Folks who run also get away more often than you think.
In many cases via surveys, studies, and polls.
I can’t see anything in your fist post that indicates you were talking about unwilling martyrs. Are you saying some things are worth dying for even if you’re not aware of what you are dying for? That would seem rather odd, but whatever rocks your boat.
I wasn’t talking specifically about unwilling martyrs in the first post but some of the people in question, if they could know of the results of their action taken for less than wise reasons, might not regret what they’ve done or the what resulted. And there are certainly those who have acted rashly yet still were motivated by a principle, even a principle they did not full comprehend but still was felt from their cultural background. If it were a soldier in a war he would willingly die as his duty even if he did not understand what he was fighting for. I don’t find it so odd, though I can understand those who would not take that path.
Yes, things might be different if they were different. Can’t argue against that!
How about we replace “run from the police” with “be non-compliant with the police”? In most of the videos we see involving police use-of-force (both warranted and unwarranted) there is some level of non-compliance on the part of the suspect/subject. “No. I won’t get out of the car”, “You’re only stopping me because I’m black” in response to a request for paperwork, the whole Sovereign Citizen line of BS, refusal to drop the weapon, refusal to move back from an ongoing incident - the list goes on and on.
There will always be some bad cops and cases like what happened to TriPolar will, however common or rare, continue to happen. Those kind of cops need to held accountable and punished severely. And if you live somewhere where the whole system is corrupt and racist then I couldn’t fault you for running. But I submit that the overwhelming majority of police use-of-force incidents would never take place if the person stopped just did as they were lawfully ordered to do.
Got a beef? Sue someone. Fight the ticket in court. Post your video on YouTube. The shoulder of the road is not the place to air your grievances. How often does that turn out well for the person stopped in the end?
This kind of person seems more likely to stand their ground and bitch and moan at the cop than to suddenly bolt. Surely if they EXPECT the cops to shoot black people they wouldn’t voluntarily give them any excuse, even a poor one.
I would think just the opposite. People who run maybe do do because they believe a cop wouldn’t just shoot them in the back just for running. In many cases they’re wrong.
I’d never run from the police. The most I’d do is huddle in a fetal position as they beat me, but I’d sue the shit out of them afterwards. But I would understand if other people’s experiences with the cops are different. Sure, run if you’re in immediate danger or think you are, but know that you’re not going to get away. As an average-sized, non-threatening-looking Asian guy, I have little fear that I’m going to be shot. If I looked different, then maybe I’d consider running though
Ya know, folks do get away. I have myself. To make it work, you have to have a combination of:
- A head start.
- The cover and low traffic of night.
- A fast method of getting around.
- A lot of luck.
If you’re a little short in any of these areas, it’s not advisable (and you never know how lucky you really are). I had a friend who had 3 out of 4. He was clocked at 110 at around 1 am on a Saturday. The cops hit the lights before even pulling on the freeway, so he floored it. The chase lasted for about 10 minutes before his car vapor locked and stalled, and he sat outside his car for more than a minute before the cops caught up. Since it took that long for them to catch up at those speeds, he was around two miles ahead. That’s a lifetime in a chase, and he would have gotten away but for a little luck. Still, he got his ass beat mercilessly for what would have been a hefty speeding ticket. He would have sued over it, but all of his witnesses were minors like himself. No lawyer he approached felt they could compel the testimony of his witnesses, so he let it go.
And even if you can run and get away, unless you know you’re guilty of premeditated murder, running is stupid. I and my friend could have killed ourselves without police participation while we ran, it would have just taken a moment’s inattention at those speeds. The fact that we got away in earlier chases doesn’t make it any smarter.
The answer to your OP is easy: Yes, it is stupid. Policemen are armed. Running from them drastically increases the chances that they will shoot at you. You may get away, but you are running a risk that is simply stupid.
That simple question would not be worth a debate had you not asked it with an undertone of “If someone runs from the police, can we not squarely put the blame on him and exonerate the policeman?” My answer to that is no.
Being challenged by the police puts people under stress for all kinds of reasons. People under stress do not always act reasonably and running away is one of the most basic instincts nature has given us. It may not be wise, but I do not think that many runners have carefully deliberated what they are goind to do. They are not trained to handle such situations. Policemen are. The responsibility to do the right thing if a suspect runs lies fully with them. There may be situations when shooting is actually the right thing. But most of the time it is not, and if it is not, no policeman should be given a free pass based on the argument “It wasn’t my fault. He ran.”
