Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Abusive Police

Abusive Police (Page 2)
Thread Tools
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2009, 06:52 AM
 
Jeez, I hope to God this isn't true: Cop who beat student for untucked shirt jailed on rape charges
The suburban Chicago cop who was caught on video beating a 15-year-old student for refusing to tuck his shirt last May is being accused of raping a woman while holding a pillow over her face.

He also killed his ex-wife’s new husband last year by shooting him 24 times in front of their children while he was a cop for another suburban police department.

He was suspended for that incident and eventually found work with the Dolton Police Department, where he ended up beating the special needs student who weighed only 140 pounds, breaking his nose and lacerating his face.

A few months later, he allegedly threatened an Indiana woman with a knife. Then later raped her with a pillow over her face on September 14, according to the Chicago Tribune.

It is no wonder why the Dolton Police Department refused to release his name this week when the video of the student beating emerged.

Christopher Lloyd, 38, has been incarcerated in Indiana on a $110,000 bond since last month. He faces 20 years in prison for the rape allegation.

His ex-wife has also filed a wrongful death suit against him and the Robbins Police Department for the killing of her new husband in February 2008.

Chicago police accepted his claims of self-defense even though he drove to the couple’s home while off-duty and got into an argument with Cornell McKinney, before shooting him 24 times.

It is not clear whether he reloaded in that incident, but if he did, it would make it hard to believe he was acting in self-defense.

The suit claims the autopsy contradicts the police investigation. I’m sure it does. The Chicago Police Department should be sued as well.
That has to be a joke. Please Jesus, I'll come back to the Church, just tell me this isn't real. Even The Onion wouldn't make this up.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 09:43 AM
 
Apparently this thread is in need of resurrecting.

Don't Make Phone Calls While Your Friend is Being Arrested

I particularly enjoy how the camera operator suddenly pulls out when the cop starts beating the crap out of the kid, only to zoom back in once he's been "subdued."
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Is this the "why socialism will never work" thread? I mean I'm just putting this thread into the context of the numerous times I've heard that the police and military are also socialist. This often comes up when one is trying to illustrate some conflict with conservative ideology because conservatives are often "badge-lickers" or "pro-military industrial complex", etc...

Yet, wouldn't this thread (or any thread railing on the horrors of the military industrial complex) really be an illustration of the intellectual conundrum that exists for people generally friendly to unions and socialism?

This makes as much sense as putting proponents of population control in charge of your healthcare.
Military and police are LEGITIMATE FUNCTIONS of government. Fire protection too. That's the difference.

I know it's subtle, so don't feel bad if you don't "get it" at first. Shoot, lots of your elected representatives don't seem to get it either.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 12:30 PM
 
Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested.

The more than 575,000 stops of people in the city, a record number of what are known in police parlance as “stop and frisks,” yielded 762 guns.

Of the reasons listed by the police for conducting the stops, one of those least commonly cited was the claim that the person fit the description of a suspect. The most common reason listed by the police was a category known as “furtive movements.”
New York Minorities More Likely to Be Frisked

Black motorists in Missouri are being stopped by police at an increasingly disproportionate rate compared with white and Hispanic motorists, according to a report released Tuesday by the attorney general.

Missouri's 10th annual traffic stop analysis shows black motorists were 70 percent more likely than white drivers -- and twice as likely as Hispanic motorists -- to be stopped by law enforcement officers in 2009.

The figures compare the racial breakdown of Missouri's driving-age population to the racial composition of drivers in more than 1.7 million traffic stops made by 642 law enforcement agencies.

The disparity for black drivers has risen nearly every year since 2001, when Missouri became the first state to publish a report examining the racial demographics of its traffic stops.

Attorney General Chris Koster said the report is cause for significant concern.

"These findings continue a disturbing trend for African-American drivers in Missouri," Koster wrote in statement released with the report.
Racial disparity growing in Mo. traffic stops

Clear cut evidence of an institutionalized problem. A situation not so easily dismissed as "isolated incidents". Unfortunately, for some their attitude is facts be damned. It's just more "whining" from the "race-bait coalition" to even raise the issue and state the obvious. While it certainly isn't surprising, it truly is astonishing in this day and age to see such deep-seated denial in action.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 16, 2010 at 12:41 PM. )
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Don't Make Phone Calls While Your Friend is Being Arrested

I particularly enjoy how the camera operator suddenly pulls out when the cop starts beating the crap out of the kid, only to zoom back in once he's been "subdued."
Yeah, the video operator was protecting the police. He should be fired and charged with tapering with evidence. I'm not joking.

And that cop needs to be fired and charged with assault. He's a public menace.
Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested.
If there are any true fiscal conservatives around, the city could probably save a lot of money by giving the cops something meaningful to do, given how much free time they have to waste on innocent passerbys.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2010, 09:46 PM
 
Mods, can we merge this thread with the one of the numerous gun control threads just to prove the failure of continuity in several of our members' positions? Perhaps one of the great threads on universal healthcare and the nationalization of health insurance?

Perhaps then, these same people who consistently spit on an entire class of hardworking and mostly altruistic people for the actions of a very few would see just how ridiculous they sound talking out of both sides of their mouths.


If cops are so prevalently abusive then imagine that mentality with your health care. Imagine that mentality when you try to build a house and you can't cut down the tree that would make it all possible.

If government run health care is such a good idea, how can you reconcile the difference between government run police forces and government run health care?


Ridiculous. And disgusting.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2010, 12:45 AM
 
But Heather Mac Donald, a research fellow at the Manhattan Institute who has spoken to police officials about the tactic, said there was no question it had an effect on crime. She said that great disparities existed in who committed crime in New York and that the police fought crime where it was highest, in mostly minority neighborhoods.

“Where are they supposed to go?” she asked.

Ms. Mac Donald echoed Mr. Browne, who said the police were confident the tactic was stopping crime before it occurred.

Mr. Browne took issue with the constitutional rights group’s conclusions about the numbers of arrests or gun seizures the street stops yield, saying, “762 guns can do a lot of damage.” He said taking guns from people in the street was different from accepting their surrender from “moms and grandmothers.”

And he laid out the logic of the stops: More police are sent to higher crime areas, where criminals and victims live; more suspicious activity is associated with that crime, so there are more opportunities for officers to observe suspicious behavior as a result.
Let me see if I have this right- so more cops are sent to higher crime areas where more minorities tend to live- presuming fewer cops are out patrolling the lilly-white suburbs looking for cats up a tree or runaway teens or whatever- so therefore............

....they happen to pull over more minorities in the process.

Sounds like -as always- racism can be the ONLY explanation. Also, all cops are white.

The fact that the greater number of minority stops doesn't result in a greater number of arrests, seems to indicate that these all-white police forces are so racist they don't bother to arrest the minorities they pull over and unfairly charge them with anything, they just enjoy harassing them. Or something like that. Let's get Jesse and Al on this pronto.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2010, 01:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Mods, can we merge this thread with the one of the numerous gun control threads just to prove the failure of continuity in several of our members' positions? Perhaps one of the great threads on universal healthcare and the nationalization of health insurance?

Perhaps then, these same people who consistently spit on an entire class of hardworking and mostly altruistic people for the actions of a very few would see just how ridiculous they sound talking out of both sides of their mouths.


If cops are so prevalently abusive then imagine that mentality with your health care. Imagine that mentality when you try to build a house and you can't cut down the tree that would make it all possible.

If government run health care is such a good idea, how can you reconcile the difference between government run police forces and government run health care?


Ridiculous. And disgusting.
Mods, can we merge this thread with the one of numerous illegal immigration threads just to prove the failure of continuity in several of our members' positions?

Like SB 1070 giving the cops the power to harass, beat up, and arrest US citizens and legal immigrants for looking like illegal immigrants.



snow-i, maybe you should go ahead and take the opportunity to criticize the government run military? If cops are so prevalently abusive then imagine that mentality with your military men and women. I mean, they have bigger guns and weapons than cops, and more opportunities to kill.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2010, 08:43 AM
 
I find the latest ploy of not allowing the cops to be videotaped while they do their jobs to be a bad sign. Do the political types know they hired losers as cops? Is it to protect the local county/town/city/state from massive lawsuits? The video tape maybe of use to either side if an incident gets to court. I don't get it. Something else has to be going on.
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2010, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I find the latest ploy of not allowing the cops to be videotaped while they do their jobs to be a bad sign. Do the political types know they hired losers as cops? Is it to protect the local county/town/city/state from massive lawsuits? The video tape maybe of use to either side if an incident gets to court. I don't get it. Something else has to be going on.
It's simple: bad cops are afraid to be held accountable.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Perhaps then, these same people who consistently spit on an entire class of hardworking and mostly altruistic people for the actions of a very few would see just how ridiculous they sound talking out of both sides of their mouths.
No one is spitting on cops. We just want bad cops held accountable, no more and no less.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2010, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
It's simple: bad cops are afraid to be held accountable.
I think there is more to it. The laws enacted against being able to video the cops are done by the local political hacks. Look how many are involved to take away your right to see and record life on the streets and in the public domain.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2010, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Let me see if I have this right- so more cops are sent to higher crime areas where more minorities tend to live- presuming fewer cops are out patrolling the lilly-white suburbs looking for cats up a tree or runaway teens or whatever- so therefore............

