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.
Honestly, how could it be more clear that he agrees that statistically speaking, young black males are more likely to be violent/dangerous than other demographics? Is my re-characterization here off?
No, actually he kept arguing that I was completely wrong about that (which is patently absurd) and continually minimized its impact, are we reading the same thread?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I've mentioned to CTP et al that I have no issue delving into that subject. But it's a topic for another thread. Which is PRECISELY why my challenge to start a new thread on this very topic has gone unmet. Because their objective is NOT to seriously discuss these issues. Their objective is to derail the actual topic of this thread.
I really don't see how you can separate the two issues. And to be fair, you opened the door for that discussion. Their objective is to find common ground on which to explain the behaviors that we're seeing in a general sense so that we can solve the problems arising from it.
You cannot solve a problem without first analyzing its progenitors. You seem to think that discussion belongs in another thread, but I don't think we can properly analyze police brutality against blacks while ignoring the relevant factors that involve the police in the first place.
It's like trying to analyze a plane crash without discussing the flight path of the plane up to the crash.
PS: Does anyone here really think that these two cops going to this black female's home and arresting her over a $100 balance on an unpaid traffic ticket ... and then beating the snot out of her in the police station was due to "young black males aged 10-24" being "more violent" as a group than their non-black counterparts? Really?
Can you point to me where anyone made at all that claim for the video you posted? Its almost like you have a narrative of how things in reality are, and reject anything that doesn't fit into that narrative as irrelevant or a derail. You keep citing examples and absolutely no one disagrees with you that what we're watching is unacceptable. You can't seem to get past that though. How do we solve these problems? How do we prevent this from happening again?
I really don't see how you can separate the two issues. And to be fair, you opened the door for that discussion. Their objective is to find common ground on which to explain the behaviors that we're seeing in a general sense so that we can solve the problems arising from it.
You cannot solve a problem without first analyzing its progenitors. You seem to think that discussion belongs in another thread, but I don't think we can properly analyze police brutality against blacks while ignoring the relevant factors that involve the police in the first place.
It's like trying to analyze a plane crash without discussing the flight path of the plane up to the crash.
Not sure why you think I "opened the door for that discussion".
In any event, rampant police brutality in black communities predates the violent crime wave introduced into inner cities by cocaine trafficking in the 1980s, the collapse of the two-parent home starting in the 1970s, the Great Society social programs of the 1960s, and the SCOTUS desegregation decisions in the 1950s. All of these things have been used by our good friends on the right to try to downplay at best or justify at worst police misconduct in black communities. But it goes back a lot further than that. All the way back to when the local police departments were the enforcement mechanisms for Jim Crow. This is precisely why mistrust of the police is so deeply rooted in black communities. So if one insists upon discussing those "relevant factors" ... be prepared to discuss ALL of them. Just saying ...
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Can you point to me where anyone made at all that claim for the video you posted? Its almost like you have a narrative of how things in reality are, and reject anything that doesn't fit into that narrative as irrelevant or a derail.
Not sure why you think I "opened the door for that discussion".
In any event, rampant police brutality in black communities predates the violent crime wave introduced into inner cities by cocaine trafficking in the 1980s, the collapse of the two-parent home starting in the 1970s, the Great Society social programs of the 1960s, and the SCOTUS desegregation decisions in the 1950s. All of these things have been used by our good friends on the right to try to downplay at best or justify at worst police misconduct in black communities. But it goes back a lot further than that. All the way back to when the local police departments were the enforcement mechanisms for Jim Crow. This is precisely why mistrust of the police is so deeply rooted in black communities. So if one insists upon discussing those "relevant factors" ... be prepared to discuss ALL of them. Just saying ...
Except that the worst black violence and crime, by far, is in northern states, while Jim Crow was a practice exclusive to the South. So, not so relevant to current day.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Another unarmed black man killed in policy custody under "questionable circumstances" ...
The autopsy of Ezell Ford, a mentally ill black man killed by police in South Los Angeles this summer, shows he was shot three times -- once in the right side, once in the right back and once in the right arm.
The release of the autopsy Monday marks the first time authorities have provided details about Ezell Ford's wounds since his death.
The gunshot wound on his back showed the surrounding skin had a "muzzle imprint," according to the autopsy, suggesting that shot was made at very close range. The autopsy said the back and side gunshot wounds were fatal.
The autopsy does not make any judgment about the conduct of the officers in the shooting or provide a detailed narrative of what occurred.
The coroner ruled Ford died of multiple gunshot wounds. The death was classified as a homicide, the standard coroner's classification for the death of someone by the hand of another. Fatal police shootings, including those later determined to be justified, are routinely ruled as homicides.
The report also notes several abrasions, or scrapes, including to the back of Ford's left hand, his forearm and elbow, but it does not say what caused them.
LAPD Chief Charlie Beck is scheduled to discuss the report at a 2:30 p.m. news conference Monday.
The Los Angeles Police Department has said Ford, 25, was shot while he struggled with two officers and attempted to remove the pistol from the holster of one of them. Other people quoted in news reports after the Aug. 11 shooting disputed the police account.
Los Angeles police had placed a hold on Ford's autopsy report, asking coroner's officials not to release information about his wound
Naturally, we have the old standby "he went for my gun" excuse from the cops. Think about this good people. Unarmed. Shot in the back. Muzzle imprint on his skin. And chances are they will walk too.
No, actually he kept arguing that I was completely wrong about that (which is patently absurd) and continually minimized its impact, are we reading the same thread?
Honestly, how could it be more clear that he agrees that statistically speaking, young black males are more likely to be violent/dangerous than other demographics? Is my re-characterization here off?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No, actually he kept arguing that I was completely wrong about that (which is patently absurd) and continually minimized its impact, are we reading the same thread?
Originally Posted by besson3c
His issue was clearly with your characterization.
Besson3c,
Allow me to interject for a moment. Way back on Dec. 18 I said this ...
Originally Posted by OAW
There's nothing backfiring at all. I'm going to say this "one mo' gin" and then leave you to your foolishness. Try to pay attention because this is important.
I'm not contending with your figures.
What I'm saying is that % of MURDER VICTIMS and/or % of MURDER OFFENDERS is one thing. % of BLACK PEOPLE is quite another. And when you twist your lips to start talking about the black COMMUNITY and violent crime ... simple logic, basic arithmetic, and common sense dictates that the latter provides a more appropriate perspective.
Unless, of course, you think it would be appropriate to extrapolate this and apply it to the US men in general.
As for that other individual .... he can't REFUTE my arguments. Hence why he simply IGNORES them. And then either changes the subject or repeats what's already been debunked. Never ... NOT ONCE ... have you seen this fool respond to any point I've made in this thread with an actual COUNTER-POINT. Backed with FACTS and EVIDENCE. Even on this latest dispute ... I already told him I wasn't contending with his FIGURES. I was contending with the CONCLUSION he was reaching based upon them because it lacked the proper PERSPECTIVE. But clearly that just went right over his head.
This is the same individual who REPEATEDLY claimed that the lawyer for the STL Family Court didn't say what she was QUOTED as saying about Mike Brown's juvenile record that may or may not even exist in MULTIPLE news sources I cited. So there is no way to reason with someone who plays those type of games.
And more recently on Dec. 22 when you asked me POINT BLANK if I thought the murder rate in the "black male aged 10-24 demographic" was "inconsequential and/or insignificant" I said ...
