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

[timschochet]

Does anyone think merely being black has zero impact on how they're often profiled/treated?

Yes. There are several people here who certainly think that is exactly right. They may not admit it directly, but any time there is an example that shows that blacks are treated differently, they will rush to dispute it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Does anyone think merely being black has zero impact on how they're often profiled/treated?

i seriously doubt it. I think most realize it is a big problem, but the issue some take with it is when some assume every time a black is treated unfairly by police, that's it solely because of race, when in reality some cops just suck at their jobs.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So, yes, some people downplay profiling; but, on the other hand, other people grossly downplay the bigger problem, the very really disparity in who is committing crime and the effect that has on the people responsible for preventing crime.

The bigger problem though isn't the "disparity in who is committing crime" but the "disparity in opportunity - real or even if merely perceived". When the best opportunities in life are, or at least appear to be criminal the rest shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

[timschochet]

Apparently police attacked several protestors yesterday at a gas station. The police claimed the protestors were looting the market at the gas station, so tear gas and pepper spray were used. The protestors called it a peaceful sit in.

 

[timschochet]

Olaf your argument is essentially a defense of racism and laziness. Blacks commit more crimes, therefore it's OK to stereotype them and be more suspicious of them. But it's not OK. No matter what the statistics say, there is no excuse for racial profiling.

 

[[icon]]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

 

[timschochet]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

no. Why would they?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

no. Why would they?

Anyone who thinks cops dont treat blacks differently in certain areas of this country are crazy or blind

 

[[icon]]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

no. Why would they?

I'm just curious why people post these statistics showing that a significantly higher percentage of crime is committed by black folks.

It would seem to me that you can infer one of two possible scenarios from that. Either 1) black folks actually commit a disproportionately higher percentage of the crimes, or 2) There are lots of instances where white folks are committing these same crimes, but police are looking the other way.

I'm just curious if there's anyone out there that believes it's #2.

If it's #1, is it really all THAT egregious for police to use some degree of profiling if there's a large amount of data to support it?

Not so much supporting racial profiling, as just raising that point for discussion.

 

[lod01]

Does anyone think merely being black has zero impact on how they're often profiled/treated?

i seriously doubt it. I think most realize it is a big problem, but the issue some take with it is when some assume every time a black is treated unfairly by police, that's it solely because of race, when in reality some cops just suck at their jobs.

Correct on the bolded and agreed that it is a problem; but it's a problem that will never change unless the below statistics change.

Out of 318,000 people, St. Louis is 49.2 percent black 43.9 percent white (as of 2010 US Census).

The below st. Louis crime statistics are derived from St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Annual Report.

2008:

• 87.2% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2008 were black.

• 85.6% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2008 were black.

• 97.7% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2008 were black.

• 88.8% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2008 were black.

2009:

• 87.3% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2009 were black.

• 92.7% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2009 were black.

• 97.1% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2009 were black.

• 88.2% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2009 were black.

2010:

• 86.9% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2010 were black.

• 92.7% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2010 were black.

• 92.4% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2010 were black.

• 78.1% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2010 were black.

2011:

• 86.7% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2011 were black.

• 90.3% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2011 were black.

• 92% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2011 were black.

• 86.2% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2011 were black.

2012:

• 84.7% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2012 were black.

• 91.8% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2012 were black.

• 97.6% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2012 were black.

• 78.6% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2012 were black.

So, yes, some people [SIZE=13.63px]downplay profiling; but, on the other hand, other people grossly downplay the bigger problem, the very really disparity in who is committing crime and the effect that has on the people responsible for preventing crime. [/SIZE]

Maybe the white people in St. Louis are better at getting away with aggravated assault, robbery, murder and forcible rape.

 

[lod01]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

no. Why would they?

Anyone who thinks cops dont treat blacks differently in certain areas of this country are crazy or blind

Obviously. If one group of people are committing the highest % of crimes, then that is exactly what is going to happen.

 

[timschochet]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

no. Why would they?