....they happen to pull over more minorities in the process.
Well how about we continue in the article ...

John A. Eterno, a former city police captain who worked to computerize the department’s stop-and-frisk data before he retired in 2004, said the tactic could be effective in pushing down crime. But Dr. Eterno, now an associate dean of criminal justice at Molloy College, said retired commanders had spoken of the pressures to reflect their use of stop and frisk in CompStat, the department’s computerized crime-tracking system.

“My take is that this has become more like a ‘throw a wide net and see what you can find’ kind of thing,” he said. “I don’t see it as targeted enforcement, especially when you see numbers that we are talking about.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights also studied poststop outcomes.

It found that officers frisked more people in 2009 than a year earlier but that the rate of frisks for blacks and Latinos was much higher than it was for whites. It found that the police used force in 24 percent of stops — drawing a weapon, say, or throwing people to the ground. The police used force in 19 percent of the stops involving whites but in 27 percent of stops against Latinos and in 25 percent of those involving blacks.

Mr. Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights said the disparities in the use of force, compared with the numbers of arrests and summonses and of weapons and contraband seized, was something that “the police have not really explained to the public.”
And as for the 762 guns taken off the streets ....

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which got the data on stop and frisks after it first sued the city over the issue after the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo, said its analysis of the 2009 data showed again what it argued was the racially driven use of the tactic against minorities and its relatively modest achievements in fighting crime.

The center, a nonprofit civil and human rights organization financed by donors and foundations, and other critics of the tactic like to note that a gun buyback program conducted by the police at several Bronx churches one day in January yielded 1,186 guns.
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Sounds like -as always- racism can be the ONLY explanation. Also, all cops are white.
No one said all the cops were white. The tread topic is "Abusive Police". My post simply listed examples of police abuse in the form of racial profiling ... which is predicated on the ethnicity of the people being stopped disproportionately ... not that of those doing the stopping. But as usual, you choose to argue a point that's not in dispute.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
The fact that the greater number of minority stops doesn't result in a greater number of arrests, seems to indicate that these all-white police forces are so racist they don't bother to arrest the minorities they pull over and unfairly charge them with anything, they just enjoy harassing them. Or something like that. Let's get Jesse and Al on this pronto.
"All-white police forces"? Whatever.

Let's see what this suggests ....

According to the analysis of the 2009 raw data by the Center for Constitutional Rights, nearly 490,000 blacks and Latinos were stopped by the police on the streets last year, compared with 53,000 whites.

But once stopped, the arrest rates were virtually the same. Whites were arrested in slightly more than 6 percent of the stops, blacks in slightly fewer than 6 percent. About 1.7 percent of whites who were stopped were found to have a weapon, while 1.1 percent of blacks were found with one.

Given that, some experts who have studied stop-and-frisk data over the last several years say that what prompts an officer’s suspicion for a stop, and the discretion used, are important.

In examining the stated reasons for the stops, as checked off by police officers on department forms, the center found that about 15 percent of the stops last year cited “fits a relevant description.” ("black, male, medium build" .... aka "they all look alike") Officers can check off more than one reason, but in nearly half the stops, the category called “furtive movements” (aka "walking while black") was cited. Nearly 30 percent of stops cited a category called “casing a victim or location” (aka "standing while black"); nearly 19 percent cited a catchall category of “other.”

These stats suggest that racial disparities in who gets stopped has more to do with officer bias and discretion than with crime rates, which is what the Police Department argues,” said Darius Charney, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights.
So let's apply a little bit of common sense to this. Stop and frisk is generally targeted at illegal gun and/or drug possession. Arrests rates are virtually identical for blacks and whites. In facts, according to the data ... blacks were less likely to have an illegal gun than whites. But the police choose to stop them at 9 times the rate of whites. Now mathematically speaking, if illegal gun and drug possession was so rampant in minority neighborhoods .... the arrest rate would reflect that! Blacks and Latinos would be four or five times as likely .... maybe three times as likely .... or even just twice as likely to have an illegal weapon or drugs on their person than whites. But that's not the case as reflected in the arrest rates ... which indicates that the police are choosing to look for illegal guns and drugs in certain neighborhoods and on certain people way more than they do others. The hard data clearly shows that the hit rate doesn't justify the extra scrutiny that minorities in NYC are receiving by the police. Period.

OAW

PS: And as for your "presuming fewer cops are out patrolling the lilly-white suburbs looking for cats up a tree or runaway teens or whatever" comment .... well we all know that illegal drug use and what not is virtually non-existent out there.
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 17, 2010 at 07:08 PM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2010, 08:31 PM
 
Oaw's source....second paragraph of their mission statement. Not exactly unbiased review.

"CCR uses litigation proactively to advance the law in a positive direction, to empower poor communities and communities of color..."

Mission and History | Center for Constitutional Rights
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2010, 08:52 PM
 
Attack the source!
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2010, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No one said all the cops were white. The tread topic is "Abusive Police".
(As usual) you're the one who brought race into this.

My post simply listed examples of police abuse in the form of racial profiling ... which is predicated on the ethnicity of the people being stopped disproportionately ... not that of those doing the stopping. But as usual, you choose to argue a point that's not in dispute.
(As usual) you've merely made an assertion that these were examples of racial profiling and police abuse, not proven it. The facts are:

"The 169,403 stops made by police increased the total number of stops over the first half of this year to 319,156, which is up about 2% the year-earlier period. The NYPD generated a record number of "Stop and Frisk Reports" in the 2009 first half.

Blacks, who make up about 27% of the city's population but 66% of the violent crime suspects, were the subjects of 54% of the stops in the latest second quarter, according to the data.

Hispanics, who were listed as suspects in 27% of violent crimes and also make up about 27% of the population, made up 34% of the stops.

Whites, who were suspects in 5% of the crimes and make up about 45% of the population, made up 9% of those stopped."

So basically, blacks were actually targeted for stop and frisks in a lower percentage than the percentage of violent crime suspects. Hispanics were targeted more often than the percentage, but then, so where whites.

So now does racial profiling officially include white people too?


"All-white police forces"? Whatever.
If you're going to claim cops have racist motivations for doing their jobs, then the burden is on YOU to show the racial makeup of the officers involved. Otherwise, why don't you explain exactly what racist incentive black cops would have to unfairly target black suspects, or hispanic cops to target hispanic suspects? OF COURSE you want to try and brush aside the actual racial makeup of the police forces you're accusing (at last check, probably as diverse as any other segment of the population) because it doesn't fit in with your "the cops are just out to get black people just because they're black!" template.

So let's apply a little bit of common sense to this.
...still waiting!

Stop and frisk is generally targeted at illegal gun and/or drug possession.
Actually, if you bother to talk to most any cop, it's done whenever police encounter people like suspected gang members, or drug addicts/dealers, and is intended to keep the suspect, the officers, and bystanders safe. IE: you're a cop on patrol and you come across a group of people you think might be gang-bangers or drug dealers (I know, I know, in P.C. fantasyland that's just as likely to happen out in Middle Suburbia as it is in the depths of the inner city, but see, I'm talking about IN REALITY...) A cop can't magically know who's carrying a gun or has drugs- so you need to line people up and frisk them. Anyone who's ever watched two seconds worth of 'Cops' knows that cops do this, and why- because people LIE and virtually NEVER tell the truth if they actually are carrying anything illegal or dangerous.

OF COURSE everyone isn't going to be packing either drugs or guns, so OF COURSE in an area of high-crime you're probably going to get a higher ratio of not finding anything. In areas where crime isn't more common and right out in the open on random street corners (and again, you have to be living in a freakin' bubble to not know there ARE sections of major cities like that, and NO, they aren't generally the more upscale areas) then you're probably going to be more likely to frisk previously identified suspects. (IE: I'd wager a lot fewer beat cops are cruising around Beverly Hills having to frisk street corner drug dealers and gang-banging Yentas, vs. beat cops patrolling Compton. Besides, the drug dealers in BH are too busy driving their Ferraris over to Obama fund raisers in Hancock Park.)


Arrests rates are virtually identical for blacks and whites. In facts, according to the data ... blacks were less likely to have an illegal gun than whites. But the police choose to stop them at 9 times the rate of whites.
And yet the whites were stopped at nearly twice their percentage of violent crimes, and blacks at 10% less.

Now mathematically speaking, if illegal gun and drug possession was so rampant in minority neighborhoods .... the arrest rate would reflect that!
Now mathematically speaking, 27% of the population being 66% of violent crime suspects is the REAL problem you ought to focus on, rather than the usual bullshit. That figure is just downright SHAMEFUL.

The hard data clearly shows that the hit rate doesn't justify the extra scrutiny that minorities in NYC are receiving by the police. Period.
And actually the data clearly shows that if the cops went strictly by the percentages of suspects, stop and frisks among blacks would go UP, and down among whites and Hispanics.

Here's an idea- rather than trying to make cops doing their jobs into a racial issue (AS USUAL with you) we just let them do their freakin' jobs. Most of them are honest hard working people tasked with the absolute shittiest and dangerous job in society. We don't need racial quotas in arrests or stop and frisks or anything else- if a cop who's out on the streets daily identifies people he needs to stop and frisk, you'll have to excuse me, I trust the cop's real-world experience to know what's what infinitely more than I trust OAW: Armchair Police Chief.


