Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

When? In plantation times? In feudal days? In the Roman Empire?

We’re talking about America, so in the days of American slavery.

At what point did it become wrong? To say it was always wrong is to misunderstand the nature of morality, in my opinion. Morality is not fixed and eternal, it changes with society. Much of what we do now - and I mean the many things that we would agree are perfectly fine, not the things we disagree on - will be considered horrific in the future, and many were in the past. That doesn’t mean we are hideous, immoral people.

The American slave-owners who raped and mistreated their slaves were hideous and immoral people, as were the Nazis who killed the Jews. It doesn’t matter that within the confines of the slave plantations or the death camps this was considered morally or legally acceptable – there were many contemporary writers and public figures who recognized the immorality and railed against it in both circumstances.

I don’t think that follows at all. It may be true, but it’s not inevitable by any means.

Then we disagree. I know of no society in history in which criminals were routinely mistreated but innocent people never were.

That may be true, but it doesn’t follow from that that the police were wrong to keep restraining him. If his actions were indistinguishable from those of someone resisting because they wanted to fight, not because they couldn’t breathe, then there is no fault.

From the video, he was trying to indicate that he couldn’t breathe. That should have been enough for the police to stop that method of restraint, to let the man breathe. To not do so was negligent, in my mind.

As we know the evidence will be revealed at or before the trial, I’m completely reserving judgement on this until I know more. I will say, though, that even if the statement was false, intentionally or otherwise, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been self defence.

We know that the police officers in this instance are either liars or wildly mistaken, so I have no trust in their assertions about the situation, and in either scenario they are unfit to be police officers. As to the possible criminal liability, I reserve final judgment. Based on the video and my understanding of the law (IANAL), the shooting was not lawful, but we shall see.

The standard for criminal responsibility is higher than that for civil, and not just in terms of burden of proof.

Fine, but not relevant to my post.

You will get a picture of their opinions and beliefs of what happened. That may be the only evidence available (it isn’t in this particular instance, but I’ll deal with that in a minute), but just because it’s the only or the best evidence doesn’t mean that one should conclude that it’s necessarily true. This is an issue in the study of history in general, that very often we only have one side of the story, or less even than that.

This isn’t to say that you’re wrong about what happened 100 years ago, as there is a great deal of other evidence, in terms of newspaper reports, accounts from people of all races, photos, and plenty of other things.

I continue to stand by my statement, that black people have been by far the best and most reliable source for accurate information about the treatment of black people in America, and I believe they continue to be.

I’m not going to say your wrong here, but it does seem to me that you are begging the question. You are saying that black people are the most reliable source why, exactly?

I’m saying it because I believe they continue to be the most reliable source today, and most of the information I’ve gathered that forms my opinions on this comes from the statements and assertions of black people, in addition to various statistical data on arrests, incarcerations, and shootings.

Has other evidence been found later that backs up their claims and debunks other claims?

Lots, though much of it is in the form of corroboration by other witnesses (who are often black).

My understanding of the climate in the South 100 years ago is that many white people were openly and proudly racist, isn’t that around the time that the second wave of the KKK was at its most powerful?

Yes. They claimed that slaves were treated well, and black people were happier being slaves than being free. They claimed that mistreatment of slaves (whipping, rapes, executions, etc.) was very rare and not tolerated in the South. They claimed that black people were naturally inferior, and the natural order was for white people to be above them in society.

The KKK and other groups claimed that black people were dangerous, and needed sharp discipline (including lynching) in order to be kept in line. They claimed that black men were a danger to white women. They claimed that miscegenation was unnatural and created abominations. They claimed that, ultimately, black people would be happier if they accepted that their proper place was in a subservient role to white people.

Or are you claiming that white people treated blacks even worse than they boasted about, and that black people’s claims to that effect have been substantiated?

White racists did not, in general, boast about mistreatment of black people – they boasted about their concept of justice. They honestly thought they were doing the right thing, and never believed they were mistreating black people.

The KKK claimed not to mistreat black people? That’s their whole reason for existing… There’s no lack of off the record statements, and after the fact statements, by white people admitting (or bragging) that they mistreated black people.

False, in general – they ‘bragged’ of their version of justice, and of keeping black people in line (as subservient and fearful), and of fighting for the white race and to protect white women. The KKK were not comic book villains – at times, they were a very popular group who captured the (white) public’s support as, supposedly, the best way to justly treat black people and protect white people.