Anyone who thinks cops dont treat blacks differently in certain areas of this country are crazy or blind

Obviously. If one group of people are committing the highest % of crimes, then that is exactly what is going to happen.

it doesn't have to. Racism, laziness, and stupidity are not inevitable outcomes.

 

[timschochet]

Well, make a legitimate point and I will address it. The last point you made, that high instances of crimes by blacks justify racial profiling, is not something I regard as legitimate.

 

[Jim11]

Well, make a legitimate point and I will address it. The last point you made, that high instances of crimes by blacks justify racial profiling, is not something I regard as legitimate.

Is it irrational to expect that a black person is more likely to commit a crime because in the recent past 75-80% of said crimes have been committed by black people?

I don't understand your position on this, Tim...please elaborate.

 

[urbanhack]

Well, make a legitimate point and I will address it. The last point you made, that high instances of crimes by blacks justify racial profiling, is not something I regard as legitimate.

Is it irrational to expect that a black person is more likely to commit a crime because in the recent past 75-80% of said crimes have been committed by black people?

Why do you think that is the case? What is the cause? Is it genetics? Is it related to class or environmental factors? Would love to hear your thoughts.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

no. Why would they?

Anyone who thinks cops dont treat blacks differently in certain areas of this country are crazy or blind

Obviously. If one group of people are committing the highest % of crimes, then that is exactly what is going to happen.

it doesn't have to. Racism, laziness, and stupidity are not inevitable outcomes.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well, make a legitimate point and I will address it. The last point you made, that high instances of crimes by blacks justify racial profiling, is not something I regard as legitimate.

Is it irrational to expect that a black person is more likely to commit a crime because in the recent past 75-80% of said crimes have been committed by black people?

Why do you think that is the case? What is the cause? Is it genetics? Is it related to class or environmental factors? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Culture, lack of father figures, etc.....Lots of reasons. We've tried to address them as a society with minimal success. The factors that are causing this will need to be a addressed to a large extent from within the culture. Of course, when blacks try to bring that fact to light they are called Uncle Tom's so not sure how we're going to solve the problem.

 

[lod01]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

no. Why would they?

Anyone who thinks cops dont treat blacks differently in certain areas of this country are crazy or blind

Obviously. If one group of people are committing the highest % of crimes, then that is exactly what is going to happen.

it doesn't have to. Racism, laziness, and stupidity are not inevitable outcomes.

It's psychological buddy. I gave this example about a year ago and said in an experiment that if you had a society where there was no crime or very little and introduced a new group of people into that society and crime skyrocketed, then that group would be treated differently. It's simply human nature.

let me add that it will never change unless that groups behavior changes. NEVER.

 

[Jim11]

Well, make a legitimate point and I will address it. The last point you made, that high instances of crimes by blacks justify racial profiling, is not something I regard as legitimate.

Is it irrational to expect that a black person is more likely to commit a crime because in the recent past 75-80% of said crimes have been committed by black people?

Why do you think that is the case? What is the cause? Is it genetics? Is it related to class or environmental factors? Would love to hear your thoughts.

I'm not sure why. Black people I associate with don't seem any more likely to be criminals than the non-black folks I know. I guess these stats are skewed by the crime rate in major cities or at least certain sections of major cities. Maybe it's the culture there; I don't know.

I thought I'd try to find stats from back in the day, to see if things have changed much. I wasn't too successful finding info, but I did come across this -

https://archive.org/stream/uniformcrimerepo1950unit#page/112/mode/2up from 1950.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

no. Why would they?

Anyone who thinks cops dont treat blacks differently in certain areas of this country are crazy or blind

Obviously. If one group of people are committing the highest % of crimes, then that is exactly what is going to happen.

it doesn't have to. Racism, laziness, and stupidity are not inevitable outcomes.

It's psychological buddy. I gave this example about a year ago and said in an experiment that if you had a society where there was no crime or very little and introduced a new group of people into that society and crime skyrocketed, then that group would be treated differently. It's simply human nature.

let me add that it will never change unless that groups behavior changes. NEVER.

What if they were purple...