Originally Posted by OAW
It is absolutely NOT inconsequential. CTP is correct that homicide is the leading cause of death for black males aged 10-24. Again, as I've said REPEATEDLY he is arguing a point that is NOT in dispute. But true to his "Resident Forum Internet Expert" persona he presumes that he is actually "informing" me about something that I don't already know. My issue with his commentary is very specific and I've also made it quite plain REPEATEDLY ....
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Okay, fine. Black people, your kids (specifically the males) are f*cked up. Better?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
This isn't about people abusing themselves, it's about a group of people preying on and brutalizing each other. Again, not an individual, it's a whole demographic.
When he starts twisting his lips to disparage an ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE based upon what 1/10 of 1% of them do ... I'm going to call that out for the racist idiocy that it is. Simple as that.
So right there you have THREE POSTS over the last few weeks where I said very clearly in "black and white" that I was NOT contending with his figures. I could dig up even more before that because I was already getting exasperated with him on the first one I listed here ... but three is enough to get my point across. Which is despite all of that right there in plain English ... what does CTP say TODAY?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No, actually he kept arguing that I was completely wrong about that ...
NOW do you understand why your "mediation" efforts here are pretty much pointless?
What CTP is REPEATEDLY demonstrating in this thread is either a severe case of willful blindness or a tragic case of reading comprehension issues. Take your pick. But again, I have neither the time nor the inclination to play his little game ... hence why I put him on ignore. You have to ask yourself if trying to "reason" with someone who refuses to acknowledge the actual point and instead continually reiterates a point NOT in dispute is worth your effort.
I was surprised to hear him make that same argument, but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.
We'll see if it ends up being worth my while.
Well I've had enough dealings with him across a number of different threads to know that this is just his M.O. So I'm am not surprised in the least that he would go there. It's like it doesn't even occur to him that the evidence to the contrary is actually visible for all the forum participants to see! Or perhaps he's just banking on people not following the various back and forth in the thread all that closely? Hence, why I collected all my recent comments pertaining to this latest BS in one post with links back to where they were originally made to provide the proper context. If he even bothers to respond he'll likely resort to what he typically does when backed into a corner with facts and evidence ... and simply dismiss it all out of hand with a "distortions, lies, and manipulations" accusation. Or take the same route he did with the STL County Juvenile Court spokeswoman when he swore on a stack of bibles that she never said what I repeatedly cited her saying with direct quotes. Who are you going to believe after all when it comes to my posts above? CTP or your lying eyes? Or take a marginally smarter approach and just ignore that post altogether ... only to go back to this same old tired argument awhile later when it rolls off the latest page. Rinse, wash, repeat. What you will NOT see CTP do is actually acknowledge that he is in error ... even though the PROOF is right there for all to see. That would simply be too much like right. As I stated earlier, I've NEVER put anyone on ignore since I first came here in 2001. But there's only so much intellectual puerility I can stand.
Not a recent incident, but as I've said before this is a pattern that goes back decades ....
An off-duty rookie cop chasing a suspected car thief in East Harlem with his gun drawn was shot and killed Thursday night when an officer mistook him for a criminal.
"Police! Stop! Drop it!" cops from the 25th Precinct shouted at Omar Edwards, 25.
As he started to turn toward him - the gun still in his hand - an officer opened fire, sources said.
The officer involved in the shooting is white, Edwards is black and had no visible NYPD identification on him, sources said. It was unclear if Edwards identified himself.
"This is always a black cop's fear, that he'd be mistaken for a [suspect]," a source said.
His father couldn't fathom how such a fatal mistake could happen.
"If a police officer sees someone with a gun, you don't just fire without asking questions or trying to apprehend the person," said Ricardo Edwards, 72. "If the person was firing at a police officer, I understand."
"It's a horror for everyone involved. No one comes out unscathed," a police source said.
One dejected cop said Edwards "just became a new father. He took some personal time so he could take the baby to North Carolina to meet his folks."
Edwards' mother, Natalia Harding, said her son had just married his girlfriend, Danielle Glen, last month at City Hall. They have two kids - 11/2-year-old Xavier and 7-month-old Keanua.
"I'm hurt that they took my son. That's my baby they took from me. And all I got was his last hug and kiss when he went to work [tonight] and he said, 'Ma, I'll see you when I come home,' " Natalia Harding said between sobs Friday morning at her Brooklyn apartment.
NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Edwards, who had been on the force less than two years and worked out of a Manhattan housing unit, had left work about 10:30 p.m.
He was in street clothes as he walked toward his car parked about a block away on Second Ave. between E. 124th and E. 125th St., where he saw Miguel Goitia rummaging through the vehicle. The driver's side window was busted out.
Edwards grabbed Goitia, who managed to slip out of his sweater and escape Edwards' grip, Kelly said.
Gun drawn, Edwards gave chase.
At the same time, three plainclothes officers in an unmarked car saw Edwards running down the street. The car made a U-turn, and one of the officers, a white cop with more than four years on the job, got out and fired six shots - hitting Edwards twice, once in the left arm and once in the chest, Kelly said.
Edwards did not fire his weapon.
Maalik Lane, 20, who was walking nearby, said suddenly he heard shots.
"More than five, boom, boom, boom, boom. Then there were just a lot of police blocking the streets."
Mayor Bloomberg, at a press conference at Harlem Hospital, said he expressed his sorrow to Edwards' wife.
"Nothing that you can ever say will bring back the deceased. He was there protecting the rest of us. We will find out what happened," Bloomberg said. "This is a tragedy. We'll see what we can learn from it."
Cops discovered Edwards was one of them when rescue crews cut open his shirt to treat the bleeding and saw a police academy shirt. They then searched his pockets and found his shield, sources said.
Investigators said the anti-crime cops arrested the car-theft suspect Goitia.
Edwards' mother said her son's dream was to be a cop.
"Ever since he was a little kid, he wanted to be a police officer. Something I didn't want, but it was his choice and he loved what he was doing. He loved helping other people," Harding said, noting she always worried about his safety.
And the number of off-duty or undercover white cops killed by black or Latino cops would be? NONE. If these things were just tragic accidents one would expect to see it across the board. But that's simply not the case. These patterns are implicit bias at work and they indeed can have very deadly consequences.
OAW, you don't have to be black for the police to beat the snot out of you. You act as if this problem is exclusive to the black community or something.
In any event, rampant police brutality in black communities predates the violent crime wave introduced into inner cities by cocaine trafficking in the 1980s, the collapse of the two-parent home starting in the 1970s, the Great Society social programs of the 1960s, and the SCOTUS desegregation decisions in the 1950s. All of these things have been used by our good friends on the right to try to downplay at best or justify at worst police misconduct in black communities. But it goes back a lot further than that. All the way back to when the local police departments were the enforcement mechanisms for Jim Crow. This is precisely why mistrust of the police is so deeply rooted in black communities. So if one insists upon discussing those "relevant factors" ... be prepared to discuss ALL of them. Just saying ...
Soooo. what's your point? The right is just a bunch of racists bent on making young black men violent so the police can beat the snot of out them?
What do you propose as a solution to this problem?