PS: And as for your "presuming fewer cops are out patrolling the lilly-white suburbs looking for cats up a tree or runaway teens or whatever" comment .... well we all know that illegal drug use and what not is virtually non-existent out there.
You're right, cops should be out in lilly-white suburbia doing stop and frisks of skateboarding teenagers. Actually, I'm all for it. I've no doubt the results would probably be pretty interesting.

But once again, back in reality- there's just not as much visible or suspected crime going on out in the lilly-white burbs as the inner cities. I know it kicks that P.C. disease into overdrive when someone actually comes out and states reality, but so be it. We all know it. Are there drugs in the suburbs? OF COURSE. Rampant in fact. Are there street gangs with names like "The Shady Lane Cul-de-sac Lil' Rascals"? Probably.

But is crime as outwardly visible as in poorer areas? No. So obviously you get fewer police patrols and therefore fewer police encounters. It's called the difference between a SAFE neighborhood and a 'shitty' one. Anyone with any *actual* common sense knows this, and just acknowledges it as an unfortunate fact of life that the shittier neighborhoods often have more minorities. Guess what- the cops have probably noticed this phenomenon too- and unlike Armchair Police Chiefs- actually have to deal with it in reality.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2010, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
(As usual) you're the one who brought race into this.
Uhhh ... that actually not true. The first time was here. Furthermore, I was responding to your erroneous statement ...

"Sounds like -as always- racism can be the ONLY explanation. Also, all cops are white."

I never said all the cops were white. What this statement does is show that you apparently think racial profiling can ONLY occur when the race of the cop and the person being stopped are different. While that may be typical, that is certainly not always the case.

And at the end of the day .... the thread is about "Abusive Police". Racial profiling is, in fact, an abuse of power. Policing should be done evenhandedly and fairly. But that's a concept that might be too difficult for you to comprehend.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
(As usual) you've merely made an assertion that these were examples of racial profiling and police abuse, not proven it. The facts are:

"The 169,403 stops made by police increased the total number of stops over the first half of this year to 319,156, which is up about 2% the year-earlier period. The NYPD generated a record number of "Stop and Frisk Reports" in the 2009 first half.

Blacks, who make up about 27% of the city's population but 66% of the violent crime suspects, were the subjects of 54% of the stops in the latest second quarter, according to the data.

Hispanics, who were listed as suspects in 27% of violent crimes and also make up about 27% of the population, made up 34% of the stops.

Whites, who were suspects in 5% of the crimes and make up about 45% of the population, made up 9% of those stopped."

So basically, blacks were actually targeted for stop and frisks in a lower percentage than the percentage of violent crime suspects. Hispanics were targeted more often than the percentage, but then, so where whites.

So now does racial profiling officially include white people too?
This is a prime example of why I say that you really aren't on my level when it comes to this debate thing. But you do try ... bless your heart!

The reason why your argument here is uh, hmmm how shall I put it charitably? .... less than compelling is because your premise is fundamentally flawed. In order for that to be a legitimate explanation for the dramatically higher rates that Blacks and Latinos are subjected to "stop and frisk" .... then the REASON for the "stop and frisk" would have to be related to an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION of a "violent crime". This bears repeating since it didn't register with you the last time:

In examining the stated reasons for the stops, as checked off by police officers on department forms, the center found that about 15 percent of the stops last year cited “fits a relevant description.” ("black, male, medium build" .... aka "they all look alike") Officers can check off more than one reason, but in nearly half the stops, the category called “furtive movements” (aka "walking while black") was cited. Nearly 30 percent of stops cited a category called “casing a victim or location” (aka "standing while black"); nearly 19 percent cited a catchall category of “other.”
So by the NYPD's own documentation ... AT MOST 15% of the stops were due to an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION of a reported crime where the person stopped "fits a relevant description". And I say "at most" because we don't know what the "description" was even about. It could have been for anything ... not necessarily a "violent crime".

Jeez ... just look at the REASONS that the cops themselves give for these stops! Even Steve Wonder can see that the overwhelming majority of them are NOT related to an actual investigation of a reported "violent crime". They are stopping people practically AT RANDOM in certain neighborhoods looking for guns and drugs ... and coming up short. They are for the most part stopping people to see what they might be up to ... NOT to investigate the person to see if they actually did a reported crime.

Oh and by the way ....

Black motorists in Missouri are being stopped by police at an increasingly disproportionate rate compared with white and Hispanic motorists, according to a report released Tuesday by the attorney general.

Missouri's 10th annual traffic stop analysis shows black motorists were 70 percent more likely than white drivers -- and twice as likely as Hispanic motorists -- to be stopped by law enforcement officers in 2009.

The figures compare the racial breakdown of Missouri's driving-age population to the racial composition of drivers in more than 1.7 million traffic stops made by 642 law enforcement agencies.

The disparity for black drivers has risen nearly every year since 2001, when Missouri became the first state to publish a report examining the racial demographics of its traffic stops.

Attorney General Chris Koster said the report is cause for significant concern.

"These findings continue a disturbing trend for African-American drivers in Missouri," Koster wrote in statement released with the report.
What the matter? Can't come up with some BS excuse for that one too?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 18, 2010 at 02:58 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2010, 03:00 PM
 
The city of Atlanta will pay $4.9 million to the family of Kathryn Johnston, a 92-year-old woman killed in a botched November 2006 drug raid, Mayor Kasim Reed's office announced Monday. Johnston was shot to death by narcotics officers conducting a "no-knock" warrant. Investigators later determined the raid was based on falsified paperwork stating that illegal drugs were present in the home.

The incident prompted a major overhaul of the Atlanta police drug unit, and three former police officers were sentenced to prison terms for a cover-up that ensued.
Family of woman killed in botched drug raid to receive $4.9 million - CNN.com

OAW
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2010, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
This is a prime example of why I say that you really aren't on my level when it comes to this debate thing. But you do try ... bless your heart!
This is a prime example of your complete lack of logic, but then, I've come to realize I can't expect logic from you.

The reason why your argument here is uh, hmmm how shall I put it charitably? .... less than compelling is because your premise is fundamentally flawed. In order for that to be a legitimate explanation for the dramatically higher rates that Blacks and Latinos are subjected to "stop and frisk" .... then the REASON for the "stop and frisk" would have to be related to an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION of a "violent crime".
Classic OAW. Make an allegation, be proven wrong, then duck and cover.

Based on the actual figures, Latinos can claim to be subjected to higher rates of stop and frisks, as can whites by nearly DOUBLE their percentage of being crime suspects, but blacks actually CAN'T.

What you've done here is your classic tactic-leave out a few key facts- (IE: such as the ones the WSJ reported) then act like other key facts don't also apply to other races, therefore, only blacks are being targeted, therefore, voila, RACISM!

Since your phony goalpost is that stop and frisks aren't done in proportion to a member of a racial group "fitting a relevant description" IE: being crime suspects (and really, there's nowhere written in stone that says they have to be, just as I outlined) then what you're leaving out is that there's no way whites, who are only suspect in 5% of crimes, could possibly be stopped and frisked at a rate nearly double that if a large percentage of the stop and frisks ALSO WEREN'T RELATED TO THOSE BEING STOPPED ALREADY BEING CRIME SUSPECTS!

See how that works? Of course you don't. You're dense.

You've proven absolutely NO racial profiling. The whole study- once ALL the facts are actually attached- merely shows that one racial group is suspect in a majority of the crimes (a fact you simply CAN'T address because you NEVER address any real issue, especially not one as shameful as that) and that cops use stop and frisks in disproportion to current crime suspects ACROSS ALL RACIAL GROUPS, not just blacks!

In fact, as the facts show, whites are stopped and frisked at the highest rate of all vs. "fitting a current discription"- if you could do simple math, you'd know it's impossible for 9% of whites stopped to all be current crime suspects if only 5% of whites are crime suspects!

Now of course you'll try and change the goal post and say, "why aren't more whites crime suspects?!!! Racism! Wahhh!" But you of course failed to realize that YOU set that up as the goal post with all of your "its a relevant description" blather -and your OBVIOUS attempt to make that into some racism term with all of your 'walking while black' nonsense added. (Now do your usual and deny that!)

How could 9% of whites stopped POSSIBLY "fit a relevant description" IE: be a previous crime suspect, if only 5% of whites are crime suspects?

Could it be, that, -as I said- in the REAL WORLD, police officers stop a hell of a lot more people OF ALL RACES on the spot than they stop ONLY previous suspects? No way! It has to be some grand racist conspiracy, and AS USUAL, you'll do everything you can to make it into one no matter how many facts and figures you have to leave out.

Quick, make something up OAW!

This bears repeating since it didn't register with you the last time:
Yeah, it bears repeating you making an ass out of yourself (AGAIN) making something about race that actually isn't, proving your obsession with race, and your actual WISH for more racism than actually exists so you have it to get worked up about. Sad and pathetic, as always.