 

[jonessed]

I sincerely hope we don't move law enforcement in the direction of less common sense in order to meet PC goals. That would be a disaster.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Yeah because treating people as individuals rather than the face of a monolithic group is being politically correct. Because avoidance of stereotyping is political correctness.

It would surely be a real disaster to reduce rioting in the streets, that would suck. It would be a real disaster to restore faith in law enforcement amongst every group in our country-you know, our fellow citizens.

And very little gives better insight into someone's mindset than the use of "PC" or "politically correct".

 

[Widbil83]

It isn't true because even if you do all of those things, if you're a young black man , you're still at risk.

Based on your experience as a young black man?

no, based on young black men's experiences as young black men.

Just to clarify, the two kids killed in Ferguson were running, right? Maybe I missed some new information.

Yes, they were running.

So they broke rule #1 of how to not get shot.

They broke that a long time before- the day they were born African-American.

Racist much?

 

[jonessed]

Yeah because treating people as individuals rather than the face of a monolithic group is being politically correct. Because avoidance of stereotyping is political correctness.

It would surely be a real disaster to reduce rioting in the streets, that would suck. It would be a real disaster to restore faith in law enforcement amongst every group in our country-you know, our fellow citizens.

And very little gives better insight into someone's mindset than the use of "PC" or "politically correct".

I don't believe that the eradication of common sense in law enforcement is a benefit to society. We would essentially be trying to rid officers of their ability to use experience as a basis for decision-making. That strikes me as as a really dumb idea. It may solve some problems, but it creates a lot more.

People use the term PC all the time. What's your opposition to it based on?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

no. Why would they?

I'm just curious why people post these statistics showing that a significantly higher percentage of crime is committed by black folks.

It would seem to me that you can infer one of two possible scenarios from that. Either 1) black folks actually commit a disproportionately higher percentage of the crimes, or 2) There are lots of instances where white folks are committing these same crimes, but police are looking the other way.

I'm just curious if there's anyone out there that believes it's #2.

If it's #1, is it really all THAT egregious for police to use some degree of profiling if there's a large amount of data to support it?

Not so much supporting racial profiling, as just raising that point for discussion.

YES!For crimes such as drug possession police (and more importantly the laws) look the other way for some while throwing the book at others. It is not so much directly black vs white though but urban vs suburban which ends up being one and the same.

 

[Sand]

So how long does it take for a go/no go on indictment here? Seems like that's taking quite a while.

 

[timschochet]

I sincerely hope we don't move law enforcement in the direction of less common sense in order to meet PC goals. That would be a disaster.

Your statement really bothers me, because when I don't think it's common sense for a cop to say to himself: "Hmm, that guy's black, and there's a lot of blacks committing crimes around here, so I'm going to treat this guy with extra suspicion, and maybe I'll harass him too!" That's not common sense. It's laziness, and stupidity, and racism.

On the other hand, when a cop says to himself, "Hmm, that guy's black, but I'm going to look at him like I do everyone else, and treat him like I do everyone else, without suspicion unless he specifically gives me cause to do so", that's not political correctness, (whatever that phrase truly means), that's good police work and decency, and the way we all want to be treated. Not only would it not be a disaster, it would be terrific, and if every policeman acted this way, we wouldn't have all of these protests.

 

[timschochet]

So how long does it take for a go/no go on indictment here? Seems like that's taking quite a while.

It should be pretty easy to indict Wilson. Convicting him will be much more difficult. My guess is that the state is hesitant because they're just not sure they will win at trial.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I sincerely hope we don't move law enforcement in the direction of less common sense in order to meet PC goals. That would be a disaster.

Your statement really bothers me, because when I don't think it's common sense for a cop to say to himself: "Hmm, that guy's black, and there's a lot of blacks committing crimes around here, so I'm going to treat this guy with extra suspicion, and maybe I'll harass him too!" That's not common sense. It's laziness, and stupidity, and racism.

On the other hand, when a cop says to himself, "Hmm, that guy's black, but I'm going to look at him like I do everyone else, and treat him like I do everyone else, without suspicion unless he specifically gives me cause to do so", that's not political correctness, (whatever that phrase truly means), that's good police work and decency, and the way we all want to be treated. Not only would it not be a disaster, it would be terrific, and if every policeman acted this way, we wouldn't have all of these protests.