I am ready to discuss all relevant factors to this discussion. I am not ready to follow you down an emotional rant about how its all whitey's fault based on assumptions and conspiracy theories. I am not saying racism doesn't exist in America today. It does, just like anti-semitism, poverty, religious intolerance, and many other societal problems. What I'm saying is calm down and try to look at the problem objectively, and understand that the vast majority of Americans are not racists, and that these problems are much, much more socio-economic in nature than racial.
And more recently on Dec. 22 when you asked me POINT BLANK if I thought the murder rate in the "black male aged 10-24 demographic" was "inconsequential and/or insignificant" I said ...
So right there you have THREE POSTS over the last few weeks where I said very clearly in "black and white" that I was NOT contending with his figures. I could dig up even more before that because I was already getting exasperated with him on the first one I listed here ... but three is enough to get my point across. Which is despite all of that right there in plain English ... what does CTP say TODAY?
Yes, what an impressive admission. Is there one in there amidst all the hot air and minimization? I don't believe so. You won't admit there's a serious problem with black youths, not while it's profitable and expedient to blame others.
NOW do you understand why your "mediation" efforts here are pretty much pointless?
What CTP is REPEATEDLY demonstrating in this thread is either a severe case of willful blindness or a tragic case of reading comprehension issues. Take your pick. But again, I have neither the time nor the inclination to play his little game ... hence why I put him on ignore. You have to ask yourself if trying to "reason" with someone who refuses to acknowledge the actual point and instead continually reiterates a point NOT in dispute is worth your effort.
You're some type of caricature of a human being, and a poor one at that. I'm not sure how you can distort every subject so thoroughly, I can only assume they teach that at Sharpton's School of Progressive Conversation.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Well I've had enough dealings with him across a number of different threads to know that this is just his M.O. So I'm am not surprised in the least that he would go there. It's like it doesn't even occur to him that the evidence to the contrary is actually visible for all the forum participants to see! Or perhaps he's just banking on people not following the various back and forth in the thread all that closely? Hence, why I collected all my recent comments pertaining to this latest BS in one post with links back to where they were originally made to provide the proper context. If he even bothers to respond he'll likely resort to what he typically does when backed into a corner with facts and evidence ... and simply dismiss it all out of hand with a "distortions, lies, and manipulations" accusation. Or take the same route he did with the STL County Juvenile Court spokeswoman when he swore on a stack of bibles that she never said what I repeatedly cited her saying with direct quotes. Who are you going to believe after all when it comes to my posts above? CTP or your lying eyes? Or take a marginally smarter approach and just ignore that post altogether ... only to go back to this same old tired argument awhile later when it rolls off the latest page. Rinse, wash, repeat. What you will NOT see CTP do is actually acknowledge that he is in error ... even though the PROOF is right there for all to see. That would simply be too much like right. As I stated earlier, I've NEVER put anyone on ignore since I first came here in 2001. But there's only so much intellectual puerility I can stand.
How many times have I shown where this guy has distorted facts and blatantly lied? 3? 4? Caught right in the act, yet continued on as if it never happened. He has no shame or integrity, no concern about the individuals actually dying, only interest in how (by police) and what he can gain from it.
Face it, you placed me on ignore because I kept calling you on your BS and lies. OMG, someone dared to question you, your sources, and your agenda?! "But, but, I first came here in 2001!" Whatever. Oh, and by the way, you've never answered the question what political group you work for (and placed me on ignore right after I did). Uh oh.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Face it, you placed me on ignore because I kept calling you on your BS and lies. OMG, someone dared to question you, your sources, and your agenda?! "But, but, I first came here in 2001!" Whatever. Oh, and by the way, you've never answered the question what political group you work for (and placed me on ignore right after I did). Uh oh.
He placed you on ignore because you're being an ass, I'd do the same. He said a gazillion times that there are problems with young black males. That you don't want to acknowledge this is your weird issue.
I think I'm done here. I thought you were capable of being reasonable.
He placed you on ignore because you're being an ass, I'd do the same. He said a gazillion times that there are problems with young black males. That you don't want to acknowledge this is your weird issue.
I think I'm done here. I thought you were capable of being reasonable.
Marginalizing the issue doesn't count as admitting there's a problem, hefe. But at any rate, you've never been neutral on this subject, you aren't Switzerland in this, so I'm not sure why that matters?
Oh wait, I want to try something. I'm going to do my OAW impersonation, only in reverse! *AHEM!*
There have only been 28 young blacks killed by police this year, out of 9,532,033! That's only 1 out of 340,000, less than .000003%!How is that even statistically significant? How can you disparage AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE (1.1M cops) based upon what less than 1/10,000 of 1% of them have done?! *OUTRAGE* *BLUSTER*
I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2001, DAMMIT!
Not bad, if I say so myself. Maybe it could use more self-righteous indignation, but oh well.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
He placed you on ignore because you're being an ass, I'd do the same. He said a gazillion times that there are problems with young black males. That you don't want to acknowledge this is your weird issue.
I think I'm done here. I thought you were capable of being reasonable.
Is CTP still yakking? Something tells me if I bet my next three paychecks he did EXACTLY what I said he would do. And I wouldn't lose a dime. N'est-ce pas?
Is CTP still yakking? Something tells me if I bet my next three paychecks he did EXACTLY what I said he would do. And I wouldn't lose a dime. N'est-ce pas?
OAW
I love you "having me on ignore", it only makes you look like a complete imbecile. Everyone knows you're still reading my posts. "Is he still yakking? I'll bet he's doing what I said he's doing, even though I'm totally not reading what he's saying!" You're such a whiny child.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You can't PM people who have you on ignore, yet I just did. "Hey besson! Is he still talking about me, because I'm like totally ignoring him!"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
OAW, you don't have to be black for the police to beat the snot out of you. You act as if this problem is exclusive to the black community or something.
Indeed. And it is certainly not "exclusive" to the black community. When have I ever said that?
Is police misconduct "more likely" to occur in minority communities? Well that should be pretty obvious.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Soooo. what's your point? The right is just a bunch of racists bent on making young black men violent so the police can beat the snot of out them?
That's not my point at all. I thought I made it clear earlier when I said that the issue of police brutality in black communities PREDATES all of the social ills that the right typically touts out as the reason for the obvious disparity. Because "racial bias" ... either explicit, implicit, or institutional ... can NEVER be the reason except in the most abstract, platitudinal manner? Which usually takes the form of "Well of course racism still exists in the country ..." quickly followed by a knee-jerk denial of that being a factor in nearly every specific case. It's not like this ....
... is somehow out of the mainstream of conservative thought on the topic? We have those in this very forum trying to make the same dubious argument. Facts be damned.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
What do you propose as a solution to this problem?
Well here are a few suggestions right off the top of my head ...
1. More diligent screening for racial bias in police hiring.
2. A return to community policing instead of community occupation.
3. Identifying and firing officers who repeatedly utilize excessive force.
4. Stop denying that racial profiling is rampant when it comes to traffic stops, stop & frisk, etc. Implement policy changes to counter-act it.
5. A return to curfews for those under 18? Honestly, I have to think this one through some more because it might very well do more harm than good.
6. Mandatory dash-cams and body cams. Though the Eric Garner case shows how limited that is.
7. A special prosecutor to investigate cases of police misconduct. This would eliminate the inherent conflict of interest with having a local DA investigating the local PD s/he depends on to get criminal convictions.
See my subsequent posts for more detail about this.
