity. Why are we seeing similar stats from department to department? Or are we? You're making very broad, general assertions based simply on stats. But the stats themselves don't prove racism. You're going to have to do a lot better if you want to sway anyone.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Here's just a taste of what's available out there: These are statistics on African-Americans who are stopped for "Driving While Black:":

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/dwb03.htm

By any standard, the results of Lamberth's analysis are startling. First, the turnpike violator census, in which observers in moving cars recorded the races and speeds of the cars around them, showed that blacks and whites violated the traffic laws at almost exactly the same rate; there was no statistically significant difference in the way they drove. Thus, driving behavior alone could not explain differences in how police might treat black and white drivers. With regard to arrests, 73.2% of those stopped and arrested were black, while only 13.5% of the cars on the road had a black driver or passenger. Lambert notes that the disparity between these two numbers "is statistically vast." The number of standard deviations present--54.27--means that the probability that the racial disparity is a random result "is infinitesimally small." Radio and patrol logs yielded similar results. Blacks are approximately 35% of those stopped, though they are only 13.5% of those on the road--19.45 standard deviations. Considering all stops in all three types of records surveyed, the chance that 34.9% of the cars combined would have black drivers or occupants "is substantially less than one in one billion." This led Lamberth to the following conclusion:

Absent some other explanation for the dramatically disproportionate number of stops of blacks, it would appear that the race of the occupants and/or drivers of the cars is a decisive factor or a factor with great explanatory power. I can say to a reasonable degree of statistical probability that the disparity outlined here is strongly consistent with the existence of a discriminatory policy, official or de facto, of targeting blacks for stop and investigation. . . .. . . .. . . Put bluntly, the statistics demonstrate that in a population of blacks and whites which is (legally) virtually universally subject to police stop for traffic law violation, (cf. the turnpike violator census), blacks in general are several times more likely to be stopped than non-blacks.

With regard to the New Jersey Turnpike study that you reference, I recall that study being addressed in the below recent article. I can't vouch for either the legitimacy of the study that you reference nor the legitimacy of the debunking studies referenced in the article.

The New Jersey Turnpike? The long-believed claim of "racism" on that highway has been investigated — and debunked. Twice.

Numerous complaints of DWB — Driving While Black — were filed by blacks driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. So the state entered into a consent decree, agreed to federal monitoring, and put their officers through, among other things, "sensitivity training." New Jersey commissioned a study, checking motorists' speed with laser guns and photographing drivers of vehicles going 15 mph or more over the speed limit.

The result? It turned out that more speeders were black than white, which explained why cops pulled over black motorists so often. The U.S. Justice Department, which requested the study, did not want the results released to the public. Instead, they accused the researchers of using a "flawed methodology." Why shelve a report that disproves racism? Isn't it good news that Jersey troopers do not pull blacks over willy-nilly? Would this not improve race relations in New Jersey? No — the facts did not fit the script.

The next year, state police "stop data" showed that, on the southern part of the turnpike, 30 percent of the drivers pulled over were minority — almost twice the 16 percent rate of minority stops elsewhere on the turnpike. So, amid new allegations that cops were targeting minorities, and to correct the "flawed methodology" of the previous researchers, New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey commissioned yet another study. The result? Again, it turned out a disproportionately higher percentage of drivers on that stretch of highway were black, and that blacks were more likely than non-blacks to drive 80 miles per hour or faster. Again, critics called the study's methodology "flawed."

Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder090414.php3#lZp30GtSelkluMr3.99

 

[timschochet]

You're going to have to do a lot better if you want to sway anyone.

Yeah no I don't. As I wrote, there's tons of stuff out there. You're free to look . I think you would have to be blind not to accept the truth of institutionalized racism. But believe whatever floats your boat.

