Have you got evidence that this is what is going on now when it comes to law enforcement?
I thought we were talking about how to rid cracked marbles from a bag of marbles.
No, it means that black pride exists.
You may not understand it, but I do. After all, I come from a long line of people who could have stopped being part of a minority group at any point, but chose not to - not because there was any advantage in being a minority, but because they were proud of who they were. I have nothing but respect for that.
The real question is, who’s been cracking the marbles?
Indeed! But I still have to remove the cracked marbles while someone else fixes the why they are getting cracked.
I believe someone above suggested just that.
…do you accept that innocent black people will be disproportionately suspected for no other reason but the colour of their skin?
Do you accept that guilty white people will be disproportionately not suspected for no other reason but the colour of their skin?
…all good.
Yes, I understand what your argument is. It’s racist.
“Black people are disproportionately criminal” is treating all black people as if they’re just a monolithic group. The reality is that black people are individuals; some black people commit crimes on a regular basis and some black people have never committed a crime. Treating all black people like they are criminals is racist.
Setting aside race for a moment, imagine you are the police chief in a town. If you were to divide the town into quadrants, and found that the northeast quadrant had 70% of the crimes, while the southeast, southwest, and northwest quadrants all accounted for 10% each, would it be appropriate to task additional police officers with patrolling the northeast quadrant? Assuming your answer is “yes”, would your answer change if the northeast quadrant happened to be heavily black?
Nice hypothetical, but can you show it applies to real life? Can you show us a case where a police department patrolled and enforced in all areas equally, then decided that the black neighborhoods are where enforcement is needed the most?
…Shodan said " black people are disproportionately criminal, and thus are disproportionately suspected."
His statement has nothing to do with what quadrant they live in. Only the colour of their skin. Recontextualising his statement so that the colour of the skin doesn’t matter really misses the point. You can’t set aside race. Race is entirely the point of what Shodan said.
I doubt there has ever been a town that had crime dispersed “in all areas equally”, so I’ve got no reason to believe there were ever equally-dispersed enforcement efforts either.
Then your hypothetical is of no use, is it?
I certainly think it’s useful. It wasn’t dependent on the idea of what the town was like years ago. Imagine you took over as police chief in our hypothetical town tomorrow. Does it matter if the previous ten police chiefs were all racist assholes? I don’t think so, at least not for determining where to focus the efforts of your limited man-hours. If you’ve got data that says, “a lot of crimes happen over there”, you should focus your man-hours over there.
…but this ignores what Shodan said: which is what you set up your “hypothetical” for. According to Shodan the data says “black people are disproportionately criminal.” Should you focus your man-hours and disproportionately target black people simply because of the colour of their skin?
Czarcasm,
in reading back through this page, it seems that your theory is best summed up with this quote:
Is it your belief that if the police would just patrol as heavily in white neighborhoods as black neighborhoods, that they’d find as many crimes committed there? and that if they’d tilt their patrol efforts to focus even more on white neighborhoods than minority neighborhoods, that statistics would reflect that whites were disproprortionately criminal? In other words: you think the statistical dis-proportionality of crime between blacks and whites is entirely a result of police enforcement efforts, and nothing to do with actually-differing levels of crime among different subgroups of the population?
Good grief! Is there really any question that crime is higher in areas populated by people who’ve been discriminated against and kept from participating in the economic mainstream? There are a virtually unlimited number of threads on this very board where people acknowledge this fact by way of explaining or excusing the disproportionate crime levels in black areas.
And yet here we are having it claimed that cops have pre-emptively decided to police black areas more heavily due to little more than racism. As a poster suggested upthread, the function of the police is to remove the cracked marbles. The issue of how to fix the discrimination that leads to it is outside their purview.
It con’t be related to bias like… “Sessions calls sheriffs a ‘critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement’”
Looks like he actually said “The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.” I don’t think it’s terribly racist or insensitive to note the historical origins of office of sheriff. The Wikipedia article starts out “A sheriff is a government official, with varying duties, existing in some countries with historical ties to England, where the office originated.”
That is the after spin, but also ignores that New Mexico and other western states are based in Spanish law.
It also ignores the ENTIRE justification for non-Asia directed immigration law in this country which was originally based on a desire to avoid Catholic, Eastern-European and Irish papist migration.