The cameras will follow you as you visit their office to demand that they explain the results.
You missed my point. The question goes to economics being the real driver. That the poorer people, living in the poorer areas, which are usually also more densely populated, is the group that suffers disproportionately. Now, as it turns out, that group aligns pretty well with “Black”. So, how do we know that the group that is being over-represented suffers so due to skin color? And not merely by the fact that the poorest 67% or whatever, will understandably account for a disproportionate share of law enforcement actions?
Well, golly! Have you forwarded this critique to the DOJ? You really should, then, if and when they recall their report, you can gloat your ass off!
Wherever did DOJ gather this band of statistical doofuses? Probably a bunch of so-called “experts” with degrees from various liberal colleges and universities. Clearly lacking your keen insight, as you have ably demonstrated.
“Well, we’ve got this analysis from Marge N. Overra, Phd.D., but lets hold off until we have time to run it past magellano1 at Straight Dope…”
You seem very adamant not to accept that racism may have been at play despite all the evidence to suggest it has been. What evidence would it take for you to agree that the police department, and most of the machinery of justice, has a systemic bias?
But they are poor because they are black. It’s not like black people just happen to be poor in this country. They are poor due to historical and ongoing mistreatment based on their race.
Suggesting that this is an economic rather than racial disparity is like arguing that the old voting restrictions that didn’t allow people to vote unless their grandfathers had voted weren’t racist despite the fact that that group aligned pretty well with “Black”.
What liberal policies? To be even more specific, what policies do SF police have in place that make them more liberal than other cities? Not laws, because that’s something different. I mean, what are you claiming about the SF police that makes their policing more liberal? Just because the population, or even the laws, are more liberal does not mean the police and their policies are automatically more liberal.
It’s actually odd, but just recently as you were asking for examples of liberal cities, specifically mentioning San Francisco, having arrest rates or other things indicating racism, this happened:
Racist, Homophobic Texts Revealed Between San Francisco Police Officers
Could it? That still seems too high to be based on reality. That means 1/10 of the population is getting arrested monthly, on average? Or if it’s really a few, the 1% is getting arrested every three or four days on average?
“This American Life” did a story a couple of weeks ago about Miami Gardens, where the cops were arresting people left and right. In a city of something like 100,000 people, there were 90,000 incident reports a year.
A mentally challenged guy who worked at a convenience store was being arrested multiple times a week for no reason.
There was a stop and frisk of a 5-year-old kid for the reason that he resembles the description of a burglary suspect, including a “slight beard.”
“This American Life” Miami Gardens episode — Cops See It Differently - Part Two - This American Life
Transcript — Cops See It Differently - Part Two - This American Life
Saw this article today about part of the DOJ report that isn’t being mentioned as much.
In short, in a town of 21,000 people, there are over 16,000 individual arrest warrants (individual and separate people, so not multiple warrants for the same person) – nearly 4 out of 5 people in Ferguson are fugitives. That’s outrageously extreme – the article compares it to Boston (a city of 645,000 people issued 2300 criminal warrants). Ferguson issues far more warrants and is 1/30th the size of Boston. The DOJ asserts that these warrants are issued “not to protect public safety but rather to facilitate fine collection”.
Some more stuff from the article – it’s been already noted that black people in Ferguson are a far larger portion (92%) of those arrested than they represent in the population (67%), but in addition to this black arrestees in Ferguson are 68% less likely than others to have their court cases dismissed. The DOJ concludes that “Ferguson law enforcement practices are directly shaped and perpetuated by racial bias”.
More from that article in the previous post: Ferguson averaged 567 non-traffic court cases per 1000 residents. In comparison, St. Louis averaged 80 non-traffic court cases per 1000 residents (which was still above average for Missouri).
Are we really supposed to believe that people in Ferguson are 7 times more lawless than people in St. Louis?
Does anyone deny that the best explanation for all this data is that the Ferguson PD was more motivated by revenue collection than law enforcement and protection and service to the public? Does anyone think that it’s not likely that racial bias went along with this “revenue-first” mentality?