 

[timschochet]

Here's just a taste of what's available out there: These are statistics on African-Americans who are stopped for "Driving While Black:":

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/dwb03.htm

By any standard, the results of Lamberth's analysis are startling. First, the turnpike violator census, in which observers in moving cars recorded the races and speeds of the cars around them, showed that blacks and whites violated the traffic laws at almost exactly the same rate; there was no statistically significant difference in the way they drove. Thus, driving behavior alone could not explain differences in how police might treat black and white drivers. With regard to arrests, 73.2% of those stopped and arrested were black, while only 13.5% of the cars on the road had a black driver or passenger. Lambert notes that the disparity between these two numbers "is statistically vast." The number of standard deviations present--54.27--means that the probability that the racial disparity is a random result "is infinitesimally small." Radio and patrol logs yielded similar results. Blacks are approximately 35% of those stopped, though they are only 13.5% of those on the road--19.45 standard deviations. Considering all stops in all three types of records surveyed, the chance that 34.9% of the cars combined would have black drivers or occupants "is substantially less than one in one billion." This led Lamberth to the following conclusion:

Absent some other explanation for the dramatically disproportionate number of stops of blacks, it would appear that the race of the occupants and/or drivers of the cars is a decisive factor or a factor with great explanatory power. I can say to a reasonable degree of statistical probability that the disparity outlined here is strongly consistent with the existence of a discriminatory policy, official or de facto, of targeting blacks for stop and investigation. . . .. . . .. . . Put bluntly, the statistics demonstrate that in a population of blacks and whites which is (legally) virtually universally subject to police stop for traffic law violation, (cf. the turnpike violator census), blacks in general are several times more likely to be stopped than non-blacks.

With regard to the New Jersey Turnpike study that you reference, I recall that study being addressed in the below recent article. I can't vouch for either the legitimacy of the study that you reference nor the legitimacy of the debunking studies referenced in the article.

The New Jersey Turnpike? The long-believed claim of "racism" on that highway has been investigated and debunked. Twice.

Numerous complaints of DWB Driving While Black were filed by blacks driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. So the state entered into a consent decree, agreed to federal monitoring, and put their officers through, among other things, "sensitivity training." New Jersey commissioned a study, checking motorists' speed with laser guns and photographing drivers of vehicles going 15 mph or more over the speed limit.

The result? It turned out that more speeders were black than white, which explained why cops pulled over black motorists so often. The U.S. Justice Department, which requested the study, did not want the results released to the public. Instead, they accused the researchers of using a "flawed methodology." Why shelve a report that disproves racism? Isn't it good news that Jersey troopers do not pull blacks over willy-nilly? Would this not improve race relations in New Jersey? No the facts did not fit the script.

The next year, state police "stop data" showed that, on the southern part of the turnpike, 30 percent of the drivers pulled over were minority almost twice the 16 percent rate of minority stops elsewhere on the turnpike. So, amid new allegations that cops were targeting minorities, and to correct the "flawed methodology" of the previous researchers, New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey commissioned yet another study. The result? Again, it turned out a disproportionately higher percentage of drivers on that stretch of highway were black, and that blacks were more likely than non-blacks to drive 80 miles per hour or faster. Again, critics called the study's methodology "flawed."

Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder090414.php3#lZp30GtSelkluMr3.99

that article is by Larry Elder, and he's a very smart guy. As one of America's most notable black conservatives, he's got his own reasons for rejecting police racism (although if you ever listen to his radio program, he oddly denies racial profiling is happening yet at the same time defending that it's happening). I disagree with him strongly on this topic, but I like him. He is actually more of a libertarian than a conservative and I share many of his views, especially those on immigration, free trade, and the benefits of a less regulated society. With regard to his comments here, it's always possible to interpret data in different ways. It seems to me that there is so MUCH separate data that indicates racism that even if we are able to possibly discount some of it, the results would still be overwhelming.

 

[Jim11]

You're going to have to do a lot better if you want to sway anyone.

Yeah no I don't. As I wrote, there's tons of stuff out there. You're free to look . I think you would have to be blind not to accept the truth of institutionalized racism. But believe whatever floats your boat.

Institutionalized racism? Poppycock. I'm sure that EVERY friggin' police dept. had a meeting and decided to treat black folks unfairly; even the ones with lots of black officers. Before it was Sharpton; now you're channeling Jesse Jackson.

 

[Koya]

You're going to have to do a lot better if you want to sway anyone.

Yeah no I don't. As I wrote, there's tons of stuff out there. You're free to look . I think you would have to be blind not to accept the truth of institutionalized racism. But believe whatever floats your boat.

Institutionalized racism? Poppycock. I'm sure that EVERY friggin' police dept. had a meeting and decided to treat black folks unfairly; even the ones with lots of black officers. Before it was Sharpton; now you're channeling Jesse Jackson.

Dude, come on. Have SOME ration of reason left.