What should he do if he gets a report that says a black guy driving a beat up car with expired plates just committed a robbery in the area and then low and behold he sees a black guy driving a beat up car with expired plates in the area? Wait for him to run over somebody because pulling a guy over for expired plates is just the white mans way of keeping the black man down?

 

[timschochet]

I sincerely hope we don't move law enforcement in the direction of less common sense in order to meet PC goals. That would be a disaster.

Your statement really bothers me, because when I don't think it's common sense for a cop to say to himself: "Hmm, that guy's black, and there's a lot of blacks committing crimes around here, so I'm going to treat this guy with extra suspicion, and maybe I'll harass him too!" That's not common sense. It's laziness, and stupidity, and racism.

On the other hand, when a cop says to himself, "Hmm, that guy's black, but I'm going to look at him like I do everyone else, and treat him like I do everyone else, without suspicion unless he specifically gives me cause to do so", that's not political correctness, (whatever that phrase truly means), that's good police work and decency, and the way we all want to be treated. Not only would it not be a disaster, it would be terrific, and if every policeman acted this way, we wouldn't have all of these protests.

What should he do if he gets a report that says a black guy driving a beat up car with expired plates just committed a robbery in the area and then low and behold he sees a black guy driving a beat up car with expired plates in the area? Wait for him to run over somebody because pulling a guy over for expired plates is just the white mans way of keeping the black man down?

There's usually a better description than that. Young black guy? Old black guy? What color was the vehicle? What type?

In no way am I suggesting that a cop can't use common sense. But that's NOT what we're talking about here. So many of these incidents involve police harassing black people in anticipation of a crime. Surely that's unnecessary.

 

[timschochet]

I sincerely hope we don't move law enforcement in the direction of less common sense in order to meet PC goals. That would be a disaster.

Your statement really bothers me, because when I don't think it's common sense for a cop to say to himself: "Hmm, that guy's black, and there's a lot of blacks committing crimes around here, so I'm going to treat this guy with extra suspicion, and maybe I'll harass him too!" That's not common sense. It's laziness, and stupidity, and racism.

On the other hand, when a cop says to himself, "Hmm, that guy's black, but I'm going to look at him like I do everyone else, and treat him like I do everyone else, without suspicion unless he specifically gives me cause to do so", that's not political correctness, (whatever that phrase truly means), that's good police work and decency, and the way we all want to be treated. Not only would it not be a disaster, it would be terrific, and if every policeman acted this way, we wouldn't have all of these protests.

What should he do if he gets a report that says a black guy driving a beat up car with expired plates just committed a robbery in the area and then low and behold he sees a black guy driving a beat up car with expired plates in the area? Wait for him to run over somebody because pulling a guy over for expired plates is just the white mans way of keeping the black man down?

There's usually a better description than that. Young black guy? Old black guy? What color was the vehicle? What type?

In no way am I suggesting that a cop can't use common sense. But that's NOT what we're talking about here. So many of these incidents involve police harassing black people in anticipation of a crime. Surely that's unnecessary.

Also, it's perfectly justifiable to stop any vehicle with expired plates.

 

[metoo]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

I don't think they ignore crimes committed by whites but they look for crimes committed by blacks.

 

[spreagle]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

I don't think they ignore crimes committed by whites but they look for crimes committed by blacks.

Yup they look for crime where crime is being committed. They'd be bored to tears following me around all day.

 

[bryhamm]

I sincerely hope we don't move law enforcement in the direction of less common sense in order to meet PC goals. That would be a disaster.

Your statement really bothers me, because when I don't think it's common sense for a cop to say to himself: "Hmm, that guy's black, and there's a lot of blacks committing crimes around here, so I'm going to treat this guy with extra suspicion, and maybe I'll harass him too!" That's not common sense. It's laziness, and stupidity, and racism.