Here is a piece from Red State arguing that conservatives should quit defending the Ferguson Police Department. It is well written and researched, but I’m guessing that the author will invariably be found not to be a True Scotsman.
http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/15/many-conservatives-blowing-it-ferguson-doj-report/
There are two different issues being conflated. One is the citation-as-a-means-of-revenue scheme. Surely that’s a shitty thing to do in any town of any make up. And if the policy—as I’m sure it does—disproportionately affects poor people, that’s double shitty and should be stopped with the people at the top hopefully going to jail.
But I’m not seeing the racial bias from the information supplied. I’m not saying that it might not be there; I’m saying that the simpler explanation is one that points a policy that takes advantage of the poorest among us, not necessarily, black people. Now, in some places, like Furgeson, those two groups align pretty well, but that does not mean that it was “Black” people being targets and not “Poor” people.
This post seems to me to come from Bizarro Land. Just trying to part out how alien it is to my thinking. I also think its flatly wrong. If thou were right, there would be no non-poor black people, even leaving athletes and musicians out out it. That is clearly no the case. What makes one poor is the choices they make. Now, I grant that if you are both poor and black start out at a huge deficit. But if you do some basic things like, finish high school and not get pregnant while in high school, the odds of you ending up poor, diminish greatly.
So, your notion that blackness necessitates poverty is wrongheaded. I also find it incredibly offensive. But even that aside, what do you say about the FACT that there are plenty opt black people who are not poor? Again, even leaving out the extraordinary examples of professional athletes and entertainers.
I don’t think that’s a simpler explanation (considering the DOJ analysis of the statistics) – I think a much simpler explanation is that the Ferguson PD is acting with regards to race as police departments have for most of American history (especially in that region).
What kind of evidence would satisfy you? The DOJ asserts that the statistically disparate treatment of the Ferguson PD towards black people is significantly greater than the disparities in criminal and economic statistics would suggest (so the numbers are categorically not explained by blacks being more poor or more likely to be involved crime). What possible explanation could there be that black arrestees’ cases are dismissed in Ferguson courts 68% less than white arrestees? These are comparing people who have already been arrested! Are black defendants just 68% more guilty than white defendants?
Further – if you accept that this police department is very clearly acting unethically with regards to revenue, why is it so hard to accept that they are likely acting unethically with regards to race?
As that very article you linked explicitly says in the lede, " If the person is not reasonably suspected of committing a crime, they are not required to provide identification, even in states with stop and identify statutes." The point here is that the FPD officer admitted that his standard practice is to demand identification from everyone in the vehicle, regardless of any suspicion, and if they do not provide it he tickets or arrests them for “Failure to Comply.” This is unconstitutional, and also a misapplication of the “Failure to Comply” statute, which only prohibits failure to comply with a LAWFUL order. It’s fairly clear from the report that, purely based on the FPD’s own statements and records, it is their standard practice to cite or arrest people for failure to comply with any instruction, whether lawful or not.
I know conservatives want to return to an earlier time, but I think you’re taking this a bit far.
It says that human psychology, human society, and the phenomenon of racism are vast and multifaceted subjects, and do not always interact with each other in exactly the same ways.
Or more simply, if not every black person in the Jim Crow south was lynched, does it necessarily follow that *no *black person in the Jim Crow south was ever lynched?
It very well MAY be. But that doesn’t mean it is. So far, all the info I’ve seen can be explained by the system being biased against the poor—who just happen to be black in this case. As I stated upthread—and you agreed—if there were a poor group representing 67% of the population, the expectation would be that they would account for a percent of the crime, and law enforcement intervention) greater than 67%. What I don’t low is what number greater than 67% starts to feel “unnatural”. 73%? 79%? 85%? 94%? I’ve seen one answer that. In the report, they don’t go into it. Not that I saw.
And without that, how can one deem that the motivation was, in fact, race-based?
:D:D:D
Tsk, tsk, tsk. And you started off SO well. This makes no sense. The question is not whether there are poor blacks—there are, just as there were black people who were lynched.