Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

Retr0gamer

nullzero wrote: »

The instances of police entering altercations with the people is statistically very low, something that is mentioned in a number of peer reviewed papers I've read that argue that there is a problem with systemic racism in police forces in America.

To say that the law has a very minor contribution to this situation and that changing the laws wouldn't change anything (really? Nothing at all?) whilst you previously took to your soapbox to grandstand about the scientific method and how people outside the scientific community struggle to comprehend your reasoning is frankly puzzling.

The police are charged with upholding and enforcing the law. They do not have freedom to act outside those parameters, to argue that changing those parameters would be useless makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm guessing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made no difference either.

Well I didn't say it would make no difference I just think that it would be more effective to change how the police force operates, change it into something that works with the community and not a borderline paramilitary force. The other would be to change gun laws, although in this case I think America's gun culture is far the biggest hurdle to get over.

And sorry about the grandstanding. I'm used to other posters on this thread who it's hard to have a reasonable discussion with.

AbusesToilets

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well I didn't say it would make no difference I just think that it would be more effective to change how the police force operates, change it into something that works with the community and not a borderline paramilitary force. The other would be to change gun laws, although in this case I think America's gun culture is far the biggest hurdle to get over.

And sorry about the grandstanding. I'm used to other posters on this thread who it's hard to have a reasonable discussion with.

Hugs and conversation going to bring the murder rate down in Chicago?

Your claims re: gun control show you haven't a clue. Tell us the law you'd pass that's going to put an end to illegal use of guns by criminals.

Mic 1972

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well I didn't say it would make no difference I just think that it would be more effective to change how the police force operates, change it into something that works with the community and not a borderline paramilitary force. The other would be to change gun laws, although in this case I think America's gun culture is far the biggest hurdle to get over.

And sorry about the grandstanding. I'm used to other posters on this thread who it's hard to have a reasonable discussion with.

The Police does work for the community, that's exactly what they do.
If you have a burglar in your house at night and you call the cops, what would you like them to do, come in and speak gently to the burglar and offer them a job in the local library?

Foxtrol

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The Police does work for the community, that's exactly what they do.
If you have a burglar in your house at night and you call the cops, what would you like them to do, come in and speak gently to the burglar and offer them a job in the local library?

Where has anyone mentioned speaking gently to a burglar in a house they are in the process of robbing? Who has asked for anything like this?

When it comes to force people are protesting unnecessary and inconsistent use of it by the police and the near complete lack of accountability when they cross the line. That is not even getting into profiling etc that communities of colour have to specifically deal with.

Carfacemandog

nullzero wrote: »

The police enforce the law, they don't create it.

I think this is what the other posters was getting at - that some feel they enforce it disproportionately.

And when you ha e poems of black people and minorities being pulled over multiple times far, far more often than white people despite being less likely to have contraband, drugs, illegal guns, etc in the car.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/may/black-drivers-more-likely-to-be-stopped-by-police.html

A new study, undertaken by Ravi Shroff, an assistant professor holding joint appointments at NYU Steinhardt and NYU CUSP, and his colleagues at the Stanford Open Policing Project, found that in a dataset of nearly 100 million traffic stops across the United States, black drivers were about 20 percent more likely to be stopped than white drivers relative to their share of the residential population.

The study also found that once stopped, black drivers were searched about 1.5 to 2 times as often as white drivers, while they were less likely to be carrying drugs, guns, or other illegal contraband compared to their white peers.

Mic 1972

Carfacemandog wrote: »

I think this is what the other posters was getting at - that some feel they enforce it disproportionately.

And when you ha e poems of black people and minorities being pulled over multiple times far, far more often than white people despite being less likely to have contraband, drugs, illegal guns, etc in the car.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/may/black-drivers-more-likely-to-be-stopped-by-police.html

You should also familiarize with the stats showing % of minorities being involved in crime compared to the % of population that they represent.
There are reasons why the police may want to stop non white people more often

Foxtrol

Mic 1972 wrote: »

You should also familiarize with the stats showing % of minorities being involved in crime compared to the % of population that they represent.
There are reasons why the police may want to stop non white people more often

That is basically the definition of racism. Cops are disproportionately stopping non-white people due to the presumptions they are making due to their skin colour.