Key takeaway? Blacks are much more likely than whites to be additionally charged with "resisting arrest" after being arrested for some of the most common criminal charges in NYC. While that disparity exists throughout NYC it is the most pronounced in the boroughs with the largest white populations (i.e. Queens and Staten Island). BUT ... the stats also show that it is a distinct minority of NYPD officers who account for the lion's share of such "resisting arrest" charges. Which is all too often used as an excuse for excessive force on the part of the arresting officer. So bear all this in mind while perusing this article on things that could be done to identify and discipline officers who repeatedly utilize excessive force.
Darvell Elliott was near his Brownsville home one August night in 2010 when cops stopped him and said he matched the description of someone who allegedly robbed a man’s iPod and cellphone.
They handcuffed him and he expected to take a trip to the precinct but then the world went black. He came to in the hospital with his face “stuck to the sheet like Velcro.” Photos his attorney provided show his head covered with blood-soaked bandages.
He said it was a case of mistaken identity. Elliott would later allege cops tripped him and beat him after he hit the ground. The city agreed to pay $20,000 to settle the lawsuit and his criminal case was ultimately dismissed.
The arresting officer named in the lawsuit is a Brooklyn cop — Donald Sadowy.
“He thinks we’re the danger. But you’re the danger. You’re supposed to protect and serve us,” Elliott said a year later. “We’re not supposed to be scared of you. We’re supposed to be safe around you.”
But time and again, suspects haven’t been safe around Sadowy. Records show he’s been accused of excessive force in multiple lawsuits during the six years he’s been making arrests. Yet he continues to make them. And it’s not just him.
WNYC easily found a dozen other cops who appear to use force more often than most and who have been the subject of numerous lawsuits.
Records also show that a relatively small number of cops generate the most civilian complaints — and the department routinely ignores recommendations on how to discipline the worst of them. All of which calls into question just how seriously the NYPD polices its own.
“I think there’s been a really systematic failure of accountability on the part of the NYPD,” said Sam Walker, a retired criminal justice professor from the University of Nebraska-Omaha who recently served as an expert witness in the stop-and-frisk trial.
He said the department does have multiple personnel databases that keep information on things like civilian complaints and disciplinary histories for its 35,000 officers. The department also monitors cops who are accused of excessive force.
But Walker says it’s not enough. He says the NYPD puts a lot of energy into spotting crime trends and should put similar resources into finding problem cops.
“If you could devise a system to identify them and identify them early, you could prevent a lot of inappropriate actions out there on the street,” Walker said.
And you could save at least some of the more than $100 million the city spends each year to settle lawsuits against the NYPD.
There’s no way to check how often the NYPD disciplines individual cops, because disciplinary files in New York state are confidential. There are, however, public records that show that cops with numerous red flags have been allowed to stay on the street.
That’s certainly the case with Donald Sadowy. Court records show he was sued at least 10 times in little more than two years.
“If there are 10 lawsuits — lawsuits — there’s something wrong here and if this person has not been reprimanded and controlled there’s something wrong,” said Candace McCoy, a professor at the Graduate Center and John Jay College at the City University of New York.
Court records also show there have been problems with some of the criminal cases in which Sadowy was the arresting officer. He gave conflicting testimony in a criminal case in 2012 – saying he found a gun in one place in front of a grand jury, and telling a different story in a sworn affidavit for a search warrant. As a result, prosecutors started reviewing his cases in Brooklyn and dismissed at least one because of what they called “credibility issues.”
The NYPD and the officer’s union declined to answer questions about Sadowy’s record. He didn’t return a message left at the 73rd precinct, where he works. The city’s Law Department, which represents officers in lawsuits, also declined to comment.
While 10 lawsuits might be a high number, especially in such a short period of time, McCoy said it raises a larger question that extends beyond Sadowy: “What is the cutoff? What is the exact number beyond which you take this person off the street?”
There’s no simple answer. For one thing, a lot of misconduct never results in a lawsuit. And on the flip side, lawsuits often name some officers who might have played a minor role in an incident.
So departments around the country look for combinations of indicators to spot patterns of questionable behavior. Many, for example, also look at cops who regularly charge people with resisting arrest.
“There’s a widespread pattern in American policing where resisting arrest charges are used to sort of cover – and that phrase is used – the officer’s use of force,” said Walker, the accountability expert from the University of Nebraska. “Why did the officer use force? Well, the person was resisting arrest.”
WNYC’s analysis of criminal court records shows that less than two percent of police officers in the NYPD have 10 or more resisting arrest cases since 2009. Sadowy has more than 20.
Historically, the department has done more to crack down on corrupt cops than abusive ones, said Robert Kane, director of the criminology and justice studies program at Drexel University, who spent several years studying officer misconduct in the NYPD.
He says cops like Sadowy are on the street because the NYPD wants them there.
“I would only expect that officer to be taken off the street if the organization didn’t value the aggressive behavior in which that officer typically engages,” Kane said.
The problem with aggressive policing policies is that they can lead to outright aggression in individual cops, he added.
“If some officers might take this too far and they get videotaped, or their cases end up in court, or they generate a complaint by people on the street, I wouldn’t call them bad apples per se. I would say that perhaps they’ve just taken this a little bit too far,” Kane said.
In New York City, citizen complaints go to the Civilian Complaint Review Board. The board’s chairman, Richard Emery, said complaints are an important indicator.
“It may be that some complaints do not have a basis, and they’re put out there by people who are simply lying or making them up. But it’s also the case that many people who could complain legitimately don’t,” he said.
CCRB Records show that 40 percent of the 35,000 officers on the force today have never been the subject of a citizen complaint. Another 20 percent have only one. Yet about a thousand cops have 10 or more complaints. One has been able to rack up 51. The name of that officer is confidential, as are the names of any officer who is the target of a CCRB complaint.
“If an officer has a pattern of a lot of complaints, let alone substantiated complaints, that officer is certainly worth watching and even warning and certainly retraining,” Emery said.
Yet — at least until now — the department hasn’t seemed too interested in using the board’s trove of records to spot problem officers.
“They’ve had access to it but they never asked,” Emery said. “The problem is (that) in the past, the New York City Police Department has not viewed the CCRB as anything but an irritant.”
He’s hopeful that’s changing under Commissioner William Bratton. The CCRB is also working on their own early warning system to look for patterns of behavior and flag possible problem cops.
The NYPD did not respond to multiple requests for an interview for this story. Bratton has started a massive department-wide retraining on the use of force and spoken out about the need to get rid of bad cops.
“There are some officers in the department unfortunately who should not be here,” he told reporters a couple of months ago. “They’re brutal, they’re corrupt and we’ll work very aggressively to deal with that.”
As for Officer Sadowy, an eleventh lawsuit was filed against him just last month.
That's not my point at all. I thought I made it clear earlier when I said that the issue of police brutality in black communities PREDATES all of the social ills that the right typically touts out as the reason for the obvious disparity. Because "racial bias" ... either explicit, implicit, or institutional ... can NEVER be the reason except in the most abstract, platitudinal manner? Which usually takes the form of "Well of course racism still exists in the country ..." quickly followed by a knee-jerk denial of that being a factor in nearly every specific case. It's not like this ....
... is somehow out of the mainstream of conservative thought on the topic? We have those in this very forum trying to make the same dubious argument. Facts be damned.
