Key sentence is the first one that you bolded. Did the report contain the actual evidence for that assertion?
Well, we could try raising taxes to an appropriate level.
The report certainly validates the general protest. But at the same time, it completely undermines the specific “Hands up, don’t shoot” cry that the protest adopted, and I do think it’s fair to say that “Hands up, don’t shoot,” was a figment of the witnesses’ imaginations.
But if we can agree that the protest was about more than “Hands up, don’t shoot,” and the specific case of the Brown shooting, then you’re absolutely right.
In a word, yes. For example, the report notes that “Despite being searched at higher rates, African Americans are 26% less likely to have contraband found on them than whites.”
Shit, contraband? I’m not black, only a DFH, but I wouldn’t carry anything, would *walk *to the Greyhound Depot to get the hell out!
IMHO, this is a lot bigger deal that what happened to Brown While the Brown case was a single incident, with an not entirely innocent poster child, this investigation represents the more common and insidious day to day harassment that African Americans have to put up with. In fact I’m pretty sure that the spark started by the Brown case wouldn’t have led to the conflagration we saw, if it didn’t have the underlying bed of tinder that this investigation brought to light (hows that for an over-extended metaphor).
Sadly I also suspect that the Ferguson PD isn’t particularly unique in these practices, its just that they were the only one who have been investigated.
“DFH”?
Dirty F’n Hippie I assume.
Something that I don’t understand (as someone having followed the events from the safe vantage of another continent):
- Population of Ferguson, MO is 67% black (as per quoted text in post #17)
- 67 % of population ~ 67 % of voters
- Ferguson PD is an agency of the Ferguson town government, elected by said voters
- Ferguson PD apparently engages in longstanding practices discriminating against black people, apparently without being reined in by the town government elected mainly by said black voters.
- Protesters call to state and federal government to curb Ferguson PD abuses.
Where’s the disconnect? Shouldn’t local politics suffice to safeguard the interests of the local majority population?
Possibly, though there are circumstances in which it’s not enough.
But I think it’s irrelevant here, even if (and I have no idea if this is true) black Ferguson citizens don’t vote much. If the Ferguson PD is violating the rights of some of the citizens of Ferguson, then the federal government should absolutely step in, however they are voting (or not voting). If the Ferguson PD is not violating the law, then they shouldn’t step in. But according to the DOJ, they are violating the law (the 14th amendment), and it’s reasonable for the feds to step in.
Starting fires and looting drug stores is easier than voting?
Do you have any data that suggests that more black Ferguson residents start fires and loot than vote?
12% voter turnout; mayor ran unopposed for re-election. Not that the voters are entirely to blame. You know how it goes, civic leaders and local magnates predominate on any local ballot, and perhaps few blacks in Ferguson have ever been able to claim such status, and perhaps that sours them on voting.
You start with the structure of the municipal government. Residents elect a City Council which a ppoints a City Manager to an indefinite term, subject to removal by a Council
vote. That manager controls the police. So already you have a political structure with an immense capacity for inertia. Plus, you’ve got to change four votes on the Council in order to get a new Manager.
Add on the fact that there is widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans because of the racist criminal justice system. If you’re in prison, on probation, or on parole, you can’t vote. And you might not register at all if you have a warrant out for the $600 in court fines accrued for the bullshit citation you got for telling the officer your name was Mike and not Michael.
Finally, low-income populations tend to vote less, especially if the vote is held when there aren’t state or federal issues (and Ferguson makes sure to hold its elections when nothing else is on the line). There are lots of reasons for this. Poor people tend to be more transient, so it requires more effort to stay registered and knowledgable. They tend to incur higher opportunity costs for voting. Etc.
12% voter turnout is fucking abysmal.
A person could run on the platform that they are going to fire the City Manager and replace the police chief/commissioner and I would hope they would get elected. some group should run as a block just to replace the city council. Fucking abysmal.
We kicked this around a bit in one of the many Ferguson threads.
One factor might be that black people get searched (and found not to be holding) because black people get arrested for things like traffic warrants and unpaid tickets and such. ISTM to be likely that being searched subsequent to arrest for that kind of thing is going to turn up nothing more often than stopping a person because you saw him actually committing a crime.
So if searches due to traffic warrants happen to black people more than search due to arrests for more immediate crimes, that would be a factor in not finding contraband for 26% more black people.
“Not entirely innocent” is a bit of an understatement, don’t you think?
But that can also be said of some of the other examples that Holder claims as proof of racism.
Being stupid isn’t against the law, but it might as well be, and playing “I Dare You to Arrest Me, Motherfucker” is not a good idea whether one is black, white, or cerise with purple polka dots.
I don’t recall “Thou Shalt Not Tazer the Lord Thy God, Lest Thou Be Thought Racist” as one of the Commandments, but it has been a long time since I was in Sunday School.
Regards,
Shodan
That anecdote isn’t offered as proof of racism, but rather of officers retaliating against lawful but offensive conduct, as the text plainly states (bolding mine):
Do you actually support the practice of police officers arresting people for non-criminal acts out of spite? Or do you merely tolerate it?
This is why people should just read the report, so you don’t have to speculate about whether the DOJ bothered to control for the nature of the search.
I don’t think that’s so simple.
ISTM that if you profile for anything - whether race, age, gender, clothing, manner, suspicious behavior, anything - you’re going to have a lower hit rate with the group being profiled than you will for someone who doesn’t fit the profile, who would only be checked if there was blatant evidence.
So suppose you decide that some significant percentage of people with suspicious bulges at around their waists are carrying guns and if they additionally act suspicious then you check them out. It’s very likely that you’ll have a higher rate of innocent people in this category who are searched than you will of people with no signs of this sort, who won’t get searched for guns unless you see a gun. And so on.
All the higher rate of negatives indicates is that blacks are more likely fit some categories which are being profiled than it does that they are being singled out for being black, and it doesn’t show that the profiles being used are incorrect.
Solution; don’t dance in the middle of the street.