Correct. My point is that, 50 or 100 years ago, vast numbers of white people either did mistreat black people because they were black, or saw nothing wrong with people doing that. Nowadays, vast numbers of people condemn treating people in any way differently because of the colour of their skin, and someone who did so (and could be shown to have done so) would be at minimum shunned by a lot of people, quite possibly fired from their job, and possibly locked up. This is a huge change, and one that is (to my knowledge) unprecedented in history, and for you to brush it off as “more of the same” is silly.

Except that, in the past, vast numbers of white people thought black people were legitimately more dangerous, and harsher treatment was necessary to protect society from their savage nature. And many white people still feel this way, if not nearly as many as in the past (there are even a handful of Dopers who feel this way). There have been huge changes (HUGE!), but the situation was so incredibly bad in the past that even huge changes haven’t been enough to have a truly fair and equal society. The Pacific Ocean has shrunk to the Red Sea, but this is not enough, and we still have a long way to go.

The Nazis openly claimed that their aim was to rid the world of Jews, and throughout history pogroms have been public and legal. The idea that the way they were treated was some big secret is simply not true. Same with Manifest Destiny and the Native Americans, same with many other groups. I’m not so sure about Irish Americans, but I know that the way the Irish in England were treated until well into my lifetime was no secret. I believe that’s gotten better in the last two decades (source - an old Irish guy I used to know until he passed away a few years ago).

None of this refutes anything I said – I didn’t say that Nazi treatment of Jews was a big secret. I’m saying that, similarly to American slave plantations, savage mistreatment was both legally and morally acceptable, but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t judge that mistreatment as savage and incredibly wrong.

What laws, in America or the UK, apply differently to blacks and whites?

There are some laws (such as various forms of jaywalking) that are massively over-applied for black people in certain communities and barely or never applied to white people, according to things I’ve read and people I’ve spoken too.

I did not assert that they’ve ever been dishonest or accurate. You asked if I thought this was the first time they’ve been dishonest about their treatment, and I answered no. That you asked this leading question, and continue to misconstrue my answer in the worst possible way, is my problem here. And it’s why I’ll ask again, have you stopped beating your wife?

It’s like we’re speaking a different language.

Again, you said (your exact words): “I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment.”

What did you mean by that? If this isn’t the first time, what was? What was a single other time?

I’m just asking you to clarify and specify what you meant. What was the first time, or what was another time?

I don’t understand how asking you to clarify and specify the exact words you said is at all a “leading question”. And I don’t understand how I’m misconstruing it, since I’m using your exact words about whether or not you believe that “this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment”.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

We’re talking about America, so in the days of American slavery.

The American slave-owners who raped and mistreated their slaves were hideous and immoral people, as were the Nazis who killed the Jews. It doesn’t matter that within the confines of the slave plantations or the death camps this was considered morally or legally acceptable – there were many contemporary writers and public figures who recognized the immorality and railed against it in both circumstances.

You know what? They weren’t. They were ordinary people acting in a way that they considered, based on everything they could reasonably be expected to know, to be moral and correct. Do you really think that, uniquely in history, we know the truth about morality that no-one in the past could have do so? No, morality is a social construct (like so much else) and something that is immoral here and now could well be perfectly moral in a different time and place.

I’m saying it because I believe they continue to be the most reliable source today, and most of the information I’ve gathered that forms my opinions on this comes from the statements and assertions of black people, in addition to various statistical data on arrests, incarcerations, and shootings.

You have it backwards. The statements and assertions should be the additional part, as they are necessarily less reliable that the actual data, and should be believed only in so far as they agree with the statistics. If anecdote and data diverge, it may well be worth trying to find more accurate data, but not to believe statements, especially memories from decades ago, if they contradict the evidence.

Of course, in this case they don’t contradict the evidence, but the point is you are choosing to believe them for the wrong reason.

Yes. They claimed that slaves were treated well, and black people were happier being slaves than being free. They claimed that mistreatment of slaves (whipping, rapes, executions, etc.) was very rare and not tolerated in the South. They claimed that black people were naturally inferior, and the natural order was for white people to be above them in society.

In some cases. In others, there are detailed records and diaries kept of what they actually did, based on comparisons with the claims of slaves, abolitionists, and other evidence such as the life expectancy of slaves and the values of them at certain ages.