Obviously you didn't read all the articles and are only acting on the talking points you've been fed, because the supposed "damaging interviews" you've linked don't actually say what you think they do. That's normal though, given the way you spin. Yet another example showing why no one should ever take what you say at face value.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
A great article on the topic of "implicit bias" that I've spoken about many times from a law-enforcement professional that hits the nail right on the head ...
The implicit bias phenomenon is being explored in many phases of the criminal justice system and is not limited to law enforcement. Specifically, implicit bias is being studied in judicial decision making (for example, jury selection, jury instruction, and sentencing decisions), as well as in hiring and promotion decisions within criminal justice agencies. Outside of the criminal justice field, the topic has been examined in the fields of education and medicine, as well as in CEO selection at Fortune 500 companies.
A discussion on implicit bias must start with a brief explanation of how the brain sorts, relates, and processes information. Much of the day-to-day processing is done at an unconscious level as the mind works through what Professor Kang calls schemas, which are “templates of knowledge that help us organize specific examples into broad categories. A stool, sofa, and office chair are all understood to be ‘chairs.’ Once our brain maps some item into that category, we know what to do with it—in this case . . . sit on it. Schemas exist not only for objects, but also for people. Automatically, we categorize individuals by age, gender, race, and role. Once an individual is mapped into that category, specific meanings associated with that category are immediately activated and influence our interaction with that individual.”
When used to categorize people, these schemas are called stereotypes. Although the term stereotype carries a negative connotation, social scientists posit that stereotyping is simply the way the brain naturally sorts those we meet into recognizable groups. Attitudes, on the other hand, are the overall evaluative feelings, positive or negative, associated with these individuals or groups. That is to say, attitude is the tendency to like or dislike, or to act favorably or unfavorably, toward someone or something.
For example, “[I]f we think that a particular category of human beings is frail—such as the elderly—we will not raise our guard.” Also, “[I]f we identify someone as having graduated from our beloved alma mater, we will feel more at ease.” Lastly, when introduced to someone new, about whom nothing is known but who is reminiscent of an old, admired friend, one may instantly feel comfortable and at ease with that person.
It is said that implicit bias, then, includes both implicit stereotypes and implicit attitudes and is shaped by both history and cultural influences (for example, upbringing; life experiences; relationships; and all manner of media—books, movies, television, newspapers, and so on). Research has shown that a person’s previous experiences (both positive and negative) leave a “memory record.” Implicit biases encompass the myriad fears, feelings, perceptions, and stereotypes that lie deep within the subconscious; they act on those memory records and exist without an individual’s permission or acknowledgement. In fact, implicit bias can be completely contradictory to an individual’s stated beliefs—a form of conscious-unconscious divergence.
After seven years of research, the general findings from Project Implicit are summarized as follows:
Implicit biases are pervasive. They appear as statistically “large” effects that are often shown by majorities of samples of Americans. More than 80 percent of web respondents show implicit negativity toward the elderly compared to the young; 75 percent to 80 percent of self-identified whites and Asians show an implicit preference for racial white relative to black.
People are often unaware of their implicit biases. Ordinary people, including the researchers who direct this project, are found to harbor negative associations in relation to various social groups (that is, implicit biases) even while honestly reporting that they regard themselves as lacking these biases.
Implicit biases predict behavior.From simple acts of friendliness and inclusion to more consequential acts such as the evaluation of work quality, those who are higher in implicit bias have been shown to display greater discrimination.
People differ in levels of implicit bias. Implicit biases vary from person to person—for example, as a function of a person’s group memberships, the dominance of a person’s membership group in society, consciously held attitudes, and the level of bias existing in the immediate environment. This last observation makes clear that implicit attitudes are modified by experience.
The research and general findings suggest that implicit biases are held by all and, interestingly, race does not affect results. For example, of the 50,000 African Americans who have taken the Race IAT, about half of them had stronger associations with whites than with blacks. To some, this is not surprising; it has been argued that “we live in North America, where we are surrounded every day by cultural messages linking white with good.”16 According to Mahzarin Banaji, a psychology professor from Harvard and a leader of IAT research, “You don’t choose to make positive associations with the dominant group, but you are required to. All around you, that group is being paired with good things. You open the newspaper and you turn on the television, and you can’t escape it.”
In other words, the belief is that media bombardment in which a certain race is consistently linked with crime, deviance, and so on may form the basis for implicit biases. This conclusion is contrary to existing assumptions that discrimination and bias are intrinsic characteristics held only by ignorant, pernicious individuals. The research on implicit bias indicates that discrimination and bias are based more on those social issues and influences.
This does not mean that those who show a preference for “white” on the IAT are racists. In fact, the results of the test may be entirely incompatible with an individual’s conscious, stated beliefs. And, in fact, one can use those stated values to direct their behavior. Research has shown, however, that the IAT is a powerful predictor of how one reacts in certain spontaneous situations that can affect behavior, likely without the individual’s awareness. Referring back to an earlier example of a person recognized as graduating from “our beloved alma mater,” unconsciously, one may lean closer to that person, smile more, maintain longer eye contact, and engage that person in more animated conversation.
While there are many implications of implicit racial bias in law enforcement, the remainder of this article focuses on the theory of race-crime associations. The most salient research on this topic involves studies on what is termed “shooter bias.”
Key takeaway? The vast majority of people who exhibit "racial bias" do so implicitly and not explicitly. It's sub-conscious and not conscious. These are well-intentioned individuals who are NOT Klan members or Neo-Nazis. Continuing ....
In 2005, researchers E. Ashby Plant and B. Michelle Peruche conducted a study utilizing 50 certified police patrol officers who participated in computer-simulated “shoot—don’t shoot” scenarios. Although the officers were predominantly white males, the cohort also involved female, black, Native American, and Hispanic officers. During the test, pictures of faces with either a gun or a neutral object superimposed over each were shown in various positions on a screen. If the suspect and a gun were pictured, the officers were to shoot. If the suspect and some other object were pictured (for example, a wallet, a cellphone, and so on), the officers were to chose the “don’t shoot” option. The “suspects” pictured were both black and white college-age males.
The results of the study showed that some “officers were initially more likely to mistakenly shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.” These stereotype-consistent behaviors also had emerged among a community sample of both black and white participants in a prior study. On a more promising note, however, the researchers found that “after extensive exposure [for example, repeated trials] to the program, the officers were able to eliminate this bias.” To that end, although both citizens and officers showed an implicit bias toward the unarmed black suspects, the results were not inevitable, and it appeared that proper training may improve overall accuracy in decisions to shoot. The researchers cautioned, however, that there is currently no evidence to show that the elimination of bias during computer simulation will necessarily transfer to decisions made by officers in the field.
Key takeaway? Studies show that implicit bias causes some officers to be more likely to shoot an unarmed black suspect by mistake than an unarmed white suspect. But this can be mitigated by training. Finally ....
Implicit Bias and Law Enforcement
The study of implicit bias has important implications for police leaders. Police officers are human and, as the theory contends, may be affected by implicit biases just as any other individual. In other words, well-intentioned officers who err may do so not as a result of intentional discrimination, but because they have what has been proffered as widespread human biases. Social psychologists do not contend that implicit bias should be a scapegoat for unethical police behavior; however, an understanding that biased police behavior could be manifested by even well-intentioned officers who have human biases can reduce police defensiveness around this issue and motivate change.