On the other hand, when a cop says to himself, "Hmm, that guy's black, but I'm going to look at him like I do everyone else, and treat him like I do everyone else, without suspicion unless he specifically gives me cause to do so", that's not political correctness, (whatever that phrase truly means), that's good police work and decency, and the way we all want to be treated. Not only would it not be a disaster, it would be terrific, and if every policeman acted this way, we wouldn't have all of these protests.

What should he do if he gets a report that says a black guy driving a beat up car with expired plates just committed a robbery in the area and then low and behold he sees a black guy driving a beat up car with expired plates in the area? Wait for him to run over somebody because pulling a guy over for expired plates is just the white mans way of keeping the black man down?

There's usually a better description than that. Young black guy? Old black guy? What color was the vehicle? What type?

In no way am I suggesting that a cop can't use common sense. But that's NOT what we're talking about here. So many of these incidents involve police harassing black people in anticipation of a crime. Surely that's unnecessary.

and so many of these incidents involve people who don't comply with orders from the police

 

[bryhamm]

I sincerely hope we don't move law enforcement in the direction of less common sense in order to meet PC goals. That would be a disaster.

Your statement really bothers me, because when I don't think it's common sense for a cop to say to himself: "Hmm, that guy's black, and there's a lot of blacks committing crimes around here, so I'm going to treat this guy with extra suspicion, and maybe I'll harass him too!" That's not common sense. It's laziness, and stupidity, and racism.

On the other hand, when a cop says to himself, "Hmm, that guy's black, but I'm going to look at him like I do everyone else, and treat him like I do everyone else, without suspicion unless he specifically gives me cause to do so", that's not political correctness, (whatever that phrase truly means), that's good police work and decency, and the way we all want to be treated. Not only would it not be a disaster, it would be terrific, and if every policeman acted this way, we wouldn't have all of these protests.

I'm gonna go with ... wrong

 

[jonessed]

I sincerely hope we don't move law enforcement in the direction of less common sense in order to meet PC goals. That would be a disaster.

Your statement really bothers me, because when I don't think it's common sense for a cop to say to himself: "Hmm, that guy's black, and there's a lot of blacks committing crimes around here, so I'm going to treat this guy with extra suspicion, and maybe I'll harass him too!" That's not common sense. It's laziness, and stupidity, and racism.On the other hand, when a cop says to himself, "Hmm, that guy's black, but I'm going to look at him like I do everyone else, and treat him like I do everyone else, without suspicion unless he specifically gives me cause to do so", that's not political correctness, (whatever that phrase truly means), that's good police work and decency, and the way we all want to be treated. Not only would it not be a disaster, it would be terrific, and if every policeman acted this way, we wouldn't have all of these protests.

Where did I say that?

 

[kentric]

Because it's true?Don't runDon't be belligerentDon't make sudden movesCooperate with the officerDo those things and you don't get shot. Pretty simple.

Not really. One guy got shot recently at a gas station for reacting too quickly when directed by an officer. Another guy got shot at a WalMart for not reacting quickly enough when directed by an officer. If the same thing you need to do to avoid getting shot in one case will end up getting you shot in another, depending on the mood and temperament of the officer involved, it's anything but "pretty simple".

Yes, the guy made a sudden move into his vehicle at the gas station. Not sure about the walmart story but wasn't a guy wandering around with a gun?

The gas station video doesn't exactly show the guy making what most would consider a "sudden move" or diving back into his car. It shows a guy asked to show ID reach to his back pocket, realize he doesn't have his wallet there, and lean into his car to retrieve it. IMO, if that's a white driver, there is no shots fired.The Walmart situation isn't on the police, IMO. It's on the 911 caller who was feeding information to the police that made it appear that it was a much more dangerous situation than it appeared to be on the video. From the police perspective, they had a likely shooter threatening civilians. I understand that shooting given the circumstances we know.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the officer was completely at fault/wrong at the gas station. But watching the video, to me it looked like a pretty quick, unnatural move into the vehicle. He moves normally and the schizo officer likely doesn't shoot unless he is out for blood.