Some of my best friends are cops. NYC, Long Island, Federal level...

If you don't think it's a real, systemic issue, then you are ignorant, or willfully ignorant. Come on... it's like saying we don't all make off colored ---- oooh, maybe it's a bit to soon for that word ---- jokes all the time when in the comfort of close friends (or for dumb people, in random mixed company). Oh, and since you may seek some swarmy, slimy loophole like "well, they clearly state in the rulebook that ..." then see my next comment. Because seriously, it's time to stop the crap. Just cop (pun intended) to whatever you are really trying to say (and honesty, I'm not quite sure what that is) and lets get on with it.

Let's stop playing the utterly ridiculous (unless you think people are so utterly gullible that they will buy that heaping pile of bs), and have a real conversation on the subject, already.

PS - Not only do I despise the antics of Sharpton, or worse yet, Jesse, but I recognize that your approach in some ways seems to mirror it. Come on Jim, let's be done with it and actually talk about the issue. Not the flamboyance of bullsiht.

 

[urbanhack]

Tim,

Nothing you've posted shows "institutionalized racism." No one is disputing that blacks are arrested more frequently than whites, or stopped, or anything else. The question is WHY.

Give us three possible explanations.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Tim,

Nothing you've posted shows "institutionalized racism." ...

Did we end the War on Drugs? Or more accurately the War on our Urban Poor?

If not ....

 

[Jim11]

You're going to have to do a lot better if you want to sway anyone.

Yeah no I don't. As I wrote, there's tons of stuff out there. You're free to look . I think you would have to be blind not to accept the truth of institutionalized racism. But believe whatever floats your boat.

Institutionalized racism? Poppycock. I'm sure that EVERY friggin' police dept. had a meeting and decided to treat black folks unfairly; even the ones with lots of black officers. Before it was Sharpton; now you're channeling Jesse Jackson.

Dude, come on. Have SOME ration of reason left.

Some of my best friends are cops. NYC, Long Island, Federal level...

If you don't think it's a real, systemic issue, then you are ignorant, or willfully ignorant. Come on... it's like saying we don't all make off colored ---- oooh, maybe it's a bit to soon for that word ---- jokes all the time when in the comfort of close friends (or for dumb people, in random mixed company). Oh, and since you may seek some swarmy, slimy loophole like "well, they clearly state in the rulebook that ..." then see my next comment. Because seriously, it's time to stop the crap. Just cop (pun intended) to whatever you are really trying to say (and honesty, I'm not quite sure what that is) and lets get on with it.

Let's stop playing the utterly ridiculous (unless you think people are so utterly gullible that they will buy that heaping pile of bs), and have a real conversation on the subject, already.

PS - Not only do I despise the antics of Sharpton, or worse yet, Jesse, but I recognize that your approach in some ways seems to mirror it. Come on Jim, let's be done with it and actually talk about the issue. Not the flamboyance of bullsiht.

Are you saying that your cop friends are racists?

 

[Jim11]

Tim,

Nothing you've posted shows "institutionalized racism." ...

Did we end the War on Drugs? Or more accurately the War on our Urban Poor?

If not ....

The so-called war on drugs should have ended a long time ago...huge waste of $$$$$ and resources.

 

[jon_mx]

Here's just a taste of what's available out there: These are statistics on African-Americans who are stopped for "Driving While Black:":

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/dwb03.htm

By any standard, the results of Lamberth's analysis are startling. First, the turnpike violator census, in which observers in moving cars recorded the races and speeds of the cars around them, showed that blacks and whites violated the traffic laws at almost exactly the same rate; there was no statistically significant difference in the way they drove. Thus, driving behavior alone could not explain differences in how police might treat black and white drivers. With regard to arrests, 73.2% of those stopped and arrested were black, while only 13.5% of the cars on the road had a black driver or passenger. Lambert notes that the disparity between these two numbers "is statistically vast." The number of standard deviations present--54.27--means that the probability that the racial disparity is a random result "is infinitesimally small." Radio and patrol logs yielded similar results. Blacks are approximately 35% of those stopped, though they are only 13.5% of those on the road--19.45 standard deviations. Considering all stops in all three types of records surveyed, the chance that 34.9% of the cars combined would have black drivers or occupants "is substantially less than one in one billion." This led Lamberth to the following conclusion:

Absent some other explanation for the dramatically disproportionate number of stops of blacks, it would appear that the race of the occupants and/or drivers of the cars is a decisive factor or a factor with great explanatory power. I can say to a reasonable degree of statistical probability that the disparity outlined here is strongly consistent with the existence of a discriminatory policy, official or de facto, of targeting blacks for stop and investigation. . . .. . . .. . . Put bluntly, the statistics demonstrate that in a population of blacks and whites which is (legally) virtually universally subject to police stop for traffic law violation, (cf. the turnpike violator census), blacks in general are several times more likely to be stopped than non-blacks.