It is a problem that is even more pronounced the 'whiter' the area is.

Mic 1972

Foxtrol wrote: »

That is basically the definition of racism. Cops are disproportionately stopping non-white people due to the presumptions they are making due to their skin colour.

It is a problem that is even more pronounced the 'whiter' the area is.

That's the definition of stats, numbers don't lie and don't have opinions nor bias

Carfacemandog

Mic 1972 wrote: »

You should also familiarize with the stats showing % of minorities being involved in crime compared to the % of population that they represent.
There are reasons why the police may want to stop non white people more often

You would do well to read my post before responding to it with a straw man that only makes it look like you cannot give a reason for this.

"And when you have problems of black people and minorities being pulled over multiple times far, far more often than white people despite being less likely to have contraband, drugs, illegal guns, etc in the car."

Mic 1972

Carfacemandog wrote: »

You would do well to read my post before responding to it with a straw man that only makes it look like you cannot give a reason for this.

"And when you have problems of black people and minorities being pulled over multiple times far, far more often than white people despite being less likely to have contraband, drugs, illegal guns, etc in the car."

Black people account for a higher % of crime in America compared to the % of population that they represent
That was also in my post

Foxtrol

Mic 1972 wrote: »

That's the definition of stats, numbers don't lie and don't have opinions nor bias

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Black people account for a higher % of crime in America compared to the % of population that they represent
That was also in my post

But the problem is that you and the police clearly do have biases.

Carfacemandog research shows that minorities are less likely to have contraband in their car so if the approach to policing was based statistics, rather than race, they would be stopping less minorities.

Retr0gamer

Mic 1972 wrote: »

You should also familiarize with the stats showing % of minorities being involved in crime compared to the % of population that they represent.
There are reasons why the police may want to stop non white people more often

Which is an example of bias and systemic racism. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It's basically harassing a group of people because of the colour of their skin. And all because of a perceived notion that black are criminals:

"And when you have problems of black people and minorities being pulled over multiple times far, far more often than white people despite being less likely to have contraband, drugs, illegal guns, etc in the car."

That's systemic racism in the system right there. You just described it. Your statement is inherently racist as well.

Try not to shoot your own argument in the foot next time.

Foxtrol

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

Of course you see discrimination everywhere.

lets look at the track record of both groups.
The Anti-lock down people, have, as far as I know, have been responsible for zero looting, racism,burning etc

And

We all know what the bLM record has been.

It is very simple, not complicated at all.

PS
I know a couple of left wingers, who are against the lock down, because they believe in Civil Liberties. It is called having principals.

The last few days have again shown this 'track record' excuse for two tiered policing to be utter nonsense. MAGA protestors ran around DC in packs assaulting people and then vandalised and burnt part of a historic black church. Threats from MAGA protesters then caused shut downs of buildings where they were the electoral college were voting and in at least one state they had to do it in a secret location over fears.

Just like we've seen with twisting statistics, biases will make excuses for any harsh action against any groups people don't like. Unfortunately in the US the police have broken a key rule in policing and chosen a side and it is making a bad situation even worse.

Carfacemandog

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Black people account for a higher % of crime in America compared to the % of population that they represent
That was also in my post

Again you failed to actually read the post you were replying to. I'll write it again, try reading slowly if it's not getting through.

On traffic stops, black people are stopped far more frequently than white people. On traffic stops, black people have contraband or illegal items on them less often than white people. Despite this, black people and minorities are searched far more often, after these stops.

The figures on this are the opposite of what you are claiming. This is all covered in the link you clearly didn't click on, in the post you didn't even read before responding to it.

Retr0gamer

Carfacemandog wrote: »

The figures on this are the opposite of what you are claiming. This is all covered in the link you clearly didn't click on, in the post you didn't even read before responding to it.

It's called having your mind made up already. I believe to word for it is prejudice.

Manic Moran

FWIW, latest update on the McCloskey case (St Louis residents waving guns around at BLM protestors) is that the prosecutor and her entire department (a rare move) have been prohibited from carrying on the prosecution against the husband because of impropriety and the appearance of undertaking the prosecution for political gain.