Good posting. Policeman over-reacted. The driver didn't just lean into his car, he made a sudden movement into his car to retrieve the license. His over-exhuberance in trying to meet the cop's request and the cop's fear/irrationality resulted in the driver being gunned down.

 

[timschochet]

Your statement really bothers me

Yeah, so?

so there.

 

[squistion]

So, yes, some people downplay profiling; but, on the other hand, other people grossly downplay the bigger problem, the very really disparity in who is committing crime and the effect that has on the people responsible for preventing crime.

The bigger problem though isn't the "disparity in who is committing crime" but the "disparity in opportunity - real or even if merely perceived". When the best opportunities in life are, or at least appear to be criminal the rest shouldn't come as a surprise.

If lack of opportunity creates crime, then why don't illegal immigrants who are generally poorer than black Americans, have less English experience, and are not allowed to work legally have an exponentially lower crime rate than black American men? Certainly those three strikes give the immigrants less opportunity than Black Americans.

Might have something to do with fear of being deported, which blacks don't have to worry about.

 

[kentric]

So, yes, some people downplay profiling; but, on the other hand, other people grossly downplay the bigger problem, the very really disparity in who is committing crime and the effect that has on the people responsible for preventing crime.

The bigger problem though isn't the "disparity in who is committing crime" but the "disparity in opportunity - real or even if merely perceived". When the best opportunities in life are, or at least appear to be criminal the rest shouldn't come as a surprise.

If lack of opportunity creates crime, then why don't illegal immigrants who are generally poorer than black Americans, have less English experience, and are not allowed to work legally have an exponentially lower crime rate than black American men? Certainly those three strikes give the immigrants less opportunity than Black Americans.

Might have something to do with fear of being deported, which blacks don't have to worry about.

It could also be due to the deep-seeded religious belief which many hispanic people hold to.

 

[TheWalkmen]

Here's Vonderrit showing off his stolen gun(s) on social media.

http://fox2now.com/2014/10/13/vonderrit-myers-jr-showed-off-his-guns-before-shooting/

 

[Widbil83]

Here's Vonderrit showing off his stolen gun(s) on social media.

http://fox2now.com/2014/10/13/vonderrit-myers-jr-showed-off-his-guns-before-shooting/

That doesn't look like a sandwich.

 

[timschochet]

So, yes, some people downplay profiling; but, on the other hand, other people grossly downplay the bigger problem, the very really disparity in who is committing crime and the effect that has on the people responsible for preventing crime.

The bigger problem though isn't the "disparity in who is committing crime" but the "disparity in opportunity - real or even if merely perceived". When the best opportunities in life are, or at least appear to be criminal the rest shouldn't come as a surprise.

If lack of opportunity creates crime, then why don't illegal immigrants who are generally poorer than black Americans, have less English experience, and are not allowed to work legally have an exponentially lower crime rate than black American men? Certainly those three strikes give the immigrants less opportunity than Black Americans.

If less opportunity is responsible for crime then why doesn't the white middle class have an exponentially higher crime rate than the white upper class? Certainly due to their resources the white upper class has far more opportunity than the white middle class.

The opportunity cliche fails quickly when scrutiny is applied to it. But, if you insist upon the opportunity argument, to what degree do you think that urban black Americans who argue no opportunity play a role in their diminished opportunity? How does lack of opportunity compel one to rape?

I'm g;ad you pointed that out about illegal immigrants. I've tried to point out many times how lawful they actually are- not just compared to blacks (I would never make that comparison) but to everyone else in society. The usual response I get is "well they broke the law coming here so they're already criminals!" which is simply asinine.

But to answer your question- back in 1969 Daniel Moynihan issued a report in which he tried to uncover the main reasons for high percentages of black crime- Moynihan was a Democrat, but he was anything but partisan, and his report, though over 40 years old now, still rings true because most of the dynamics have not changed. Simply put, the combination of slavery, Jim Crow, low-self esteem, a history unlike that of any other immigrant group in this country, family problems (the dads don't stick around), drugs, ghetto neighborhoods, mistreatment by police, lack of ambition, gang affinities, poor schools, and general despair combine to create a toxic mixture. None of this is new. In 1937, Richard Wright wrote Native Son, and the protagonist, Bigger Thomas, is not much different than Michael Brown or thousands of other young black men.