So by the NYPD's own documentation ... AT MOST 15% of the stops were due to an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION of a reported crime where the person stopped "fits a relevant description". And I say "at most" because we don't know what the "description" was even about. It could have been for anything ... not necessarily a "violent crime".
Again- what you PURPOSEFULLY left out, is that figure isn't BASED ON RACE! It applies to ALL groups, as evidenced by the actually tally of crime suspects vs. stop and frisks based on race. It's of course why your biased source choose to leave that detail out- it doesn't fit the "yell racism!" template.

Jeez ... just look at the REASONS that the cops themselves give for these stops! Even Steve Wonder can see that the overwhelming majority of them are NOT related to an actual investigation of a reported "violent crime".
Again, this is merely your false goalpost. Cops don't just cruise a beat looking to investigate reported 'violent crime', and in high crime neighborhoods it's not all that hard for them to observe crimes in progress. You, in classic race-bait coalition fashion, even tried to float that a cop observing someone "casing a victim or location" somehow is only about the suspect being black!

How in the world is it you imagine cops ever develop leads and suspects in the first freakin' place? Kicking back in their armchairs like you?

They are stopping people practically AT RANDOM in certain neighborhoods looking for guns and drugs ... and coming up short. They are for the most part stopping people to see what they might be up to ... NOT to investigate the person to see if they actually did a reported crime.
Right- and once again, in the REAL WORLD, that's going to mean cops stop a lot more young males wandering around in dark alleys late at night wearing gang tattoos or selling dope on street corners than they are stopping old ladies crossing the street and people in business suits in broad daylight. In your P.C. insane world, that's racism. In the REAL WORLD, it's common sense.

Oh and by the way ....



What the matter? Can't come up with some BS excuse for that one too?

OAW
Oh and by the way, remember that shameful stat you're INCAPABLE OF ADDRESSING about blacks being 66% of violent crime suspects, despite only being 27% of the population?

Where are the relevant figures for Missouri? In what percentages of those stops are there legitimate reasons for the stops, not just a cop's random whim?

Once again, you've done your usual tactic of quoting a stat with NO CONTEXT what-so-ever, and then presented it as a racism example. Are a larger percentage of blacks in Missouri committing moving violations, driving vehicles with missing tail lights, etc. etc than are people of other races? I'm sure in your strange world, that's an unfair question to ask, because after all, it's not like anyone can ever point to blacks being 66% of crime suspects vs. being 27% of the population. It's sooooo unfair to ask if a bunch of punks might also put blacks as a group into an overly large percentage of road violations as well, because... well, because P.C. disease DEMANDS no one ever ask questions of the 'permanent victim class'.

Where are any FACTS about ANY of these stops? You know, FACTS- those pesky details that always seem to get in the way of your 'Just yell racism!" tactics?
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2010, 04:37 PM
 
No-knock warrants are evil, and all advocates of no-knock warrants are evil-doers. This is beyond dispute.

While it's great that three cops went to prison for the cover-up, the fact that no one went to prison for murdering a 92 year old woman is a goddamn disgrace.

In Canada, a man was recently found not guilty after killing a cop in self-defence during a no-knock raid. It was a great day for justice.
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2010, 06:11 PM
 
More Evil Cops Caught on Camera. They decide to beat the crap out of him because he began using his cell phone to document the event. Of course the cops had not cause to detain him, arrest him, or beat the crap outta him, and the charges were dropped. Aren't they always?

Good thing his dogs were little, or the cops would have shot them dead just for barking.
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2010, 06:26 PM
 
And another one: Cop tazes a car collision victim and arrests the witnesses. This article only gives the cop's side of the story, which is quite certainly a complete lie.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2010, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
This is a prime example of your complete lack of logic, but then, I've come to realize I can't expect logic from you.


Classic OAW. Make an allegation, be proven wrong, then duck and cover.
Proven wrong? My we are optimistic aren't we?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Based on the actual figures, Latinos can claim to be subjected to higher rates of stop and frisks, as can whites by nearly DOUBLE their percentage of being crime suspects, but blacks actually CAN'T.

What you've done here is your classic tactic-leave out a few key facts- (IE: such as the ones the WSJ reported) then act like other key facts don't also apply to other races, therefore, only blacks are being targeted, therefore, voila, RACISM!
A very interesting take on what I actually said and what the facts actually reflect. But I'll dismantle this foolishness shortly.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Since your phony goalpost is that stop and frisks aren't done in proportion to a member of a racial group "fitting a relevant description" IE: being crime suspects (and really, there's nowhere written in stone that says they have to be, just as I outlined) then what you're leaving out is that there's no way whites, who are only suspect in 5% of crimes, could possibly be stopped and frisked at a rate nearly double that if a large percentage of the stop and frisks ALSO WEREN'T RELATED TO THOSE BEING STOPPED ALREADY BEING CRIME SUSPECTS!
There's nothing "phony" about it. You are the one who brought up the "crime suspects" figure as a way to justify Blacks and Latinos being stopped at 9 times the rate of Whites. I just demonstrated how it was not applicable to the situation at hand. And that is because the NYPD themselves are telling you by their own documentation that "fitting a relevant description" (i.e. being a crime suspect) ... is the REASON for such stops in only 15% of the cases. Your initial argument basically boiled down to It's not racial profiling ... Blacks and Latinos represent a higher percentage of crime suspects so naturally they would be stopped and frisked more. But given the NYPD data it's quite evident that being a suspect was NOT the reason for the stop in 85% of the cases. So the question then becomes ... why would you cite an UTTERLY IRRELEVANT STATISTIC to try to justify such a disparity in stops?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
See how that works? Of course you don't. You're dense.
No I see how you work. And go ahead and call me "dense" if that makes you feel better. At least I know math. Quite unlike yourself as we shall see in a bit.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
You've proven absolutely NO racial profiling. The whole study- once ALL the facts are actually attached- merely shows that one racial group is suspect in a majority of the crimes (a fact you simply CAN'T address because you NEVER address any real issue, especially not one as shameful as that) and that cops use stop and frisks in disproportion to current crime suspects ACROSS ALL RACIAL GROUPS, not just blacks!

In fact, as the facts show, whites are stopped and frisked at the highest rate of all vs. "fitting a current discription"- if you could do simple math, you'd know it's impossible for 9% of whites stopped to all be current crime suspects if only 5% of whites are crime suspects!
Ok. So now that we've established Screw-up #1 for you was to use an utterly irrelevant statistic to try to justify Blacks and Latinos being stopped and frisked at 9 times the rate of whites (even though arrest rates afterwards are virtually identical) .... you then follow up with Screw-up #2 and use that very same irrelevant statistic to make a different argument which basically boils down to Well all racial groups are stopped in disproportion to their being current crime suspects ... so it's not racial profiling.

And you know what? On the observation you are right. Unfortunately, the conclusion you draw is erroneous. And this is because you seem to be either mathematically challenged or just plain deliberately obtuse on the issue. Again, the fact that whites are twice as likely to be stopped and frisked when compared to their percentage of violent crime suspects is IMMATERIAL since the overwhelming majority of such stops have nothing whatsoever to do with being a suspect!!! 85% of the stops are being done for OTHER REASONS!

This bears repeating .... 85% of the stops are being done for OTHER REASONS!

But since you insist let's analyze the stats that you are so enamored with in conjunction with the NYPDs own documentation ... and see if your "cops use stop and frisks in disproportion to current crime suspects ACROSS ALL RACIAL GROUPS, not just blacks!" statement is as "across the board" as you have implied:

Total Stop and Frisks: 170K
% of Stops where the REASON is "Crime Suspect" (i.e. "fits the description"): 15%
# of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks: 170K * 15% = 25.5K

% of Stop and Frisks - Black: 54%
% of Stop and Frisks - Latino: 34%
% of Stop and Frisks - White: 9%

% Violent Crime Suspects - Black: 66%
% Violent Crime Suspects - Latino: 27%
% Violent Crime Suspects - White: 5%

Total Stop and Frisks - Black: 54% x 170K = 91.8K
Total Stop and Frisks - Latino: 34% x 170K = 57.8K
Total Stop and Frisks - White: 9% * 170K = 15.3K

Ratio of Total Stop and Frisks - Black to # of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks: 91.8 K / 25.5K = 3.6
Ratio of Total Stop and Frisks - Latino to # of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks: 57.8K / 25.5K = 2.27
Ratio of Total Stop and Frisks - White to # of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks: 15.3K / 25.5K = .6

So again, you are correct in your observation that "cops use stop and frisks in disproportion to current crime suspects across all racial groups". But clearly the RATE of this "disproportion" (as compared to the actual number of "crime suspect" stop and frisks) is by no means even across all racial groups. In fact, the rate for blacks is 6 times higher than it is for whites! Yet the arrest rates are virtually identical.

And if that isn't enough, let's take it even further. Of the 25.5K "crime suspect" stop and frisks, let's break that down by % of Violent Crime Suspects to divvy up the pie. (Even though "crime" and "violent crime" are two different things let's roll with it anyway since you want to go there.) We can think of that as the "legitimate" stop and frisks:

# of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks - Black: 66% * 25.5K = 16,830
# of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks - Latino: 27% * 25.5K = 6,885
# of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks - White: 5% * 25.5K = 1,275

% of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks to Total Stop and Frisks - Black: 16,830 / 91.8K = 18.33% "legit"
% of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks to Total Stop and Frisks - Latino: 6,885 / 57.8K = 11.91% "legit"
% of "Crime Suspect" Stop and Frisks to Total Stop and Frisks - White: 1,275 / 15.3K = 8.33% "legit"

So given these numbers Whites are much less likely to be stopped and frisked for a "legitimate" reason (i.e. crime suspect) than Blacks or Latinos as you pointed out. But what happens when you look at the ACTUAL NUMBERS in light of stop and frisks for "illegitimate" or non-crime suspect reasons?