Lorie A. Fridell, PhD, an associate professor of Criminal Justice at the University of South Florida and the former Director of Research at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), writes on this topic and provides command-level training around the country. Her recommendations for agencies form what she calls a comprehensive agency program to produce fair and impartial policing. Dr. Fridell argues that all agencies need to proactively promote fair and impartial policing because they hire humans to do police work and the research shows that humans have implicit biases. Her recommendations help agencies to address the ill-intentioned officers who engage in biased policing and the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned officers who aspire to police fairly and impartially, but who are human.
Many of the following recommendations come from Dr. Fridell’s work.
Recruitment and Hiring
First, police agencies should hire a diverse workforce and individuals who can police in an unbiased fashion. Ideally, the composition of personnel should reflect the diversity of the community that is served. Doing so conveys a sense of equality to the public and allows the officers within the agency to better understand and communicate with the minority community. It also “increases the likelihood that officers will come to better understand and respect various racial and cultural perspectives through their daily interactions with one another.” The intergroup contact theory provides another reason for a diverse workforce. According to this theory, positive interactions with people in other groups outside of one’s race or ethnicity will reduce implicit biases against those groups. When officers work with a diverse group of peers within an agency, their implicit biases are weakened through repeated positive interactions.
Community Policing
Community policing can promote fair and impartial policing. Community policing that facilitates positive interactions between police and community members harnesses the power of the intergroup contact theory.“Knowing many citizens by face and name improves officers’ abilities to differentiate between suspicious and nonsuspicious people on a basis other than race; getting to know the community’s law-abiding citizens helps police overcome stereotypes based on characteristics such as race.” Also, in building relationships, community members develop a sense of trust in their local officers; this may reduce the biases that citizens may hold against the police.
Training
Training can play a critical role in reducing the impact of implicit bias on behavior. Research has found that individuals who are made aware of their implicit biases are motivated and able to implement “controlled” (that is, unbiased) behaviors. Although the recommendations made here do not reduce bias—rather, they raise consciousness about them—research has suggested that in making one aware of unconscious biases, these biases, which are malleable, may be reduced. A type of “cognitive correction” is said to take place.
At the basic level, law enforcement recruits should be challenged to identify key police decisions and scenarios that are at greatest risk of manifesting bias, such as traffic stops, consent searches, reasonable suspicion to frisk, and other procedures—and then reflect on the potential impact of implicit bias on their perceptions and behaviors in those scenarios. Race, gender, age, disability, and sexual orientation all have the potential to impact and influence decisions. Further, seasoned officers should be similarly challenged at in-service and other training venues. Supervisors should be challenged to consider how implicit biases may manifest not only in themselves but also in their subordinates. Officers at all levels should be versed not only in diversity training but also in training on cultural competency, Fourth Amendment restrictions, and professional motor vehicle stops.
Along with police practitioners, researchers who have conducted key work in this area, and funding from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), Dr. Fridell is producing a model curriculum that will help the police recruit to
- understand that even well-intentioned people have biases;
- understand how implicit biases affect what we perceive and see and, unless prevented, affect what we do;
- understand that fair and impartial policing leads to effective policing; and
- use tools that help officers to recognize their conscious and implicit biases and implement controlled (unbiased) behavioral responses.
Similarly, with the same expert team and COPS office funding, Dr. Fridell has developed a science-based curriculum for first-line supervisors. These training programs supplement more traditional curriculums designed to address racially biased policing.
The Garner case and the deaths while in custody are cases where juries need to decide their fate. Unless I misread the news, most officer involved shootings, the Brown case included, occur durring traffic stops. The other is domestic violence calls. The Chris Rock video, although part of his comedy show, is insghtful on how to avoid "getting you ass kicked by the police"
To the surpise of most of you, I agree with Mayor de Balsio. I was told the same thing(except the cell phone part since they weren't invented yet)
"It's different for a white child. That's just the reality in this country," de Blasio went on. "And with Dante, very early on with my son, we said, look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do, don't move suddenly, don't reach for your cell phone, because we knew, sadly, there's a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color."
When I was younger and I had been pulled over I did just that, I was courteous to the officer, did what I was asked, and did not get my asked kicked by the cops.
One of my cousins was smoking some weed on the side of house when he was spotted by a cop. Like an idiot he tried to run. The cop caught up with him and when he went to cuff him he put up a fight and ended up getting his ass kicked. Instead of a marijuana loitering citation he needed up in jail for resisting arrest.
Key takeaway? Blacks are much more likely than whites to be additionally charged with "resisting arrest" after being arrested for some of the most common criminal charges in NYC. While that disparity exists throughout NYC it is the most pronounced in the boroughs with the largest white populations (i.e. Queens and Staten Island). BUT ... the stats also show that it is a distinct minority of NYPD officers who account for the lion's share of such "resisting arrest" charges. Which is all too often used as an excuse for excessive force on the part of the arresting officer. So bear all this in mind while perusing this article on things that could be done to identify and discipline officers who repeatedly utilize excessive force.
You see, this is where the discussion about the disproportionate violence among black youths becomes relevant. And this is what I meant by "opening the door" to it.
I'll give you the choice, do you want to discuss these issues or do you still think they are a derail?
You see, this is where the discussion about the disproportionate violence among black youths becomes relevant. And this is what I meant by "opening the door" to it.
I'll give you the choice, do you want to discuss these issues or do you still think they are a derail?
That's fine if you can first explain how "disproportionate VIOLENT crime" is relevant to these particular figures involving "NON-VIOLENT crime"? Or how it's relevant to the article I posted about how BLACK COPS even fear their white counterparts despite committing NO CRIME? Or how it's relevant to Stop & Frisk OVERWHELMINGLY targeting minorities in NYC on suspicion of NON-VIOLENT crime?
This is a gentle reminder to keep things on topic and quit it with the borderline (and not so borderline) racist material.
And no, saying "these are just the facts" doesn't excuse posting drivel.
It seems like some people here are painting the problem as disproportionate crime by young blacks, others as racial discrimination. Why can't it be both? It clearly is to me. Why is it necessary to debate which is more prevalent or a bigger problem? Why can't we just address both?
This is a gentle reminder to keep things on topic and quit it with the borderline (and not so borderline) racist material.
And no, saying "these are just the facts" doesn't excuse posting drivel.
Is it really too much to ask that the dissection of the black community be given it's own thread. This thread is supposed to be about real life problems with the police and the justice system. Instead, we've gotten a ton of pushback that it's the blacks fault, ignoring that cases involving non-blacks have been included in the thread. Not to mention those who are so focused on the african-american community don't have much to say about things the police could do to improve their own 'community.'
The entire thread has been a derail. I have no apt metaphor, but it'd be like taking a topic about rape on college campuses and turning into a discussion about how female promiscuity is the underlying problem.
It seems like some people here are painting the problem as disproportionate crime by young blacks, others as racial discrimination. Why can't it be both? It clearly is to me. Why is it necessary to debate which is more prevalent or a bigger problem? Why can't we just address both?
Anyway, I gave your question some more thought Chongo. There's semantics involved, and I hate semantics, so I'll leave it to you to provide terms and definitions to my answer.