Moynihan had an easier time identifying the problems than he did coming up with solutions. Liberals would have us throw money at poor black areas, and there is merit to this IMO; we haven't spent nearly enough. But it's not going to solve the problem by itself. Conservatives point out that much of the spending has been useless, and they urge as an alternative trying to encourage black families to stay together, and to accept the "American dream"- work hard, obey the law, send your kids to school, try to succeed on your own efforts, etc. There is a lot of merit to that too, because the victimhood of blacks has become an industry at this point led by unscrupulous guys like Sharpton trying to take advantage, and it's continuation only breeds more resentment on all sides, and is not healthy for our society. But again it's not a solution in itself. I don't know what the solution is. Perhaps over time things will slowly get better. Right now, however, we need to focus on trying to make sure the police are not beholden to stereotypes.

 

[metoo]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

I don't think they ignore crimes committed by whites but they look for crimes committed by blacks.

Yup they look for crime where crime is being committed. They'd be bored to tears following me around all day.

How many times have you been asked for your ID as a passenger in a vehicle when the driver didn't get a ticket? How many times have you gotten pulled over and the cop asked you "Whose car is this"? How many drug stings are setup in white neighborhoods?

 

[urbanhack]

Does anyone think police are ignoring sigificant crimes being committed by white people because they're white?

I don't think they ignore crimes committed by whites but they look for crimes committed by blacks.

Yup they look for crime where crime is being committed. They'd be bored to tears following me around all day.

How many times have you been asked for your ID as a passenger in a vehicle when the driver didn't get a ticket? How many times have you gotten pulled over and the cop asked you "Whose car is this"? How many drug stings are setup in white neighborhoods?

rich, white kids who do drugs are different than poor black kids who do drugs.

 

[metoo]

I used to have my head in the sand and just accept the BS but what changed my mind was me getting a speeding ticket. I was going to pay it online but I didn't want to pay the extra fee for using a credit card. I go to court. I'm hearing cases and folks don't have the money to pay the ticket and they were getting probation. They were hit with additional fines and put on probation until everything was paid. If I didn't have the money I would have been put on probation for a speeding ticket. This city in GA has built a jail that is too large for the current city population. Where do you think the new inmates will come from?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So, yes, some people downplay profiling; but, on the other hand, other people grossly downplay the bigger problem, the very really disparity in who is committing crime and the effect that has on the people responsible for preventing crime.

The bigger problem though isn't the "disparity in who is committing crime" but the "disparity in opportunity - real or even if merely perceived". When the best opportunities in life are, or at least appear to be criminal the rest shouldn't come as a surprise.

If lack of opportunity creates crime, then why don't illegal immigrants who are generally poorer than black Americans, have less English experience, and are not allowed to work legally have an exponentially lower crime rate than black American men? Certainly those three strikes give the immigrants less opportunity than Black Americans.

If less opportunity is responsible for crime then why doesn't the white middle class have an exponentially higher crime rate than the white upper class? Certainly due to their resources the white upper class has far more opportunity than the white middle class.

The opportunity cliche fails quickly when scrutiny is applied to it. But, if you insist upon the opportunity argument, to what degree do you think that urban black Americans who argue no opportunity play a role in their diminished opportunity? How does lack of opportunity compel one to rape?

I'm g;ad you pointed that out about illegal immigrants. I've tried to point out many times how lawful they actually are- not just compared to blacks (I would never make that comparison) but to everyone else in society. The usual response I get is "well they broke the law coming here so they're already criminals!" which is simply asinine. But to answer your question- back in 1969 Daniel Moynihan issued a report in which he tried to uncover the main reasons for high percentages of black crime- Moynihan was a Democrat, but he was anything but partisan, and his report, though over 40 years old now, still rings true because most of the dynamics have not changed. Simply put, the combination of slavery, Jim Crow, low-self esteem, a history unlike that of any other immigrant group in this country, family problems (the dads don't stick around), drugs, ghetto neighborhoods, mistreatment by police, lack of ambition, gang affinities, poor schools, and general despair combine to create a toxic mixture. None of this is new. In 1937, Richard Wright wrote Native Son, and the protagonist, Bigger Thomas, is not much different than Michael Brown or thousands of other young black men.