You realize you are wasting your time with these guys? All this stuff has been said and re said for years and years and years here. You aren't going to get anywhere no matter what you post.

That and it is horrible analysis. There is nothing in there to even attempt to consider how many crimes are committed by blacks. If a group is committing crimes at a rate of 700 percent more than another group, it is pretty stupid not to even attempt to account for that. No we will just play stupid and pretend everything is random.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Michael Brown memorial burns

The memorial for the unarmed teenager gunned down by a police officer burned overnight during a fire likely sparked by candles, cops said. Upset residents said they thought someone set the fire after smelling gasoline in the area. A new memorial is currently being built.

A memorial for Michael Brown, the unarmed teenager who was gunned down by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo., has burned, sparking renewed outrage in the community. Police say candles were the likely cause of a fire that destroyed the memorial Tuesday morning, according to KMOV.

The tribute to the 18-year-old, who was fatally shot Aug. 9 by Officer Darren Wilson, was created shortly after his death and marked a spot near where he was killed. A pile of burned ashes has replaced the mountain of stuffed animals, flowers, votive candles and signs, according to photos of the ruins. Luckily, a larger memorial several feet away was not destroyed during the overnight fire, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Some residents who gathered by the burned site thought the fire was set by someone early Tuesday. They claimed they smelled gasoline in the area. Many were working to replace the sentimental items and rebuild the memorial. Objects that were in the memorial are being collected by Washington University's library, according to the broadsheet. The materials will be on display online, and will be free to view.

Meanwhile, a robbery over the weekend invoked the teenager when one of the suspects yelled, "This is for Michael Brown!" when he demanded property from the victims, according to KSDK. The theft happened Saturday night outside a restaurant called Eleven Eleven, police said. Two black men approached six customers who walked out of the restaurant, and the thief who grabbed items off one of the victims made the strange comment. Both suspects fled after the robbery, cops said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/michael-brown-memorial-burns-candles-spark-fire-cops-article-1.1949518

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

It never stops.

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/24/6838701/john-crawford-grand-jury-beavercreek-ohio-police-shooting

 

[kentric]

Haven't seen this one around here though maybe I missed it. As bad as the act is the inevitable coverup always seems just as disturbing to me.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois/lynwood/video-allegedly-shows-lynwood-officer-beating-handcuffed-suspect/article_8a15e8e8-a91c-5b9b-b21a-0ddd0ca9b346.html

''Im sure he deserved it'' -{Jim11}

They should give that dude a pardon from all past, present and future crimes as well as 10 million dollars and a trip to Disneyworld.- BustedKnuckles

You guys are killing me. This stuff is gold.

 

[Courtjester]

It never stops.

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/24/6838701/john-crawford-grand-jury-beavercreek-ohio-police-shooting

So I have to admit I haven't followed this story, but just reading the reports from the people who actually have viewed the video tapes, the guy picks up a bb gun and begins to walk around the store with it on his shoulder. The police are called in, tell him to put it down, he doesn't promptly comply (instead starts to argue saying something about it being a toy) and is shot.

Seems pretty cut and dry. I would tell you that I would like to go try this experiment at the local Walmart and see what happens, but guess what?? This probably be my last post on the board--because I am guessing the odds are pretty high I would be shot and killed and I am white.

 

[mcintyre1]

It never stops.

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/24/6838701/john-crawford-grand-jury-beavercreek-ohio-police-shooting

So I have to admit I haven't followed this story, but just reading the reports from the people who actually have viewed the video tapes, the guy picks up a bb gun and begins to walk around the store with it on his shoulder. The police are called in, tell him to put it down, he doesn't promptly comply (instead starts to argue saying something about it being a toy) and is shot.