The KKK and other groups claimed that black people were dangerous, and needed sharp discipline (including lynching) in order to be kept in line. They claimed that black men were a danger to white women. They claimed that miscegenation was unnatural and created abominations. They claimed that, ultimately, black people would be happier if they accepted that their proper place was in a subservient role to white people.

White racists did not, in general, boast about mistreatment of black people – they boasted about their concept of justice. They honestly thought they were doing the right thing, and never believed they were mistreating black people.

False, in general – they ‘bragged’ of their version of justice, and of keeping black people in line (as subservient and fearful), and of fighting for the white race and to protect white women. The KKK were not comic book villains – at times, they were a very popular group who captured the (white) public’s support as, supposedly, the best way to justly treat black people and protect white people.

Are all those things not the mistreatment you are talking about? They may have considered it right, but the law was in most cases against them even then, and the law tends to lag behind morality somewhat.

Except that, in the past, vast numbers of white people thought black people were legitimately more dangerous, and harsher treatment was necessary to protect society from their savage nature. And many white people still feel this way, if not nearly as many as in the past (there are even a handful of Dopers who feel this way). There have been huge changes (HUGE!), but the situation was so incredibly bad in the past that even huge changes haven’t been enough to have a truly fair and equal society. The Pacific Ocean has shrunk to the Red Sea, but this is not enough, and we still have a long way to go.

It’s kinda odd that you think that black people should be the ones to say what black people think and experience, but when white people overwhelmingly say they don’t treat people differently because of their skin colour, you refuse to accept it. There is a small and shrinking amount of people who think that people should be viewed differently because of their skin colour, and far from all of them are white… You are, I fear, conflating people who think criminals should be treated harshly with people who think blacks should be mistreated.

None of this refutes anything I said – I didn’t say that Nazi treatment of Jews was a big secret. I’m saying that, similarly to American slave plantations, savage mistreatment was both legally and morally acceptable, but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t judge that mistreatment as savage and incredibly wrong.

It would be savage and wrong to do it now. The Nazi leadership were no doubt savage and immoral, but the same can’t be said for the ordinary people who went along with it. And in plantation days, the idea that the races were equal was an absurdity not worth entertaining. People were not wrong or savage to believe that and act on it, they were simply people.

There are some laws (such as various forms of jaywalking) that are massively over-applied for black people in certain communities and barely or never applied to white people, according to things I’ve read and people I’ve spoken too.

So campaign to change the law, or for it to be applied to white people. Don’t say anyone shouldn’t be punished as the law states.

It’s like we’re speaking a different language.

Again, you said (your exact words): “I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment.”

What did you mean by that? If this isn’t the first time, what was? What was a single other time?

I’m just asking you to clarify and specify what you meant. What was the first time, or what was another time?

I am saying that no, this is not the first time that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate. I did not say that there have been multiple times they have been dishonest. I’ve made no claims about black people being dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment, other than to say that anecdotes are nothing more than that.

I don’t understand how asking you to clarify and specify the exact words you said is at all a “leading question”. And I don’t understand how I’m misconstruing it, since I’m using your exact words about whether or not you believe that “this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment”.

I’m not going to play your “gotcha” games here. You are accusing me of saying that black people have, as a group, lied on one or more occasions about their treatment, but you are doing so in the form of a yes/no question that can’t be answered like that without you misinterpreting the answer.

“Is this the first time black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate, as a group,about their treatment”? No.

Have you stopped beating your wife? I’m hoping not.

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

You know what? They weren’t. They were ordinary people acting in a way that they considered, based on everything they could reasonably be expected to know, to be moral and correct. Do you really think that, uniquely in history, we know the truth about morality that no-one in the past could have do so? No, morality is a social construct (like so much else) and something that is immoral here and now could well be perfectly moral in a different time and place.

So we disagree about slave owners and Nazis. I’m not judging them by modern morality, I’m judging them by the morality of their time – and in their time, there were many people who recognized the extreme immorality of slavery and genocide. By the standards of their contemporaries (though not all of them, obviously), slave-owners and Nazis did horrible things.

You have it backwards. The statements and assertions should be the additional part, as they are necessarily less reliable that the actual data, and should be believed only in so far as they agree with the statistics. If anecdote and data diverge, it may well be worth trying to find more accurate data, but not to believe statements, especially memories from decades ago, if they contradict the evidence.