You can check arrest records against crime surveys and they match up very well. Since the vast majority of crime is intraracial the only way crime surveys would be skewed is if black people were either much more likely to falsely claim the are victims of crime or lie about the race of the criminals. They would also have to do so in a way that matches the arrest records. This beggars belief.
As far as drugs go, all reports of the rates of drug use that show whites use more are self reported, but in studies that involve actual drug testing it is found that blacks use at a higher rate. Apparently what drug use surveys actually measure is not drug use but a willingness to admit to criminal behavior to strangers over the phone.
If you look into it more poor people are arrested and hassled by the cops than rich, more tattooed people as well, males are much more likely to be arrested than women. The arrest rate for men is triple the rate for women. Is that because institutional anti-male sexism or because men commit far more crimes?
Again, criminality is not limited to crimes that are reported on arrest records or surveys. For example, individual prosecutions for corporate crimes are almost non-existent at the executive level despite laws criminalizing their conduct. Police and prosecutors go after low hanging fruit generally speaking. That disproportionately affect minorities. It doesn’t mean minorities commit more crimes in general.
Do you have a cite for that?
But that is usually not the basis for suspicion or arrest as it is with race. That is the issue.
In general, it is stupid to run from the police. But there are times when it makes sense. One mentioned upthread is a good one: teenagers at a suburban party. Scatter. If there are a good number of you, any one individual’s chance of being caught is low, and the actual penalty is low. Suburban cops don’t generally beat the local yutes over running from a party.
The other is if you know you have outstanding warrants for serious crimes, and you don’t think you’ll beat those in court. In that case, possibly evading vs. certain incarceration may make sense.
In suburbia the secret is, especially at night, to get a few lefts and rights between you and the cruiser and duck into a driveway. Kill the lights & engine and get low, and there’s a god chance they go right past you. But make sure you don’t keep your foot on the brake!
You’re right that the answer to the basic question of whether one should run from the police is simple. In the vast majority of cases, the answer is you should not run. That seems pretty logical and reasonable. Part of my puzzlement through relates to the fact that we KEEP getting incident after incident in the news plastered all over tv and radio of some black guy/gal bolting from the police or not complying, and dying. Again, and again, and again. In that aether, doesn’t it seem like it would impel people being stopped to NOT try to bolt like you stole something? I’m confused because in the midst of the REPEATED spotlight and death toll from officers overacting to people bolting or being non compliant, you STILL have numerous examples of people still choosing the dumbest possible response. Is this just a case of not thinking things through in the moment? Being so unhitched from what is going on at large they are not aware of the faulty responses? Being filled with such over the top fear of perceived malice of officers towards black people writ large they think being compliant is even MORE dangerous?
If that last is true then we need to rhetorically slap the nonsense out of people, because it’s getting them killed.
I don’t know about crime stats and actual criminality overall, for drugs it may be the case that doing drugs while black is inherently more likely to cause a person trouble than some white guy doing the same. But the murder stats that I saw were not so easy to fudge and wave away.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439
Black people are WAY over represented when it comes to committing and being the victim of murders.
If you want to forgo race and focus on class and sex and appearance, fine by me. But people often bring up race into the mix to suggest that there is something intrinsic about people being black that is a source of the malice, independent of any sort of differential behavioral characteristics that track with the group average. And so when they do things like complain about heavier police presence in black neighborhoods and greater arrest rates, I think it’s useful information to know whether or not the population has a higher rate of criminality. In certain areas, it clearly does, like murder.
I don’t think it’s always foolish.
In the following cases I’d run or at least drive to a more populated area.
- Unmarked or suspicious vehicle pulling you over in an isolated area. Where I live the sheriff wants you to exercise caution and says so during radio interviews. By exercising caution that means acknowledging by flashers and slowing down while calling 911 to see if it’s legit and moving to a gas station or all night store.
But I’m pretty sure that’s not what you had in mind.
-
In a circumstance in which someone is a cop but intends to act in a violent criminal manner upon you. Such as rape or murder. Might as well fight back if at all possible. This does happen and is very unfortunate.
-
If you have committed a capital crime and there is a good chunk of evidence you might as well consider running.
The FBI has offices that target white collar crime exclusively. So does the SEC. Thousandsof people get prosecuted for these crimes every year. What evidence do you have that tens of thousands of white people are getting away with white collar crimes every year?
Hereis a monograph on the subject.