# of Non-Crime Suspect Stop and Frisks - Black: 91.8K - 16,830 = 74,970
# of Non-Crime Suspect Stop and Frisks - Latino: 57.8K - 6,885 = 50,915
# of Non-Crime Suspect Stop and Frisks - White: 91.8K - 16,830 = 14,025

So when you factor in who's actually getting stopped and frisked and why we see that Blacks are stopped and frisked 5.35 times as often as Whites for non-crime suspect reasons ... even though they are only 27% of the NYC population ... and the arrest rate afterwards is virtually identical. Latinos are stopped and frisked 3.63 times as often as Whites for non-crime suspect reasons ... even though they are also only 27% of the NYC population ... and the arrest rate afterwards is virtually identical. So I'll reiterate the point again which the numbers bear out .... Blacks and Latinos are waaaaaay more likely to be stopped and frisked than Whites for reasons other than being a crime suspect ... especially in light of their % of the population .... but interestingly enough, the extra scrutiny doesn't seem to be getting a higher ROI in terms of arrest rates.

Yet despite what basic mathematics and common sense ought to tell you ... your blatantly obvious denial seems to know no bounds.

Now let me come at it from a different angle to drive the point home. Suppose a business wanted to increase its revenues and decided to do a big marketing campaign. The Marketing department decides to do some targeted marketing towards African-Americans because it is under the impression that they are are more likely to purchase its products. The Marketing department then goes out and runs 5 times as many TV ads on shows with a predominantly black audience as they do on shows with a predominantly white audience towards this end. But after the marketing campaign is over and they crunch the numbers they find that Blacks were no more likely to purchase their products after seeing the ad than Whites were. They've just spent 5 times as much money and got no extra ROI. Do you really think that business would continue with such a "targeted marketing campaign"?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Again, this is merely your false goalpost. Cops don't just cruise a beat looking to investigate reported 'violent crime', and in high crime neighborhoods it's not all that hard for them to observe crimes in progress. You, in classic race-bait coalition fashion, even tried to float that a cop observing someone "casing a victim or location" somehow is only about the suspect being black!

How in the world is it you imagine cops ever develop leads and suspects in the first freakin' place? Kicking back in their armchairs like you?


Right- and once again, in the REAL WORLD, that's going to mean cops stop a lot more young males wandering around in dark alleys late at night wearing gang tattoos or selling dope on street corners than they are stopping old ladies crossing the street and people in business suits in broad daylight. In your P.C. insane world, that's racism. In the REAL WORLD, it's common sense.
And again ... the arrest rates for Blacks and Latinos is virtually identical to those of Whites. So apparently the police are doing a lot more than going after "gang" and "dope selling" activity? I mean ... how else could their ROI be the same?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Oh and by the way, remember that shameful stat you're INCAPABLE OF ADDRESSING about blacks being 66% of violent crime suspects, despite only being 27% of the population?
What's there for me to address? It's not relevant to my post. And even if you factor that in (as I did above) the numbers STILL show that Blacks and Latinos are targeted disproportionately by the police to be stopped and frisked. I'll debate politics with you till the cows come home. What I will NOT debate with you is math.

But since you insist, I'll tie it in to my overall point. Blacks comprise 66% of all violent crime suspects in NYC even though they are 27% of the population. Ok. The violent crime rate is pretty freaking high in certain segments of the Black community. Tell me something we don't already know. The thing that you ... and apparently the NYPD ... don't seem to appreciate is that X% of violent crime suspects belong to a certain racial group is NOT the same thing as X% of a racial group commit violent crime. And it's when people start confusing the two that things like racial profiling take place. They start making assumptions that because X% of the criminals they encounter are Black or Latino then stopping and frisking Black and Latino people in general at much higher rates makes some sort of sense, Hell most meth heads are White ... but I have sense enough to realize that the vast majority of whites aren't meth-heads! 58% of non-lethal violent crime offenders were white in 2008 ... but again, the vast majority of whites don't commit violent crime. And you all wouldn't appreciate it if you were being stopped and frisked left and right because of it. Similarly, blacks made up 36% of the lethal violent crime offenders in 2008 .... but there were a grand total of 16,277 such crimes committed. Nationally. Across the entire country. So of the 30+ million Black people in the country 5,859 of them killed somebody in 2008. So when you put it in perspective then it's quite clear that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Blacks are not involved in violent crime any way you slice it.

So your point is what exactly?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Where are the relevant figures for Missouri? In what percentages of those stops are there legitimate reasons for the stops, not just a cop's random whim?

Once again, you've done your usual tactic of quoting a stat with NO CONTEXT what-so-ever, and then presented it as a racism example. Are a larger percentage of blacks in Missouri committing moving violations, driving vehicles with missing tail lights, etc. etc than are people of other races? I'm sure in your strange world, that's an unfair question to ask, because after all, it's not like anyone can ever point to blacks being 66% of crime suspects vs. being 27% of the population. It's sooooo unfair to ask if a bunch of punks might also put blacks as a group into an overly large percentage of road violations as well, because... well, because P.C. disease DEMANDS no one ever ask questions of the 'permanent victim class'.

Where are any FACTS about ANY of these stops? You know, FACTS- those pesky details that always seem to get in the way of your 'Just yell racism!" tactics?
Oh please Crash! We already had this conversation. Or actually I made the point to you and you conveniently failed to address the issue here.

But fine .... since you wish to challenge me on it now here are the relevant statistics.

And as for your "bunch of punks" theory I'll just reiterate what the stats show ....

Originally Posted by OAW
Bottom line for traffic stops in Missouri?

African-Americans are 67% more likely than whites to be stopped ... 67% more likely than whites to be searched ... 23% less likely than whites to have contraband on them ... and 67% more likely than whites to be arrested.

Hispanics are just as likely as white to be stopped (though they are only 2% of the population) ... twice as likely as whites to be searched ... 51% less likely than whites to have contraband on them ... and 96% more likely than whites to be arrested.

The reality is this type of sh*t happens all over the US. Racial profiling is already occurring. Has been for years. And in a state like Arizona where Hispanics make up approximately 30% of the population they are undoubtedly feeling the brunt of it compared to African-Americans who only make up 4% of the population.

And now they want to give the police the power to demand proof of citizenship on top of this? How are law-abiding Hispanic citizens in Arizona NOT going to get hassled by this?
Tail lights? Tail lights??!!! GTFOOH!

I'm going to have to ask you to stop the madness. Seriously. But if you insist, please ... go ahead and twist and turn and try to come up with a justifiable and probable reason for such disparities. And do try to utilize the law of averages and simple freaking common sense. This ought to be real amusing.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 19, 2010 at 07:37 PM. )
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2010, 03:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
This bears repeating .... 85% of the stops are being done for OTHER REASONS!
I've already covered this- you haven't proven that any of those OTHER REASONS are not-legitimate, nor based on race.

All you've done was take every OTHER REASON and turn it into a phony racial issue.

For example, your claim is that a police officer observing a suspect casing a victim or location= "walking while black". That's just more of your typical race-bait nonsense. A 'furtive movement' is what appears to an officer as an attempt to conceal or draw a weapon, hide illegal activity, or attempt to flee from an officer. You cast it as 'walking while black'.

Gee, how convenient that you've taken over half the reasons for stops, and tried to cast them as racist.

So it was YOU bitching about the "fits a relevant description" category not being most used:
"AT MOST 15% of the stops were due to an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION of a reported crime where the person stopped "fits a relevant description"


All you've done is simply tried to dismiss all the other reasons for stop and frisk, so you can pretend only 15% are legitimate. You've done nothing but (as usual) float unfounded allegations and then used to that to dismiss facts that disprove your racial profiling claim.

So again, you are correct in your observation that "cops use stop and frisks in disproportion to current crime suspects across all racial groups".
Exactly.

But clearly the RATE of this "disproportion" (as compared to the actual number of "crime suspect" stop and frisks) is by no means even across all racial groups. In fact, the rate for blacks is 6 times higher than it is for whites! Yet the arrest rates are virtually identical.
Here you go again making 'crime suspect' the only "legitimate" reason for stop and frisks. It ISN'T, nor is the main reason for them.

can think of that as the "legitimate" stop and frisks:
This is EXACTLY the problem with your 'argument' it's NOT the "legitimate" stop and frisk reason, it's merely ONE reason for stop and frisks. Again, your trying to pretend that all the other reasons given are 'racist' isn't actually a FACT, it's just something you made up. So all your blather here ONCE AGAIN about stop and frisks based on being crime suspects is meaningless to the actual real reasons for them.