We live in a country where simply having a black name on a resume severely decreases your chances of getting a callback, let alone hired. I don't think this is 'overt' racism, but a unconscious manifestation of social, cultural, and economic biases. We are all guilty of this to some degree. It does not take a vivid imagination that this unconscious bias would infect people who work in a job where the stakes are higher. Do police forces have a higher ratio of overt racists than the normal population? I don't know. Overt racism fluctuates based on location and I would surmise that so long as the police force is representative of the local community, the ratio should be fairly similar.
I will also say the rhetoric coming out of the NYPD is pretty disgraceful. I haven't read anything de Blasio has said or done that would warrant the tone or aggressiveness of their messages. It reminds me a lot of people in 2003 who couldn't grasp that you can be against a war without being against the soldiers. Similarly, one can be against excessive force without being against police officers.
I will also say the rhetoric coming out of the NYPD is pretty disgraceful. I haven't read anything de Blasio has said or done that would warrant the tone or aggressiveness of their messages. It reminds me a lot of people in 2003 who couldn't grasp that you can be against a war without being against the soldiers. Similarly, one can be against excessive force without being against police officers.
That's fine if you can first explain how "disproportionate VIOLENT crime" is relevant to these particular figures involving "NON-VIOLENT crime"?
Because violent and non-violent crime are heavily correlated, especially when it comes to drug possession.
Look, we can absolutely take this to another thread if you'd like, but after reading the sentiments and with the level of emotion on display in this one I think its best we table this.
Or how it's relevant to the article I posted about how BLACK COPS even fear their white counterparts despite committing NO CRIME?
There's nothing here to discuss other than a symptom of the problem we both acknowledge and are trying to solve.
Or how it's relevant to Stop & Frisk OVERWHELMINGLY targeting minorities in NYC on suspicion of NON-VIOLENT crime?
I am vehemently opposed to stop a frisk as a violation of the 4th amendment's "secure in person and in property".
To the surpise of most of you, I agree with Mayor de Balsio. I was told the same thing(except the cell phone part since they weren't invented yet)
"It's different for a white child. That's just the reality in this country," de Blasio went on. "And with Dante, very early on with my son, we said, look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do, don't move suddenly, don't reach for your cell phone, because we knew, sadly, there's a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color."
Well it certainly doesn't surprise me. There's absolutely NOTHING that's "anti-police" about his statement. Parents of all kinds of backgrounds may instruct their children similarly. The only thing that's specific to minority young males is that they have to be EXTRA careful not to make any sudden movements, etc. Which again is TRUE. The only thing surprising is the NY police union's over-the-top reaction to it.
Originally Posted by Chongo
When I was younger and I had been pulled over I did just that, I was courteous to the officer, did what I was asked, and did not get my asked kicked by the cops.
Same for me.
But it's also true for me and a friend to be slammed on the hood of a car when we did just that after being pulled over. Why did we get stopped? We missed a turn to get onto the highway (we were visiting some girls in an unfamiliar residential area) and had to circle the block to get back to it. Cops accused us of "casing the neighborhood". Did we get our asses kicked? Not all all. Excessive and unnecessary? Absolutely. And it didn't matter that we had no outstanding warrants. Not even an arrest record. They were assholes to the degree that the chose to be and it wasn't anything we could do about it.
It's also true for me and group of friends to have the infamously racist Jennings PD (that was eventually disbanded) order us all out of a car parked in front of the police station with their weapons drawn. Why? They said we looked "suspicious". Most of us spontaneously started laughing and said incredulously something to the effect of "Suspicious of doing WHAT? We're parked in front of the police station!?" Looking back on it that probably wasn't the wisest thing for us to say. Fortunately our youthful exuberance didn't lead this the situation going further south for us. The real reason we were there? Two of our friends (who were twin brothers) wanted the police to help them retrieve their belongings out of their home around the corner because their drunken step-father was threatening to shoot them if they tried to leave with their stuff.
My point is that while obeying the "rules" when dealing with the police is always a good idea because it increases the probability that the encounter won't go south for you ... it does NOT eliminate the possibility altogether. Especially when you are a minority.
Is it really too much to ask that the dissection of the black community be given it's own thread. This thread is supposed to be about real life problems with the police and the justice system. Instead, we've gotten a ton of pushback that it's the blacks fault, ignoring that cases involving non-blacks have been included in the thread. Not to mention those who are so focused on the african-american community don't have much to say about things the police could do to improve their own 'community.'
The entire thread has been a derail. I have no apt metaphor, but it'd be like taking a topic about rape on college campuses and turning into a discussion about how female promiscuity is the underlying problem.
TTo the surpise of most of you, I agree with Mayor de Balsio. I was told the same thing(except the cell phone part since they weren't invented yet)
Well there you go then. You and your parents admit that a bias of some type exists.
If people of color have to hold themselves to a different standard than everyone else when dealing with the police, that is the very definition of inequality.
I will also say the rhetoric coming out of the NYPD is pretty disgraceful. I haven't read anything de Blasio has said or done that would warrant the tone or aggressiveness of their messages. It reminds me a lot of people in 2003 who couldn't grasp that you can be against a war without being against the soldiers. Similarly, one can be against excessive force without being against police officers.
Because violent and non-violent crime are heavily correlated, especially when it comes to drug possession.
Drug dealing? I can see your point. Drug possession? Not so much. I couldn't fit the entire image above but if you follow the link and look at the bottom of the page we are talking about people getting busted for misdemeanor pot charges ....
A misdemeanor drug possession case refers to a docketed criminal case with no felony charges and at least one charge of 'unlawful possession of marijuana' (§22.105), 'criminal possession of marijuana' (§22.110), or 'criminal possession of a controlled substance' (§22.003).
We are talking about people getting arrested by the NYPD because they have a freaking joint or two on their person. I would seriously question if there are credible studies showing that people in NYC who smoke weed recreationally are more likely to be strapped. Especially when the latter involves a "Criminal Possession of a Weapon" charge that in 2 out 3 degrees is a felony.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Look, we can absolutely take this to another thread if you'd like, but after reading the sentiments and with the level of emotion on display in this one I think its best we table this.
Agreed. Out of respect for Dakar if nothing else.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I am vehemently opposed to stop a frisk as a violation of the 4th amendment's "secure in person and in property".
An Ellen Degeneres dance challenge, which centers around people doing fun dances behind unsuspecting strangers, took a brutal turn as a fan attempted to dance behind a NYPD officer who didn't take kindly to his moves.
Like a bad scene out of Footloose, The Free Thought Project notes that, YouTube personality, Alexander BOK, who danced behind several folks before attempting the #DanceDare behind an officer on Christmas Eve. The officer busted BOK who readily admits that he was dancing, to which, the officer replies: "F—k you doing behind me?"
BOK is then pushed against a police van and surrounded by 3 officers.
Officer: "Are you f--king kidding me? What's wrong with you?"
BOK: "I'm dancing."
Officer: "What are you dancing in the street for?"
An officer's hand appears to grab BOK's neck. An officer asks again, "What the f--k is wrong with you?"
A fourth officer joins the fray.
BOK claims that he explains to the officers in detail, exactly what he was doing and according to BOK, they continued to insult him.
Officer: "Are you f--cking kidding me, bro? Are you a f--king a--hole?"
Two more officers join the interrogation bringing the total number of officers for BOK's murderous dance moves to six.
BOK claims that once the officers realized they could not arrest him so they allowed him to leave but not before they delivered one more parting shot. An officer can be heard telling BOK to "take a f--king walk" before pushing BOK to the rain soaked pavement.