Moynihan had an easier time identifying the problems than he did coming up with solutions. Liberals would have us throw money at poor black areas, and there is merit to this IMO; we haven't spent nearly enough. But it's not going to solve the problem by itself. Conservatives point out that much of the spending has been useless, and they urge as an alternative trying to encourage black families to stay together, and to accept the "American dream"- work hard, obey the law, send your kids to school, try to succeed on your own efforts, etc. There is a lot of merit to that too, because the victimhood of blacks has become an industry at this point led by unscrupulous guys like Sharpton trying to take advantage, and it's continuation only breeds more resentment on all sides, and is not healthy for our society. But again it's not a solution in itself. I don't know what the solution is. Perhaps over time things will slowly get better. Right now, however, we need to focus on trying to make sure the police are not beholden to stereotypes.

Moynihan had the social welfare solution, he just misread the early evidence of the test and freaked out.

But some things have changes since 40 years ago. Our cities for the most part are no longer "loaded" with no skill required manufacturing jobs that have been lost to technology and greater international competition. We have also engaged in the War on Drugs about 40 years ago and then double downed about 30 years ago which have further devastated our urban centers. And provided the wrong opportunities.

So while it will take a while to undo centuries of damage that was done, if we want to make real change we start with two things-

• End the War on Drugs
• Replace "need base" welfare, eliminate "workfare" and implement Moynihan's negative income tax (or its modern BIG form)

Oh, and as to Olaf's "The opportunity cliche fails quickly when scrutiny is applied to it".

• Illegal immigrants see opportunities that those "trapped in poverty" don't see. That is one of the problems. One which a BIG will help solve.
• For someone in the middle class committing crime will likely hinder their pursuit of happiness, for too many of our poor it facilitates that pursuit. One which ending the war on drugs will help diminish.

 

[timschochet]

BFS, I don't disagree with you about BIG, but I think it's a political impossibility in this country. I've raised it with a lot of my friends and family, conservatives and liberals alike, none of whom have ever heard of it. 100% of the people I have mentioned it to are immediately opposed. No matter what, they can't get past the part of "income guarantee". Intuitively, it just feels anti-American, and we have enough populism in this country that such a law would have no chance of passing. It won't ever happen.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BFS, I don't disagree with you about BIG, but I think it's a political impossibility in this country. I've raised it with a lot of my friends and family, conservatives and liberals alike, none of whom have ever heard of it. 100% of the people I have mentioned it to are immediately opposed. No matter what, they can't get past the part of "income guarantee". Intuitively, it just feels anti-American, and we have enough populism in this country that such a law would have no chance of passing. It won't ever happen.

If it was 1925 how many of your friends would have heard of Social Security and, once explained supported it?

Look at this board. It went from the support of one casual mention (by me) in a FairTax thread to where now all the intelligent posters from the left, the right, the middle support it, at least in some form. (And, yes, I know what I just did here.)

 

[timschochet]

BFS, I don't disagree with you about BIG, but I think it's a political impossibility in this country. I've raised it with a lot of my friends and family, conservatives and liberals alike, none of whom have ever heard of it. 100% of the people I have mentioned it to are immediately opposed. No matter what, they can't get past the part of "income guarantee". Intuitively, it just feels anti-American, and we have enough populism in this country that such a law would have no chance of passing. It won't ever happen.

If it was 1925 how many of your friends would have heard of Social Security and, once explained supported it?

Look at this board. It went from the support of one casual mention (by me) in a FairTax thread to where now all the intelligent posters from the left, the right, the middle support it, at least in some form. (And, yes, I know what I just did here.)

But it's not the same as Social Security.

The only way to get it done is to call it something else. Universal insurance, or something like that. You can't call it an income guarantee because nobody will accept that.