Of course, in this case they don’t contradict the evidence, but the point is you are choosing to believe them for the wrong reason.

If the data contradicted them, I’d strongly reconsider my approach. But the data usually lags individual reports and opinions, and since we don’t have comprehensive data (because most police departments haven’t kept good data on this), I rely on a source with an excellent reputation for information about treatment of black people.

Are all those things not the mistreatment you are talking about? They may have considered it right, but the law was in most cases against them even then, and the law tends to lag behind morality somewhat.

The law was sometimes against them and sometimes supported them. When it supported them, the law was wrong, obviously.

It’s kinda odd that you think that black people should be the ones to say what black people think and experience, but when white people overwhelmingly say they don’t treat people differently because of their skin colour, you refuse to accept it.

I believe that most white people don’t treat people differently because of their skin color, though this is a pretty new phenomenon – for most of American history, this wasn’t true, regardless of whether white Americans thought it was. But I believe that there are still enough white people (and enough institutions) who treat black people differently that it remains a significant problem.

But it shouldn’t be odd that “black people should be the ones to say what black people think and experience”, and no one else’s opinion on this (what black people think and experience) should carry comparable weight.

There is a small and shrinking amount of people who think that people should be viewed differently because of their skin colour, and far from all of them are white… You are, I fear, conflating people who think criminals should be treated harshly with people who think blacks should be mistreated.

I’m sure I disagree with some about the treatment of criminals – undoubtedly, some people’s “harsh but fair treatment” would be my “mistreatment”. But I’m only talking about mistreatment, while recognizing that we may not agree in all cases on what constitutes mistreatment.

It would be savage and wrong to do it now. The Nazi leadership were no doubt savage and immoral, but the same can’t be said for the ordinary people who went along with it.

We can say the same for the “ordinary people” who committed or abetted murder – their behavior was absolutely against the common morality of the time, even if Nazi morality was skewed. Perhaps not the ordinary German citizen or soldier who just wanted to live their lives and took no individual action against Jews.

And in plantation days, the idea that the races were equal was an absurdity not worth entertaining. People were not wrong or savage to believe that and act on it, they were simply people.

I’m not talking about equality, I’m talking about not whipping, raping, beating, and executing black people. That doesn’t require belief in equality, and in fact there were plenty of people in the 1800s who recognized the extreme immorality of such treatment. I’m comparing slave-owners to their contemporaries. If so many people at the time could recognize how immoral this treatment was, the slave-owners should have too. I feel fine about condemning them for failing to live up to the standards that many of their contemporaries did.

So campaign to change the law, or for it to be applied to white people. Don’t say anyone shouldn’t be punished as the law states.

If the law is applied unequally, it’s absolutely appropriate to demand that it not be applied as such (in addition to advocating for changing the law, perhaps). It’s perfectly appropriate for the public to demand that, until the laws are changed, the people still be treated equally and fairly.

I am saying that no, this is not the first time that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate. I did not say that there have been multiple times they have been dishonest. I’ve made no claims about black people being dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment, other than to say that anecdotes are nothing more than that.

You did say “I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment” – I honestly don’t understand how this doesn’t constitute a claim about black people being dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment – that exact phrase is in your post.

I’m not going to play your “gotcha” games here. You are accusing me of saying that black people have, as a group, lied on one or more occasions about their treatment, but you are doing so in the form of a yes/no question that can’t be answered like that without you misinterpreting the answer.

“Is this the first time black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate, as a group,about their treatment”? No.

Have you stopped beating your wife? I’m hoping not.

This is weird. So you say “no”, and you say “I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment”, but then it’s somehow a gotcha for me to ask what time(s) you mean.

I’m following up on your own words. I’ll not do so with a yes or no question – I’m asking frankly, and honestly, what is the first time in history that you believe that “black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment”?

If you don’t want to answer, fine, but I don’t get it. I don’t get why it’s wrong or “gotcha” for me to ask what times you’re talking about. And I don’t get why you’re assuming I’m going to misinterpret it when you haven’t answered the question – why not just try and answer it, and if I misinterpret your answer, then we’ll fix that then? Why not give me the benefit of the doubt that I just want to understand what you mean? No need to be afraid here, we’ve had a civil discussion so far, despite our disagreements. Why not just try and answer the question?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@iiandyiiii

You did say “I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment” – I honestly don’t understand how this doesn’t constitute a claim about black people being dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment – that exact phrase is in your post.