So I'll reiterate the point again which the numbers bear out .... Blacks and Latinos are waaaaaay more likely to be stopped and frisked than Whites for reasons other than being a crime suspect ... especially in light of their % of the population .... but interestingly enough, the extra scrutiny doesn't seem to be getting a higher ROI in terms of arrest rates.
And again, you haven't proven that blacks and latinos aren't waaaaaaay more likely to have run-ins with police, when police are waaaaay more likely to be patrolling the neighborhoods they live in in force. This isn't 'racial profiling' it's a FACT OF LIFE. The real way to change it would be for more people to actually ADDRESS IT, then FIX it, not try and shuffle it off and blame it on 'da man' being unfair.
Now let me come at it from a different angle to drive the point home. Suppose a business wanted to increase its revenues and decided to do a big marketing campaign. The Marketing department decides to do some targeted marketing towards African-Americans because it is under the impression that they are are more likely to purchase its products. The Marketing department then goes out and runs 5 times as many TV ads on shows with a predominantly black audience as they do on shows with a predominantly white audience towards this end. But after the marketing campaign is over and they crunch the numbers they find that Blacks were no more likely to purchase their products after seeing the ad than Whites were. They've just spent 5 times as much money and got no extra ROI. Do you really think that business would continue with such a "targeted marketing campaign"?
It's not a good analogy, because the outcome of cops out patrolling neighborhoods isn't ONLY in producing arrests. The real outcome is in keeping neighborhoods safer, and crime rates down.

Now why on earth would police departments spend an inordinate amount of time out in force in neighborhoods that are ALREADY SAFE? Why would people in those neighborhoods expect to encounter police as often as people in more crime-ridden neighborhoods. The higher crime neighborhoods are going to have more police presence, and therefore more run ins with cops. How obvious is that? In the process, obviously there are more stop and frisks.

Clearly most of these aren't done in order to arrest people- you seem to have attached that as a goal, when it isn't. I'd wager many of us here have seen cops performing stop and frisks- lining a bunch of ratty looking teens up along a wall and patting them down. Here in LA (and I'm sure NYC as well, and most major cities) you'd practically have to be blind not to have witnessed it a few times during your commute. In most cases, if they've got eight or nine people lined up, do you really think it's realistic that all of them are going to be carrying guns or drugs, and all of them are going to be arrested? I wouldn't think so. But the cops don't magically know who does and who doesn't- so they all get the pat down.

And the fact is, this sort of thing is going to happen more often in a poorer neighborhood where many residents are minorities, than it is out in the lilly white burbs. You can keep knee-jerking to that fact, but it's obvious to most anyone. It's not a product of 'racial profiling' it's simply- there's MORE CRIME and potential crime in the shittier neighborhoods!



And again ... the arrest rates for Blacks and Latinos is virtually identical to those of Whites. So apparently the police are doing a lot more than going after "gang" and "dope selling" activity? I mean ... how else could their ROI be the same?
If the police are so dishonest, and such racists, then why aren't they arresting more blacks and hispanics on false charges?

Cops are more likely to be frisking blacks and hispanics, because they are more likely to be encountering them in the neighborhoods they have to patrol the most. That blacks aren't any more likely than whites to be arrested actually strengthens the case against racial profiling. If cops were so eager to unfairly 'profile' blacks, why just for stops? Why not for false arrests as well? The arrest rates show clearly that cops are not eager to fill the prisons with falsely accused minorities or else they'd be doing so.

The big question for you: (which of course I know I won't get a straight answer for) what exactly would be the POINT of all this racial profiling (which according to you is stopping people for unlawful reasons) if you're not arresting people for unlawful reasons?

Police also do 'stop and question' where they ask people what they know about crimes. Now, would it be logical that they'd arrest just about everyone they question? Clearly, making arrests AREN'T the main reason for that activity.

This whole 'non-issue' is you stringing things together that actually have no real correlation to each other, creating a strawman, then knocking it down and yelling racism.




What's there for me to address? It's not relevant to my post.
OF COURSE you can't address it- it's a REAL issue, showcasing a REAL problem that rotten attitudes like yours have helped to create in the first place. It's completely a problem of bad attitudes more than it is any of the scapegoated reasons you've tried to place on it. Sadly, large portions of certain minority communities are taught by people with a backward mindset like yours that the police (and all of society for that matter) are out to get them. That if a cop stops you, it's okay to yell and scream obscenities, call the cop a racist just for stopping you. Beyond that, it's okay not to bat an eyelash or have any freakin' shame when your community is responsible for committing 66% of the violent crime in a city. OF COURSE you can't address that issue- it'd mean taking a huge introspective look into the REAL problem, and that's something you NEVER do. Everything is always whitey's fault, Republicans, the cops, etc. etc. but never anything to do with your own backward mindset.


The thing that you ... and apparently the NYPD ... don't seem to appreciate is that X% of violent crime suspects belong to a certain racial group is NOT the same thing as X% of a racial group commit violent crime.
No one said that. Again, that's just you once again making something up, projecting it onto everyone else, then running with it.




But fine .... since you wish to challenge me on it now here are the relevant statistics.
Right on the first page:

Missouri Revised Statutes specifies that every time a peace officer stops a driver for violating a motor vehicle statute or ordinance, that officer must report certain driver information, including the driver's race, to his or her department.
Did you catch that? It's right on page1, first paragraph. The stops involve VIOLATING A MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTE OR ORDINANCE.

It's on YOU to prove that the stops are not legitimate, and that blacks aren't violating an inordinate number of vehicle statutes in proportion to race. Now why, given the fact that it's clear they are for other crime stats, wouldn't it be a fair assumption that could be the case with motor vehicle statutes as well?

Oh wait, I know-- POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and the fact that your knee just hit your chin!

Why the hell wouldn't driving with missing tail lights and such be a reason a police officer pulls you over? So I guess the reasons have to be more sinister than that or something?

By the way, your source also summarizes:

Statistical disproportion does not prove that law enforcement officers are making vehicle stops based on the perceived race or ethnicity of the driver.
So once again, you'll actually have to come up with some FACTS that prove this to be the case. We know you're real big on unfounded allegations and turning everything into the usual "walking while black the man is out to get me!" blather, but you're really lacking in FACTS to ever back any of it up.

Anyway, why don't you just come right out and say what you really want: racial quotas for police officers performing stops. "They can't stop but this many blacks, this many whites, this many hispanics!"

Of course, the makeup of neighborhoods, the REALITY of actual situations- all that be damned. Rather than do their jobs, cops should have to cow-tow to your P.C. sensitivities or else be branded racists and run off the force. As with so many of these issues- the laws of the land be damned. It's what the race-baiters demand that's what everything should revolve around.
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Aug 20, 2010 at 03:51 AM. )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2010, 03:45 PM
 
Speaking of tail lights.

Minorities here in LA keep getting pulled over the 'modified' tail lights, even if it's factory tail lights.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2010, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Speaking of tail lights.

Minorities here in LA keep getting pulled over the 'modified' tail lights, even if it's factory tail lights.
Exactly.

Minorities get pulled over if they are riding too deep. 4 black guys in business suits in one car? Chances are you will get pulled over in certain areas. 4 guys in baggy jeans and t-shirts? Count on it.

Minorities get pulled over if they are riding through certain wealthy, predominantly white neighborhoods.

A St. Louis County police department has been accused of racial profiling during traffic stops.

On Tuesday, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster revealed that a black driver is 17-hundred times more likely to be pulled over in the City of Ladue than a white driver.

Ladue Chief of Police Rich Wooten says those numbers are only high because most citations are given on Interstate 64/40 where people from across the county drive, not just residents of Ladue.

Statewide, black drivers are 70 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers, according to the report.
Minorities get pulled over because cops want to check and see if the passengers have outstanding warrants.

There are all kinds of reasons why minorities are targeted at a much higher rate than white drivers. The fundamental point here is that Crash's denial runs so deep that the law of averages and simple common sense is obviously escaping him. He'd rather try to convince himself that the more probable explanation is that black drivers really are 1700 times more likely to be speeding (as compared to white drivers) through the 2-3 mile stretch of highway that passes through a wealthy white suburb .... than the alternative explanation of cops pulling black drivers over and seeing what they are up to because they don't think they "belong" out in that area.

I'm of the opinion that for most people of good will ... regardless of one's ethnicity ... that simply strains credulity to the point of being borderline irrational.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2010, 07:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I've already covered this- you haven't proven that any of those OTHER REASONS are not-legitimate, nor based on race.

All you've done was take every OTHER REASON and turn it into a phony racial issue.

blah blah blah
Well first of all I'm glad you've shown the good sense to not try to debate the math with me any further. Perhaps there's hope for you yet. Having said that, I think a recap of this discussion is in order because you seem to be having a case of convenient amnesia.

Originally I posted that Blacks and Latinos are 9 times more likely than Whites to be stopped and frisked in NYC but no more likely to be arrested.

And your initial argument was essentially that this was due to cops being out in force in higher (certain kinds of) crime areas where minorities happened to live rather than because they were targeting people because they were minority. Which BTW was about the most intelligent thing you've said on the topic thus far.

To that I pointed out the assessment of a former NYC police captain .....

But Dr. Eterno, now an associate dean of criminal justice at Molloy College, said retired commanders had spoken of the pressures to reflect their use of stop and frisk in CompStat, the department’s computerized crime-tracking system.