A special prosecutor from outside the office of the City Attorney is to be appointed by the court.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-judge-disqualifies-gardner-her-office-from-prosecuting-mccloskey-gun-waving-case/article_6dd89413-e92e-54a7-ab32-ab1775c7ec3e.html

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

FWIW, latest update on the McCloskey case (St Louis residents waving guns around at BLM protestors) is that the prosecutor and her entire department (a rare move) have been prohibited from carrying on the prosecution against the husband because of impropriety and the appearance of undertaking the prosecution for political gain.

A special prosecutor from outside the office of the City Attorney is to be appointed by the court.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-judge-disqualifies-gardner-her-office-from-prosecuting-mccloskey-gun-waving-case/article_6dd89413-e92e-54a7-ab32-ab1775c7ec3e.html

I tried opening that link and it was blocked by my ISP. Weird.

What is he charged with exactly? Waving a gun around isn't crime as far as I'm aware.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

FWIW, latest update on the McCloskey case (St Louis residents waving guns around at BLM protestors) is that the prosecutor and her entire department (a rare move) have been prohibited from carrying on the prosecution against the husband because of impropriety and the appearance of undertaking the prosecution for political gain.

A special prosecutor from outside the office of the City Attorney is to be appointed by the court.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-judge-disqualifies-gardner-her-office-from-prosecuting-mccloskey-gun-waving-case/article_6dd89413-e92e-54a7-ab32-ab1775c7ec3e.html

The issue isn't really political gain, it is specifically doing it in a fundraising email. The judge implied if she had defended herself from the GOP attacks in the media rather than in a fundraising email he wouldn't have had the same concerns (which to me is quite strange logic).

To its core this is just another example of what a rotten system the US has of electing people into roles in criminal justice (from sheriffs to prosecutors to judges, like the judge who made the ruling here), which makes many reforms very difficult.

Foxtrol

Brian? wrote: »

I tried opening that link and it was blocked by my ISP. Weird.

What is he charged with exactly? Waving a gun around isn't crime as far as I'm aware.

Though for many outsiders US gun laws are insanely loose, in many places thankfully it is against the law to wave or point guns at people whenever you feel like it.

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

The issue isn't really political gain, it is specifically doing it in a fundraising email. The judge implied if she had defended herself from the GOP attacks in the media rather than in a fundraising email he wouldn't have had the same concerns (which to me is quite strange logic)

Partially agreed. It's not just the doing it in a fundraising email, but the repeated references to prosecuting McCloskey in a purported response to third parties, including before charges were even filed.

To quote the judge
In short, the Circuit Attorney's conduct raises the appearance that she initiated a criminal prosecution for political purposes. Immediately before and after charging Defendant, she solicited campaign donations to advance her political interests.
[...]
The July 22 email also reveals Ms Gardner's intentions to mix her prosecutorial decision-making with campaigning
[...]
Admittedly, Ms Gardner has every right to respond to criticism but the court questions the appearance of raising money while referencing a case she and her office are actively investigating
[...]
The email reference to Defendant, his actions and the pledge to hold him accountable occur throughout both emails. The emails reveal her intention to use him to motivate contributors and generate campaign contributions."

And in conclusion
Understandably, Ms Gardner has every right to rebut criticism, but it appears unnecessary to stigmatize Defendant - or even mention him - in campaign solicitations, especially when she purports to be responding to others. In fact, the case law and the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit it

Brian? wrote: »

What is he charged with exactly? Waving a gun around isn't crime as far as I'm aware.

Normally known as "brandishing", or threatening without cause. The actual charge under MO law is "Unlawful Use of a Weapon-Exhibiting". MRS 571.030
"1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner"

What the jury shall have to determine is whether the exception in section 5 applies: "5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031, RSMo." which states "A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person"

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

Partially agreed. It's not just the doing it in a fundraising email, but the repeated references to prosecuting McCloskey in a purported response to third parties, including before charges were even filed.

To quote the judge
In short, the Circuit Attorney's conduct raises the appearance that she initiated a criminal prosecution for political purposes. Immediately before and after charging Defendant, she solicited campaign donations to advance her political interests.
[...]
The July 22 email also reveals Ms Gardner's intentions to mix her prosecutorial decision-making with campaigning
[...]
Admittedly, Ms Gardner has every right to respond to criticism but the court questions the appearance of raising money while referencing a case she and her office are actively investigating
[...]
The email reference to Defendant, his actions and the pledge to hold him accountable occur throughout both emails. The emails reveal her intention to use him to motivate contributors and generate campaign contributions."