This is weird. So you say “no”, and you say “I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment”, but then it’s somehow a gotcha for me to ask what time(s) you mean.

I’m following up on your own words. I’ll not do so with a yes or no question – I’m asking frankly, and honestly, what is the first time in history that you believe that “black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment”?

At the risk of presumption, why not cite the case of Tawana Brawley as an example of a black person who lied about abuse by police. There. You have an example of a black person lying, and we have examples of police officers lying, so it is established that both sides of this particular debate have individuals that are capable of lies.

I don’t see this as a huge revelation, but the coyness was wasting time.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bryan_Ekers

At the risk of presumption, why not cite the case of Tawana Brawley as an example of a black person who lied about abuse by police. There. You have an example of a black person lying, and we have examples of police officers lying, so it is established that both sides of this particular debate have individuals that are capable of lies.

I don’t see this as a huge revelation, but the coyness was wasting time.

Except that I’m not talking about individuals, but black people collectively. Of course I’m aware that some individual black people have lied or been inaccurate, but my assertions and my questions have been about the assertions and opinions of black people as a group with regards to the treatment of black people in America.

[Steophan]

@Bryan_Ekers

I don’t see this as a huge revelation, but the coyness was wasting time.

I’m not being coy. At no point have I claimed that black people have, as a group, lied or been mistaken about the way they’ve been treated, and I resent being asked a leading question with no acceptable answer that presumes I have stated that.

He’s not asking about individuals, we all know that some cops and some non-cops have, at times, lied or been mistaken about events.

[Steophan]

And, I think it’s starting to get circular with the point by point debate, so I’m going to leave that for now.

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

I’m not being coy. At no point have I claimed that black people have, as a group, lied or been mistaken about the way they’ve been treated, and I resent being asked a leading question with no acceptable answer that presumes I have stated that.

He’s not asking about individuals, we all know that some cops and some non-cops have, at times, lied or been mistaken about events.

I must be missing something, because I am totally confused as to how to treat your second sentence above when compared to this post:

@Steophan

And I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment.

Very honestly confused here, and I resent being accused of asking a “leading question”. I’m only asking you to clarify and specify what you meant by this second quote.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

I must be missing something, because I am totally confused as to how to treat your second sentence above when compared to this post:

Very honestly confused here, and I resent being accused of asking a “leading question”. I’m only asking you to clarify and specify what you meant by this second quote.

You are assuming that I’ve said that black people have lied about what’s happened to them, as a group. I have not, and yet you asked me whether I think they have done so, and I replied “no”. But, due to the leading nature of your question, you have taken that to me “yes, repeatedly”.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, I tried.

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

You are assuming that I’ve said that black people have lied about what’s happened to them, as a group. I have not, and yet you asked me whether I think they have done so, and I replied “no”. But, due to the leading nature of your question, you have taken that to me “yes, repeatedly”.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Then what on earth did that second quote mean? I don’t understand how to interpret it, unless you’re just saying that you didn’t mean it.

[MaxTheVool]

@Steophan

If the law allows measurably different treatment of people based on their race, the law should be changed. I don’t think many people would disagree with that.

Right, that’s not what I’m saying

What I think you’re actually asking is whether it’s acceptable for measurably different treatment to occur, within the law, to different racial populations without any actual incident being racially motivated. I think that has to be acceptable. What’s the other option, introduce racial quotas for arrests?

(bolding mine)
That’s not quite what I’m saying either. In fact, I clearly think that many of these incidents are somewhat racially motivated. Not that any individual cop was necessarily a KKK member who just woke up in the morning and wanted to lynch a darkie, but rather that the cop started out more alert, more suspicious, and more hostile, even if still within the bounds of the law.

The situation is made more pernicious by the fact that the statistical correlations between race and poverty and poverty and crime probably explains some difference in treatment on a large scale, which makes it that much harder to really measure how much of a problem there is.

I would say that if such differences occur then it’s a problem with society, not the law, and needs to be addressed at that level, which will mean things like improved education, some means of increasing social mobility, better mental health treatment

I agree entirely

and many other things not directly connected with any interactions between police and public.