Of course it is, if an unsub is reported to be tattooed , people with tattoos will be under suspicion. Same with males. According to NYPD statistics males made up 91% of stop and frisk stops in 2012 despite being only 47% of the population. Malesmade up 60% of people pulled over by police despite only being 50% of drivers. Males were almost more likely to be ticketed after being stopped. They were much more likely to be searched once pulled over. Males were much more likely to be threatened or to have force used on them when pulled over. Overall, males are arrested and imprisoned at three times the rate of females. Males are given harsher sentences for the same crimes.
This may because the matriachy is biased against men or because men commit more crimes.
The fact that the resources pale in comparison to those spent on drugs, for example, and the criminals they attempt to prosecute generally have far more resources.
Please quote the portion you think is relevant?
There is almost no circumstance where the cops will just use gender to pull people over as they do with race. They are not even in the same league.
Clearly there are issues with male officers frisking a female suspect absent significant probably cause. That is likely to be a main reason women were not frisked.
[QUOTE=puddleglum;18570582[Males]
(Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics)made up 60% of people pulled over by police despite only being 50% of drivers.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t take into account miles driven. I suspect men drive more n average just because so many driving jobs are done by men.
Men likely do commit more crimes. I don’t think I argued otherwise. Where is your evidence Black people do? The issue is that reported differences in things like drug use and violence substantiate a difference between men and women that is then reflected in arrest rates. The same is not true across the board for crimes and race.
In order for the number of black people arrested to match the population, police would have to arrest an additional 11 million white people per year. To put that into perspective, less than 10 million people are arrested every year in America total. The number of these unarrested white criminals is greater than the number of criminals of every race that get arrested from everything from murder to loitering? That beggars belief.
"The finding that African Americans are more likely than other groups
to underreport drug use has been noted by several previous studies,
including surveys of the general population (e.g., Page et al. 1977;
Falck et al. 1992; Fendrich and Vaughn 1994). "
“The logistic regression analysis shed light on specific factors to be
considered in improving the prevalence estimation. The analysis of
denial among self-reported nonusers suggested that, using cocaine as
an example, upward adjustments of prevalence estimates should be
different for gender (higher for female), race (higher for African
Americans and Hispanics, as opposed to whites)”
“, race/ethnicity differences suggesting lower levels of marijuana and cocaine concordance for African Americans as compared with Whites were sustained after controlling for potential mediators”
“his discrepancy between self-reported and urine-detected drug use was explained by significantly lower sensitivity of self-report for black participants (P < 0.001 for marijuana, P < 0.05 for cocaine).”
The evidence that men commit more crimes is the exact same evidence that black people commit more crimes. They are arrested at higher rates, described as suspects at higher rates, incarcerated at higher rates, identified in victim surveys at higher rates. The only evidence that the rate is incorrect for black people is drug use surveys and that evidence disappears when you adjust for willingness to self report drug use. Why believe one group of evidence and not the other?When your ideology does not agree with the evidence you should either change your ideology or find good evidence.
First, arrests are not people. Second, arrest are not convictions or indications of actual criminality. Third, why would it be foolish to think there are that many unsolved, undocumented, or unpunished crimes by White people? Could we not arrest 10+ million mostly Hispanic people tomorrow based on being here without proper paperwork? More than 1/3 of Americans have used illegal drugs. An estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were current (past month) illicit drug users. OF course there are 11 million crimes committed by Whites that could be brought, and likely more that could be brought against any group. Your comment doesn’t speak at all to the issue of where the actual “criminality” exists. No doubt no one is going to be okay with arresting millions more people, but that doesn’t speak to who is willing to break the law, and how often they do it.
I am not necessarily saying Black people don’t commit more crimes on average, but rather that such a claim is largely based on stats that rest on the fact that Black criminality receives MUCH more scrutiny than any other groups, and ignores the more highly correlated attributes that speak more directly to criminality (eg. poverty, overpolicing, the drug war, systemic racism, etc.). Further, just noting Black people are arrested more often is basically what we’d expect given the way we police this country.
This was based on a small subset in a treatment group after arrest, correct? I can understand why the average Black person in those circumstances would lie. That’s even putting aside the issues with testing for drugs like cocaine. Plus, the fact is that multiple longitudinal studies have confirmed that White people use and sell drugs at higher rates with similar number and different groups. The idea that Blacks are lying at similar rates in various studies over time is not likely.
I’ve explained why. There is plenty of other contradictory evidence including the fact that Blacks receive higher scrutiny but aren’t found to be in violation more often for a number of crimes.