And in conclusion
Understandably, Ms Gardner has every right to rebut criticism, but it appears unnecessary to stigmatize Defendant - or even mention him - in campaign solicitations, especially when she purports to be responding to others. In fact, the case law and the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit it

From that I agree the other elements didn't help but if she hadn't sent the fundraising emails I don't think it would have met the bar for her to be removed. Having said that, elected or politically appointed judges are well known to twist their judgements to suit the outcomes they want.

At the same time as this the governor and elected GOP officials have been supporting the defendants in public, with the former stating before hearing any evidence in court that he would provide pardons if the couple are found guilty.

The whole system is a complete mess.

Biafranlivemat

nullzero wrote: »

The police enforce the law, they don't create it.

There are a disproportionate number of young black men incarcerated in the American prison system not because police are racist but because they are more likely to be involved in criminal activity that carries harsher sentencing.

Look at the disparity between the punishment for selling Cocaine against selling crack cocaine. One is a rich person's drug the other is the poor person equivalent which is met with harsher punishment.

This stems from the 1994 Crime Bill passed by the Democrats of whom Joe Biden was a senior figure in passing the Bill. Why is that important? It demonstrates that politicians will speak out of both sides of their mouths on any given topic.

The issues at play in America are more rooted in systemic suppression of the common person. The entire system is founded on the principle that the great unwashed should in as great a number as possible remain in their lower social position for all of their lives.

A lot of African Americans fall into that category and they struggle with the issues that afflict all poor people in America but ultimately the issue isn't with their skin colour, it is with their social standing. MLK began to talk about how poor whites and blacks should be joined together in solidarity over their shared plight, then he was assassinated.

Is it possible to improve policing? Of course it is but doing so via the means of violence is counter productive.
Are police systemically racist? Demonstrably not, any cases that surface of police officials making racist comments result in the termination of their employment.

The notion that African Americans are targeted by police for their enthicity and nothing else is patently false.

The attitude that progressives have for poor people is based on race.
They laugh and make fun of white poor people, like the poor Irish in the South Boston neighborhood, or West Virginians and trailer parks.


You will never hear them say the same things about poor blacks.

Foxtrol

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

The attitude that progressives have for poor people is based on race.
They laugh and make fun of white poor people, like the poor Irish in the South Boston neighborhood, or West Virginians and trailer parks.


You will never hear them say the same things about poor blacks.

That victimhood is confined all in your head.

The people who are really laughing at the poor white people are the GOP who push culture war or religious based topics for votes while giving endless tax cuts to the 'elite' high earners they claim to be fighting. Pointing that out isn't making fun of poor white people, it is a fact.

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

That victimhood is confined all in your head.

The people who are really laughing at the poor white people are the GOP who push culture war or religious based topics for votes while giving endless tax cuts to the 'elite' high earners they claim to be fighting. Pointing that out isn't making fun of poor white people, it is a fact.

The fact you can say that without recognising that the exact same is true for the Democrats is notable.

rossie1977

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The fact you can say that without recognising that the exact same is true for the Democrats is notable.

Because it's not

* Student loan affordability act. Every single Republican voted against it, every Democrat voted for it

* Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding, all but one Republican voted against it, all Democrats for.

* Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013, all but one Republican against, all Democrats for.

* Paycheck fairness act, all Republicans against, all but one Democrat for.

* End the bureau of consumer financial protection, all but one Republican for, all but one Democrat against.

* American Jobs Act of 2011 - $50 billion for infrastructure projects, all 48 Republicans against. 50 Dems for, 2 against

* Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension act. All but one Republican against, All but one Dem for

* Reduces Funding for Food Stamps. All Dems against. 13 Republicans against, 33 for.

* Minimum Wage Fairness Act, all but one Republican against. All but one Dem for

nullzero

rossie1977 wrote: »

Because it's not

* Student loan affordability act. Every single Republican voted against it, every Democrat voted for it

* Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding, all but one Republican voted against it, all Democrats for.

* Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013, all but one Republican against, all Democrats for.

* Paycheck fairness act, all Republicans against, all but one Democrat for.