Why can/should it not also be addressed by reforms such as body cameras (which you support), more transparent and independent reviews of officer-involved-shootings, better education of cops concerning things like deescelation, etc?
My main point of dispute with you, however, is that I don’t think “well, we can not prove that officer Jay acted illegally over in that situation, and we can not prove that over Bob acted illegally over in that situation; so what are you all complaining about? everything is hunky-dory!” is a reasonable position at all.
Here’s another facet of this situation… in our legal system, people are innocent until proven guilty (which is how it should be). That means that if there’s a situation where we look at it in a simple non-legalistic fashion and say “well, we’re not really sure whether that should count as murder, it’s close”, most likely the cop will be acquitted. Again, incident by incident, that’s how it should work.

But what that means is that if there are 10 or 20 incidents, and general non-legalistic common sense tells us “well, 10 or 20 incidents, all of them are kind of borderline, that probably means that in 5 or 10 of them there really was a crime committed”. But we don’t end up with 5 or 10 convictions, we end up with 1 or 2 convictions. Which makes it seem that the system is set up unfairly. But that’s not really something you can address… you certainly can’t say “well, in 6 recent high-profile national cases the cop was found innocent… so YOU, officer Bob, are going to be found guilty to make that up even though the evidence in your case is not conclusive”.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, I tried.

Since I’m having so much trouble with Steophan’s explanation, can you help me understand what he meant by the following for our discussion about my assertion that black people, as a group, have been extremely accurate about mistreatment of black people in America throughout history?

@Steophan

And I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@iiandyiiii

Since I’m having so much trouble with Steophan’s explanation, can you help me understand what he meant by the following for our discussion about my assertion that black people, as a group, have been extremely accurate about mistreatment of black people in America throughout history?

I suppose that depends how you define “extremely”, though statistical analysis might help establish if black people are the targets of a disproportionate amount of police suspicion, i.e. they are pulled over more often, Terry-stopped more often, benefit from police discretion less often, etc.

Meantime, you can find readily individual cases of:

-Police officer gave an accurate account of the circumstances where a black person was questioned or arrested (suggesting there was no abuse)
-Police officer gave a false account of the circumstances where a black person was questioned or arrested (suggesting there was abuse)
-A black person gave an accurate account of an encounter with police (suggesting there was abuse)
-A black person gave a false account of an encounter with police (suggesting there was no abuse)

…so absolute assumptions are not possible (though this is fairly obvious and not a surprise to anyone, I’m sure). Steophan’s observation:

And I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment.

…is correct in the sense that this is not the first time in history a black American has been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment - just one example like Tawana Brawley would support that. Morphing “a black American” into “black Americans” - i.e. a specific case being used to make a general observation - is where he loses me, though, and I’m not sure what the point of the discussion is anyway.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bryan_Ekers

I suppose that depends how you define “extremely”, though statistical analysis might help establish if black people are the targets of a disproportionate amount of police suspicion, i.e. they are pulled over more often, Terry-stopped more often, benefit from police discretion less often, etc.

Meantime, you can find readily individual cases of:

-Police officer gave an accurate account of the circumstances where a black person was questioned or arrested (suggesting there was no abuse)
-Police officer gave a false account of the circumstances where a black person was questioned or arrested (suggesting there was abuse)
-A black person gave an accurate account of an encounter with police (suggesting there was abuse)
-A black person gave a false account of an encounter with police (suggesting there was no abuse)

…so absolute assumptions are not possible (though this is fairly obvious and not a surprise to anyone, I’m sure). Steophan’s observation:

And I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment.

…is correct in the sense that this is not the first time in history a black American has been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment - just one example like Tawana Brawley would support that. Morphing “a black American” into “black Americans” - i.e. a specific case being used to make a general observation - is where he loses me, though, and I’m not sure what the point of the discussion is anyway.

Except, again, that individual stories are not relevant in my assertion (or in Steophan’s response, as he said). I’m saying that when 80-90% of black people have agreed about something with regards to the larger issue of mistreatment of black people in America, they have been correct – as they were during slavery, during Reconstruction and Jim Crow, and during the Civil Rights era.

The larger point I’m making is that, time and time again, black people have been right (about mistreatment of black people in America). And, in my view, there’s not a single major accusation regarding the large-scale mistreatment of black people in America that, historically, black people (as a group, collectively) have not been right on. I don’t mean individual black people – I mean the collective attitudes, stories, and opinions of black people as a group. So 150 years ago, 100 years ago, and 50 years ago, if most black Americans said a particular bad thing was happening to them, they were right, and I’m extrapolating that it’s reasonable to believe that they (most black Americans) are still right today.