“My take is that this has become more like a ‘throw a wide net and see what you can find’ kind of thing,” he said. “I don’t see it as targeted enforcement, especially when you see numbers that we are talking about.”
..... which counters your initial argument that this disparity was a reflection of the police targeting criminal activity in high crime areas. I then make the pretty obvious point that stop and frisk is generally targeted at illegal weapons and/or drug possession. I mean ... they certainly aren't frisking you to see if you have your wallet on you! And then I made the observation that if the arrest rates as a result of such searches are identical with whites who live in the "lilly white suburbs" as you put it ... then the extra scrutiny that is taking place of minorities who live in the "higher crime" neighborhoods doesn't seem justified. Now I want you to take a deep breath and try to follow me here for a moment while I once again try to get the point to register with you ....

If the police were targeting actual criminal activity ... as opposed to "throwing a wide net to see what they can find" in predominantly minority areas that happened to have a higher (certain kind of) crime rate .... then the arrest rate would reflect that. When they stopped and frisked people engaged in actual criminal activity ... or even people that they reasonably suspected were engaged in actual criminal activity ... they'd be more likely to find the contraband that they are searching for. Hell they'd be more likely to catch a guy slipping with an outstanding arrest warrant. But again ... the arrest rate doesn't reflect that. It's no higher than if they were stopping and frisking "little old ladies" in the suburbs as you put it. So is that racial profiling? A lot of people seem to think so. But you object and refer to them as the "race bait coalition". Ok fine. So if it was called neighborhood profiling would that be more "palatable" to you? So let's say that the police are targeting the people who live in certain neighborhoods that happen to have a higher crime rate ... as opposed to targeting the people who are engaged in actual criminal activity? At the end of the day that is still PROFILING!

But anyway ... let's continue. It is in response to this point that you shifted to your different argument and started quoting your source ...

Blacks, who make up about 27% of the city's population but 66% of the violent crime suspects, were the subjects of 54% of the stops in the latest second quarter, according to the data.

...

Whites, who were suspects in 5% of the crimes and make up about 45% of the population, made up 9% of those stopped.
You go on to say So now does racial profiling officially include white people too?

Emphasis yours. So it's at that point that you tried to imply that a) it was justified that blacks were subject to higher scrutiny due to their being disproportionately suspects in violent crime, and b) tried to outright argue that the situation wasn't "racial profiling" because whites were stopped at twice the rate of their being suspects in violent crime.

So here we have PROOF that the first person to try to factor "violent crime" into the discussion was YOU! To which I then responded ... In order for that to be a legitimate explanation for the dramatically higher rates that Blacks and Latinos are subjected to "stop and frisk" .... then the REASON for the "stop and frisk" would have to be related to an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION of a "violent crime". And then I pointed out that based upon the NYPD's own documentation "fits a relevant description" (aka "being a crime suspect) was cited as the REASON for stops and frisks in only 15% of the cases.

It's at that point that you basically accuse me of "changing the goalposts" ... apparently oblivious to the fact that anyone who can read can see that a) YOU were the one who initially made the "violent crime suspect" argument, and b) when I spoke on the issue it was not an ASSERTION related to my original point but rather a REBUTTAL to the argument that YOU made. You then go on an compound your error by trying to argue the math of the situation and asserting that it wasn't racial profiling because "cops use stop and frisks in disproportion to current crime suspects ACROSS ALL RACIAL GROUPS, not just blacks!" As usual ... arguing a point that is not in dispute.

In response, I then proceed to decimate the tattered shreds of what's left of your argument by questioning why you would bring up an UTTERLY IRRELEVANT STATISTIC (i.e. % of violent crime suspects) to try to justify such a disparity in stops and frisks ... when the REASON for the stops and frisks had nothing whatsoever to do with it 85% of the time? I then proceed to factor in the "% of violent crime suspect" that YOU brought up into the figures that YOU cited and then demonstrated MATHEMATICALLY that even though you were correct that all racial grounds are stopped and frisked in disproportion to their being crime suspects ... it is STILL waaaaaayyyyyy higher for Blacks and Latinos. So again .... try to take a deep breath and follow me here ... the point is this:

Even if you factor in the 85% of the time that "crime suspect" is NOT the reason for the stop and frisk ... you still have a glaring disparity across racial groups. Yet the arrest rate is identical.

Which brings us to this last post of yours where you get to yakking about ....

Here you go again making 'crime suspect' the only "legitimate" reason for stop and frisks. It ISN'T, nor is the main reason for them.
Again. Arguing a point that's not in dispute AND making a keen observation of the obvious. I never said that being a "crime suspect" was the main reason. If the NYPD itself says that was the case only 15% of the time what even makes you think that I think that? In any event, you proceed with more irrelevant blather until you get to this one here.


Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
And the fact is, this sort of thing is going to happen more often in a poorer neighborhood where many residents are minorities, than it is out in the lilly white burbs. You can keep knee-jerking to that fact, but it's obvious to most anyone. It's not a product of 'racial profiling' it's simply- there's MORE CRIME and potential crime in the shittier neighborhoods!
Which shows that you STILL don't get it. So this bears repeating .....

Originally Posted by OAW
If the police were targeting actual criminal activity ... as opposed to "throwing a wide net to see what they can find" in predominantly minority areas that happened to have a higher (certain kind of) crime rate .... then the arrest rate would reflect that. When they stopped and frisked people engaged in actual criminal activity ... or even people that they reasonably suspected were engaged in actual criminal activity ... they'd be more likely to find the contraband that they are searching for. Hell they'd be more likely to catch a guy slipping with an outstanding arrest warrant. But again ... the arrest rate doesn't reflect that. It's no higher than if they were stopping and frisking "little old ladies" in the suburbs as you put it. So is that racial profiling? A lot of people seem to think so. But you object and refer to them as the "race bait coalition". Ok fine. So if it was called neighborhood profiling would that be more "palatable" to you? So let's say that the police are targeting the people who live in certain neighborhoods that happen to have a higher crime rate ... as opposed to targeting the people who are engaged in actual criminal activity? At the end of the day that is still PROFILING!
You then continue the blindness with this ..... If the police are so dishonest, and such racists, then why aren't they arresting more blacks and hispanics on false charges?

It's pretty self-evident ....

A) Cops generally don't want to go down to the station and fill out the paperwork on some BS.

B) The point is not to "serve and protect" the law-abiding residents of certain "high crime" neighborhoods but to improve the crime suppression statistics of the department. And the "throw a wide net and see what you can find" approach is deemed to be ACCEPTABLE despite the "collateral damage" because the residents are poor and minorities. Interestingly enough, that same approach is NOT deemed to be acceptable in other neighborhoods that also have high crime rates and rampant illegal drug activity ... like areas that are now the meth capital of the entire country. And the primary discernible difference between the neighborhoods in this regard is that the residents are white.

Which seems to belie your "it's the high crime neighborhood, not the racial background" argument.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 20, 2010 at 07:32 PM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2010, 07:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Attack the source!
Nah, let's also shoot the messenger.

-t
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2010, 08:50 PM
 
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2010, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
*more blather that's already been gone over.*
Meanwhile, back in reality:

Blacks, Latinos lead crime stats - NYPD

Of the 244 murders between Jan. 1 and June 30 this year, 64.8% of the victims were black, records showed. Hispanics accounted for 23.4% of the victims, whites 7.4% and Asians 4.5%.

Using NYPD stats, the homicide rate per 1 million in population was 81.1 for blacks and 6.3 for whites.

Among murder arrests, blacks accounted for 64.9%, Hispanics 27.2%, whites 7.3% and Asians less than 1%.

In all, 153 New Yorkers were charged with homicide through June 30 - the ethnicity was detailed in 151 of the cases.

The arrest rate for homicide per 1 million population: 50.8 black, 3.8 white.

The statistics did not match crime victims with their tormentors. Anecdotally, police officers said black and Hispanic victims tend to be attacked by black and Hispanic criminals.
So basically we have blacks responsible for a huge inordinate amount of crime, yet it's supposed to be shocking that blacks are also being stopped by cops more often than other racial groups that are involved in miniscule amounts of crime by comparison.

Rather than ever take a hard look at why a minority population is involved in and victimized by so much crime in proportion to their race, OAW et al will continue the much more productive approach of 'blame whitey'.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2010, 01:04 AM
 
But it's not their [the blacks] fault

The white man / GW Bush / Fox News made them do it.

-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2010, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Meanwhile, back in reality:

So basically we have blacks responsible for a huge inordinate amount of crime, yet it's supposed to be shocking that blacks are also being stopped by cops more often than other racial groups that are involved in miniscule amounts of crime by comparison.

Rather than ever take a hard look at why a minority population is involved in and victimized by so much crime in proportion to their race, OAW et al will continue the much more productive approach of 'blame whitey'.
Your link only talks about homicide.

You do know that there are other crimes besides homicides right? You know like assault, rape, and theft.

Yes, Blacks commit more murder, but Whites like to rape, assault people, and drink and drive.


New York has one of the lowest crime rates among the big states.

Which 2 states have the highest crime rate?

Texas and Florida, two conservative leaning states with over 70% white people.