* End the bureau of consumer financial protection, all but one Republican for, all but one Democrat against.

* American Jobs Act of 2011 - $50 billion for infrastructure projects, all 48 Republicans against. 50 Dems for, 2 against

* Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension act. All but one Republican against, All but one Dem for

* Reduces Funding for Food Stamps. All Dems against. 13 Republicans against, 33 for.

* Minimum Wage Fairness Act, all but one Republican against. All but one Dem for

The 1994 Crime Bill has facilitated the incarceration of countless African Americans and it was introduced by the Clinton administration.

The truth is, if you're black in America, neither the Republicans or Democrats really give a damn about you.

Foxtrol

rossie1977 wrote: »

Because it's not

* Student loan affordability act. Every single Republican voted against it, every Democrat voted for it

* Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding, all but one Republican voted against it, all Democrats for.

* Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013, all but one Republican against, all Democrats for.

* Paycheck fairness act, all Republicans against, all but one Democrat for.

* End the bureau of consumer financial protection, all but one Republican for, all but one Democrat against.

* American Jobs Act of 2011 - $50 billion for infrastructure projects, all 48 Republicans against. 50 Dems for, 2 against

* Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension act. All but one Republican against, All but one Dem for

* Reduces Funding for Food Stamps. All Dems against. 13 Republicans against, 33 for.

* Minimum Wage Fairness Act, all but one Republican against. All but one Dem for

Thanks for that sample, there is a never ending list of similar.

Any attempts at equivalence between the GOP and the Dems is absolutely laughable. Sure the Dems have a more progressive platform but there is absolutely no comparison about which party is better for poor communities, especially communities of colour, forget about them being 'the exact same', as you've claimed.

Foxtrol

An independent watchdog has released an absolutely damming 111-page report on the NYPD and NYC official's response to the BLM protests earlier in the year.

It backs up what was being said at the time that the police used excessive force, abused their authority, were completely ill-prepared, selectively enforced laws, had no plan, made poor decisions, and in general made situations worse.

Unsurprisingly nearly all cops saw no wrongdoing by other officers, nothing wrong with their policing approach, would do nothing differently, and some refused to even participate in the process.

The unfortunate thing is very few cities will have the resources and the governance structures to do this kind of review. An even more unfortunate thing is that this will likely sit on the shelf and unless a mayor with some kind of conviction is elected nothing will change.

https://twitter.com/BillyPickett/status/1339975109285711873?s=20

Biafranlivemat

rossie1977 wrote: »

Because it's not

* Student loan affordability act. Every single Republican voted against it, every Democrat voted for it

* Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding, all but one Republican voted against it, all Democrats for.

* Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013, all but one Republican against, all Democrats for.

* Paycheck fairness act, all Republicans against, all but one Democrat for.

* End the bureau of consumer financial protection, all but one Republican for, all but one Democrat against.

* American Jobs Act of 2011 - $50 billion for infrastructure projects, all 48 Republicans against. 50 Dems for, 2 against

* Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension act. All but one Republican against, All but one Dem for

* Reduces Funding for Food Stamps. All Dems against. 13 Republicans against, 33 for.

* Minimum Wage Fairness Act, all but one Republican against. All but one Dem for

Didn't google the whole list
* Student loan affordability act
The 3rd level education racket has been under the control of Leftist for at least 40+ years.
Why have they made colleges so expensive, in the first place.
Senator warren is a great example. Made up to $450,000 at Harvard, for teaching 1, maybe two courses.

• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding

If the price of fuel was kept low, there would be no need for this.
Fracking is great for bring down the price of oil and gas.
Also
Jesse Jackson even supports gas for poor people.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/05/04/rev-jesse-jackson-stands-up-for-natural-gas-development-in-struggling-community/


* American Jobs Act of 2011

I remember this one.
Basically jobs for unionized workers.
It has money for the police(this is before Obama found out, that the police are racist)

Biafranlivemat

Foxtrol wrote: »

Thanks for that sample, there is a never ending list of similar.

Any attempts at equivalence between the GOP and the Dems is absolutely laughable. Sure the Dems have a more progressive platform but there is absolutely no comparison about which party is better for poor communities, especially communities of colour, forget about them being 'the exact same', as you've claimed.

But the Dems pretend to care for the poor, but still screw them over.