But thanks for trying.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

Then what on earth did that second quote mean? I don’t understand how to interpret it, unless you’re just saying that you didn’t mean it.

Saying that I don’t believe that it’s the first time something’s happened can just as equally mean that it’s not happened at all as that it’s happened repeatedly. But your leading question would not allow a “no” to be understood as that.

Hence, have you stopped beating your wife?

I’ll try to make it even clearer. I am making no definitive statement about whether or not the black populace has misrepresented its mistreatment, because I believe that I’d need further evidence to decide whether to believe anecdotes, even masses of them.

I can’t, due to the way you structured your question, provide the simple yes or no answer you want.

[Steophan]

@MaxTheVool

My main point of dispute with you, however, is that I don’t think “well, we can not prove that officer Jay acted illegally over in that situation, and we can not prove that over Bob acted illegally over in that situation; so what are you all complaining about? everything is hunky-dory!” is a reasonable position at all.

I’m not saying everything is hunky-dory, I’m saying that changing the situation will require a different approach than changing laws or punishing police officers.

Here’s another facet of this situation… in our legal system, people are innocent until proven guilty (which is how it should be). That means that if there’s a situation where we look at it in a simple non-legalistic fashion and say “well, we’re not really sure whether that should count as murder, it’s close”, most likely the cop will be acquitted. Again, incident by incident, that’s how it should work.

But what that means is that if there are 10 or 20 incidents, and general non-legalistic common sense tells us “well, 10 or 20 incidents, all of them are kind of borderline, that probably means that in 5 or 10 of them there really was a crime committed”. But we don’t end up with 5 or 10 convictions, we end up with 1 or 2 convictions. Which makes it seem that the system is set up unfairly. But that’s not really something you can address… you certainly can’t say “well, in 6 recent high-profile national cases the cop was found innocent… so YOU, officer Bob, are going to be found guilty to make that up even though the evidence in your case is not conclusive”.

People should be better educated about the law and about statistics, then. But, if all of the incidents are borderline, we should end up with no convictions, assuming that by borderline you mean probably but not definitely murder. That’s not a flaw with the system, in my opinion.

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

Saying that I don’t believe that it’s the first time something’s happened can just as equally mean that it’s not happened at all as that it’s happened repeatedly. But your leading question would not allow a “no” to be understood as that.

Hence, have you stopped beating your wife?

I’ll try to make it even clearer. I am making no definitive statement about whether or not the black populace has misrepresented its mistreatment, because I believe that I’d need further evidence to decide whether to believe anecdotes, even masses of them.

I can’t, due to the way you structured your question, provide the simple yes or no answer you want.

I wasn’t asking a yes or no question – I was asking you to clarify and explain. I think you did here, and I thank you for it, while reiterating that this was an honest search for understanding and not leading questions, “gotcha”, or anything more than an honest attempt to gain better understanding of your position. Thanks.

[MaxTheVool]

@Steophan

I’m not saying everything is hunky-dory, I’m saying that changing the situation will require a different approach than changing laws or punishing police officers.

Except that you do think that laws should be changed, unless I’m misunderstanding you. You’ve said repeatedly that you support body cameras.

Another change I would support is that all phases of investigations/trials of cop-on-civilian violence would be done by transparent, independent review boards, made up of people who (unlike local district attorneys) are in no way tied to or associated with the cops who be investigate. The same burdens of proof would apply, but there would be much less suspicion of cronyism and corruption. What do you think about that?

[Steophan]

@MaxTheVool

Another change I would support is that all phases of investigations/trials of cop-on-civilian violence would be done by transparent, independent review boards, made up of people who (unlike local district attorneys) are in no way tied to or associated with the cops who be investigate. The same burdens of proof would apply, but there would be much less suspicion of cronyism and corruption. What do you think about that?

I think that should really apply to all crimes. Elected judges and prosecutors don’t help justice, for example, and it’s not only cops that could be incorrectly exonerated, or conversely people who haven’t actually committed crimes but have pissed off the wrong people could be incorrectly tried.

Ideally, all prosecutors and judges should be (as far as performing their jobs go) politically neutral and not tied to the community they work in.

I’m not quite so sure about independent review boards, a grand jury with an independent prosecutor should serve the same purpose. There are already too many layers of police in the US with somewhat overlapping jurisdictions to need to bring in another.