Seems pretty cut and dry. I would tell you that I would like to go try this experiment at the local Walmart and see what happens, but guess what?? This probably be my last post on the board--because I am guessing the odds are pretty high I would be shot and killed and I am white.

You'd be wrong. How many white people were killed while they were parading around this summer in various Targets/Walmarts with real long rifles as part of some inane protest on the right to carry?

 

[CBusAlex]

It never stops.

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/24/6838701/john-crawford-grand-jury-beavercreek-ohio-police-shooting

So I have to admit I haven't followed this story, but just reading the reports from the people who actually have viewed the video tapes, the guy picks up a bb gun and begins to walk around the store with it on his shoulder. The police are called in, tell him to put it down, he doesn't promptly comply (instead starts to argue saying something about it being a toy) and is shot.Seems pretty cut and dry. I would tell you that I would like to go try this experiment at the local Walmart and see what happens, but guess what?? This probably be my last post on the board--because I am guessing the odds are pretty high I would be shot and killed and I am white.

You'd be wrong. How many white people were killed while they were parading around this summer in various Targets/Walmarts with real long rifles as part of some inane protest on the right to carry?

Hell, how many of those Bundy ranch nuts actually pointed loaded rifles at law enforcement officers? Any of them get shot?

 

[jonessed]

It never stops.

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/24/6838701/john-crawford-grand-jury-beavercreek-ohio-police-shooting

So I have to admit I haven't followed this story, but just reading the reports from the people who actually have viewed the video tapes, the guy picks up a bb gun and begins to walk around the store with it on his shoulder. The police are called in, tell him to put it down, he doesn't promptly comply (instead starts to argue saying something about it being a toy) and is shot.Seems pretty cut and dry. I would tell you that I would like to go try this experiment at the local Walmart and see what happens, but guess what?? This probably be my last post on the board--because I am guessing the odds are pretty high I would be shot and killed and I am white.

You'd be wrong. How many white people were killed while they were parading around this summer in various Targets/Walmarts with real long rifles as part of some inane protest on the right to carry?

Maybe if the guy set up an organized protest ahead of time the police could have been better prepared for what they might encounter.

 

[CBusAlex]

Maybe if the guy set up an organized protest ahead of time the police could have been better prepared for what they might encounter.

God knows we can't expect the police to be prepared for WalMart shoppers carrying products that WalMart sells around a WalMart.

 

[mcintyre1]

Maybe if the guy set up an organized protest ahead of time the police could have been better prepared for what they might encounter.

God knows we can't expect the police to be prepared for WalMart shoppers carrying products that WalMart sells around a WalMart.

I sought out some more info on this case, as I also had only heard of it in passing. Less than a second passed between the verbal command to "drop the weapon" and the fatal shot being fired by one of the officers. There was so little time given that the other officer standing right next to the murdering officer jumps in reaction to the shot. The murdering officer is also the only current serving officer in the department to be involved in a shooting, having also killed a person in 2010.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

It never stops.

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/24/6838701/john-crawford-grand-jury-beavercreek-ohio-police-shooting

So I have to admit I haven't followed this story, but just reading the reports from the people who actually have viewed the video tapes, the guy picks up a bb gun and begins to walk around the store with it on his shoulder. The police are called in, tell him to put it down, he doesn't promptly comply (instead starts to argue saying something about it being a toy) and is shot.

Seems pretty cut and dry. I would tell you that I would like to go try this experiment at the local Walmart and see what happens, but guess what?? This probably be my last post on the board--because I am guessing the odds are pretty high I would be shot and killed and I am white.

i dont think that was a justified shooting in any sense of the word...he was just standing in a corner speaking to his wife on his phone holding a toy gun . He didnt aim it at the cops ...he dropped it when they started shooting...not sure why he didnt just stay down after they shot and he dove away...he gets up and moved towards the fake gun which at that point he made a stupid move...but before that he did nothing bad enough to warrant being shot.If that was a kid holding a toy gun would they shoot him?

 

[jonessed]

Maybe if the guy set up an organized protest ahead of time the police could have been better prepared for what they might encounter.

God knows we can't expect the police to be prepared for WalMart shoppers carrying products that WalMart sells around a WalMart.

Some WalMarts sell guns so I imagine it comes down to how you carry it around.I don't know if this guy was killed wrongly or rightly, but either way, it's a totally different situation than encountering police stationed at an organized protest.