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/p...tat-report.pdf

Table 5 - Crime in the United States 2008


Why don't you profile this?

Table 43 - Crime in the United States 2008

Total Arrest in 2008
White: 7,382,063
Black: 3,015,905



Whites should be pull over more by traffic cops:


Driving under the influence (DUI)
White: 964,583
Black: 110,682

Drunkenness
White: 390,057
Black: 70,969
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2010, 08:39 PM
 
Speaking of Police Abuse and Drunk White Folks.

YouTube - DUI Charge Dropped Against Ind. Officer in Crash

DUI Charge Dropped Against Officer Who Killed 1 & Injured 2


Drunk police officer got DUI charge dropped due to a technicality.

How about manslaughter? Don't tell me this cop got away with manslaughter too.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2010, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Your link only talks about homicide.

You do know that there are other crimes besides homicides right? You know like assault, rape, and theft.

Yes, Blacks commit more murder, but Whites like to rape, assault people, and drink and drive.

......
Indeed. But pointing that out to Crash would be too much like right for him. As we've already established, the NYPD only stopped people for being a "crime suspect" in 15% of the cases. And homicide suspects are going to be a fraction of that 15%. So as I said before ...

Originally Posted by OAW
So the question then becomes ... why would you cite an UTTERLY IRRELEVANT STATISTIC to try to justify such a disparity in stops?
To return to a previously debunked argument that was beyond retarded in the first place is a telltale sign of intellectual defeat. I'm certainly content to just leave it at that.

OAW
     
Rev-O
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Parker, Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2010, 10:48 PM
 
Two independent civilian panels recommended no action being taken against the police officers for this after reviewing the entire case, not just a few minutes of video. Guy on the phone was identified by one of the police officers as a suspect in an assault (same thing the guy on the ground is being cuffed for) on an off duty police officer. The police officer went to arrest him, and interpreted the suspects motions as getting ready to strike the officer, so he threw him to the ground.
Okay, so the 'getting ready to strike' thing is pretty thin and most likely an excuse the officer concocted to excuse his behavior. But, according to officers, dude was a suspect in an assault (of unspecified nature) and probably didn't comply with instruction.
Could the whole thing be drummed up by the cops? Sure, and to be honest I think there is a lot of cya going on here from the denver police. However, could dude on the phone be a rat bastard turned martyr and media darling by a few minutes of video? You betcha.
Easy to jump to conclusions from a bit of video. Video is just as capable as print media as taking taking things out of context.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2010, 01:06 AM
 
Rev-O, what issue are you referring to?

So how's this for police abuse of authority? Woman charged with resisting arrest. Because she was recording a traffic stop with her cell phone. While standing on her own front porch. Seriously.
     
Rev-O
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Parker, Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2010, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Rev-O, what issue are you referring to?
Oh, fer feks sake, I thought I quoted
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Apparently this thread is in need of resurrecting.

Don't Make Phone Calls While Your Friend is Being Arrested

I particularly enjoy how the camera operator suddenly pulls out when the cop starts beating the crap out of the kid, only to zoom back in once he's been "subdued."
Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
Two independent civilian panels recommended no action being taken against the police officers for this after reviewing the entire case, not just a few minutes of video. Guy on the phone was identified by one of the police officers as a suspect in an assault (same thing the guy on the ground is being cuffed for) on an off duty police officer. The police officer went to arrest him, and interpreted the suspects motions as getting ready to strike the officer, so he threw him to the ground.
Okay, so the 'getting ready to strike' thing is pretty thin and most likely an excuse the officer concocted to excuse his behavior. But, according to officers, dude was a suspect in an assault (of unspecified nature) and probably didn't comply with instruction.
Could the whole thing be drummed up by the cops? Sure, and to be honest I think there is a lot of cya going on here from the denver police. However, could dude on the phone be a rat bastard turned martyr and media darling by a few minutes of video? You betcha.
Easy to jump to conclusions from a bit of video. Video is just as capable as print media as taking taking things out of context.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
So how's this for police abuse of authority? Woman charged with resisting arrest. Because she was recording a traffic stop with her cell phone. While standing on her own front porch. Seriously.
I guess I shouldn't be suprised there's no conservative outrage here about a woman arrested on her own property doing something completely legal. After all, Henry Louis Gates was arrested for being in his own house, and the MacNN conservatives thought that was ok.

But now the cops are tazing people in their own homes, too. Read this stupidity: Marin man claims excessive force after being Tased at home | abc7news.com

The cops knew he had already been treated by the medics, but decided to force him to the hospital anyways, and taze him if he didn't go. So they tazed a man with a heart condition 3 times. Fncking stupid cops, I hope they sue you into homelessness and your children starve. Seriously, I've had enough.
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 12:16 AM
 
I forgot to post this here when it happened a few days ago: Toronto police murder a mentally ill man after family call the cops to help find him.

They demanded to know if he had a weapon, he showed them a knife, and they gunned with down. What the fnck do we give them tazers if they aren't gonna use them in the appropriate circumstance? They knew in advance that he was sick, not a criminal.

We give them tazers so they don't have to kill the mentally ill. Instead, they shoot them dead anyways, and use the tazers to intimidate people at traffic stops, or in their own homes, even when they are a danger to no one.
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 12:19 AM
 
C'mon badge-lickers, explain this sh!t to me.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 02:07 AM
 
There's a lot of key information on the bus incident which is missing, and I'm not just talking about the part where the guy tried to flee the bus after it was stopped. I'd like to be more informed before passing judgement. It is notable that people claimed to have heard so many shots. Also, do Toronto beat cops carry tazers? Honest question.

The guy in his house seems straightforward. You let someone who you think is mentally unstable and capable of violence walk away, they come back with a gun and shoot you. Of course there's information missing here no doubt. I'd be most interested in some honest testimony from the paramedics.

The woman outside her house bothers me the most, as even if that particular situation was 100% justified, I'm uncomfortable with the ease in which the police can stop people recording their activity. If the government is going to put bullshit cameras everywhere, so are we. Deal with it.
     
tightsocks
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2011, 01:40 AM
 
Guy is berated and threatened by Canton, Ohio police officer for not promptly informing of his concealed handgun.
‪Canton Ohio PD Abuse and Threaten Concealed Carry Permit Holder‬‏ - YouTube
This is obviously a potentially dangerous situation. The guy with the permit should have spoken-up immediately.

But what actually interests me the most about this is at the very end when he says that he is going to to 'put him in the computer' so that every-time he sees him again he will 'get towed and go to jail'.

How exactly does that work in practice?
It sounds like they have a computer system that does more than just check to see if a drivers license, vehicle registration, insurance, etc is valid. Seems like they have the ability to enter in arbitrary gossip and create a sort of 'enemies list' that is outside the scope of typical database checks.
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2011, 02:49 AM
 
^Tow/booting companies have plate reading trucks that check a tow/boot database. With the right contacts, anyone with authority can put your vehicle VIN and Plate number in that system, and bang. I wouldn't be surprised if cops can check that stuff too in their car computers and be able to call for a tow.

Also, meter maids have access for that too. They go to print a ticket, and after they input your plate, if it's towable, it flashes a message, and they call for a tow, and put a tow sticker on your car. (if they're not in their first 6 months; first 6 months (rookie) in most places is written tickets so that they're sorta forced to memorize the codes for certain things. Each code clarification call to the squad leader is like a penalty) after the 6 months are up, and you're in good standing, you get upgraded to a handheld computer that prints the tickets out for ya. (in other words, if you're on the tow list, be happy if a rookie metermaid tickets your car, because they don't have the computer that tells them that your car is towable)
( Last edited by brassplayersrock²; Jul 25, 2011 at 02:57 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2011, 03:36 AM
 
I bet those cops have SCMODS.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2011, 01:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by tightsocks View Post
Guy is berated and threatened by Canton, Ohio police officer for not promptly informing of his concealed handgun.
‪Canton Ohio PD Abuse and Threaten Concealed Carry Permit Holder‬‏ - YouTube
This is obviously a potentially dangerous situation. The guy with the permit should have spoken-up immediately.

But what actually interests me the most about this is at the very end when he says that he is going to to 'put him in the computer' so that every-time he sees him again he will 'get towed and go to jail'.

How exactly does that work in practice?
It sounds like they have a computer system that does more than just check to see if a drivers license, vehicle registration, insurance, etc is valid. Seems like they have the ability to enter in arbitrary gossip and create a sort of 'enemies list' that is outside the scope of typical database checks.
That guy tried multiple times to inform the officer he was a CC holder, the officer kept cutting him off and wouldn't listen. The officer has since been relieved of duty due to his actions.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2011, 06:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Military and police are LEGITIMATE FUNCTIONS of government. Fire protection too. That's the difference.

I know it's subtle, so don't feel bad if you don't "get it" at first. Shoot, lots of your elected representatives don't seem to get it either.
Sorry, didn't see this at the time it was posted. Of course I realize this finboy.

The intent at the time was to illustrate the ideological conflict of those quick to ignore the differences between limited government and anarchy when it suits arguments against conservatism elsewhere.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 09:36 PM
 
Been on the news for a few weeks, but no one here mentioned it.

Police Beat 'Gentle' Homeless, Mentally Ill Man to Death

Police beats homeless man to death.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:37 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,