Watch the interaction below. Fast forward to 2:20 to see BOK's encounter with police. Warning NSFW language contained in the video.
Can't say I've heard of this YouTube "prankster" ... but I imagine my kids know all about him. It just seems to me that even with the tensions going on in NYC and officers being on edge in light of the murder of the two NYPD officers .... these officers knew immediately they were not under any kind of threat and behaved very badly.
Anyway, I gave your question some more thought Chongo. There's semantics involved, and I hate semantics, so I'll leave it to you to provide terms and definitions to my answer.
We live in a country where simply having a black name on a resume severely decreases your chances of getting a callback, let alone hired. I don't think this is 'overt' racism, but a unconscious manifestation of social, cultural, and economic biases. We are all guilty of this to some degree. It does not take a vivid imagination that this unconscious bias would infect people who work in a job where the stakes are higher. Do police forces have a higher ratio of overt racists than the normal population? I don't know. Overt racism fluctuates based on location and I would surmise that so long as the police force is representative of the local community, the ratio should be fairly similar.
I hope that answers you question satisfactorily.
There are PD's in the US that are "minority majorities" Detroit is one.
I don't want to stray too far off topic. (Bad habit of mine.)
If your name is Jamal or Kanesha Martins or some other "black" first name, yes that's possible. If it's Joshua or Mary Martins maybe not. At least you get a call if your name is Joshua or Mary Martins. Try applying for a job when your name is Jesus or Maria Martinez. Try this one on for size. My wife was out of work for almost three years. She has housekeeping experience from when her family ran a motel in Joliet. She applied for a job at The Phoenician Resort. She got a call the next day, but once they heard her voice, (English speaker,Chicago accent, not Spanish) they suddenly needed "more recent experience". They saw the last name, Chavez, and thought Mexican. My wife is Eastern European/Italian.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Dec 31, 2014 at 10:31 AM.
)
Just in case anyone was under the false impression that police brutality only has minority victims, this is what police officers did to Kelly Thomas in Fullerton, CA. He died from from his injuries several days later.
Raw video footage here. The beating starts about at about 15:45.
In situations like this I often wonder if these kinds of officers simply take leave of all human decency and common sense? The guy is obviously homeless so that should be clue #1 that you are in all likelihood dealing with someone who is either mentally ill, has substance abuse issues, or both. One would think that would give them reason for pause. But even after things got physical how in hell are they REALISTICALLY expecting this man to comply with their orders to put his hands behind his back when they are beating him in the head with a baton and tasing him? Normal human instinct is to cover your head in the case of the baton ... and a person's body often locks up uncontrollably in the case of the taser.
In any event, what was not typical here is that two officers were charged and tried. What is all too typical is that they were acquitted nonetheless despite the video evidence and these facts presented at trial regarding Thomas's cries.
Dad help me ... they are killing me! - 31 times Sir please ... okay ... okay! - 30 times Help me ... help me God! - 26 times I'm sorry! - 15 times
A jury has acquitted two former Fullerton, California, police officers on trial in the beating death of Kelly Thomas, a mentally ill and homeless man.
The verdict was read in a Santa Ana courtroom Monday afternoon. Eight women and four men began deliberating the case on Thursday.
"I'm just horrified. They got away with murdering my son," Cathy Thomas, the victim's mother, told reporters after the verdict was read.
The victim's father, Ron Thomas, said that everyone now needs to be afraid.
"This is carte blanche to police officers to do whatever they want," he told reporters.
The beating of Thomas in a transit parking lot was recorded by security cameras on the night of July 5, 2011. The surveillance camera footage shows Thomas being beaten, clubbed and stunned with a Taser by police. The video sparked a nationwide outcry.
Former officer Manuel Ramos was charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. A second former Fullerton officer, Jay Cicinelli, was charged with involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.
Both were found not guilty on all charges.
"These peace officers were doing their job. They had no malice in their heart," said John Barnett, an attorney for Ramos.
When asked about the video, he said it's "not the entire case."
In closing arguments, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas told jurors that Ramos bore responsibility for Thomas's death because he issued a threat to the uncooperative homeless man. Ramos can be seen on the surveillance video putting on gloves and shaking his fist in Thomas' face.
OAW: do you buy into the Michael Moore-esque theory that the US is a very fearful society, and that a lot of this brutality comes from a fundamental sense of fear?
I'm really uncomfortable around seemingly mentally deranged people, or anybody that has lost control of their basic faculties. I can see being fearful of these people, but there is something that translates fears like this into a deadly threat. Those cops that killed that homeless man probably thought that he posed some sort of deadly threat?
these officers knew immediately they were not under any kind of threat and behaved very badly.
This is called playing with fire.
Originally Posted by Chongo
There are PD's in the US that are "minority majorities" Detroit is one.
I don't want to stray too far off topic. (Bad habit of mine.)
If your name is Jamal or Kanesha Martins or some other "black" first name, yes that's possible. If it's Joshua or Mary Martins maybe not. At least you get a call if your name is Joshua or Mary Martins. Try applying for a job when your name is Jesus or Maria Martinez. Try this one on for size. My wife was out of work for almost three years. She has housekeeping experience from when her family ran a motel in Joliet. She applied for a job at The Phoenician Resort. She got a call the next day, but once they heard her voice, (English speaker,Chicago accent, not Spanish) they suddenly needed "more recent experience". They saw the last name, Chavez, and thought Mexican. My wife is Eastern European/Italian.
You're going to have to be a little more explicit of what you're trying to communicate to me with all these questions. You seem to acknowledge that bias exists. I have said bias exists. Where do we go from here?
This is where I'll point out that the cops faced what we asked for – a jury trial – and their peers cleared them of wrong doing. I don't have the pulse of the public on this topic; Whether most agree or disagree with the verdict. Or if his life was devalued because he was mentally ill and/or poor. Perhaps I'm missing some key detail. Maybe their lawyers were that good.
OAW: do you buy into the Michael Moore-esque theory that the US is a very fearful society, and that a lot of this brutality comes from a fundamental sense of fear?
I hadn't heard this before, but I have heard of studies that conservatives have a part of the brain that perceives threats that is larger than liberals.
Or perhaps he's just banking on people not following the various back and forth in the thread all that closely? Hence, why I collected all my recent comments pertaining to this latest BS in one post with links back to where they were originally made to provide the proper context. If he even bothers to respond he'll likely resort to what he typically does when backed into a corner with facts and evidence ... and simply dismiss it all out of hand with a "distortions, lies, and manipulations" accusation. Or take the same route he did with the STL County Juvenile Court spokeswoman when he swore on a stack of bibles that she never said what I repeatedly cited her saying with direct quotes. Who are you going to believe after all when it comes to my posts above? CTP or your lying eyes? Or take a marginally smarter approach and just ignore that post altogether ... only to go back to this same old tired argument awhile later when it rolls off the latest page. Rinse, wash, repeat. What you will NOT see CTP do is actually acknowledge that he is in error ... even though the PROOF is right there for all to see. That would simply be too much like right. As I stated earlier, I've NEVER put anyone on ignore since I first came here in 2001. But there's only so much intellectual puerility I can stand. 
"Hey besson! Is he still talking about me, because I'm like totally ignoring him!"
Top