Postal worker arrested for no reason, mail truck left unattended

[Derec]

Wasn't it the USPS that took down Al Capone? Hopefully these cops just bit off more than they can chew.

No, it was the Treasury.

 

[laughing dog]

In sum, while racism is a plausible factor, simply standard police authoritarian aggression is sufficient and even more plausible in the absence of more information.

Because, as we all know, people only have one motivation for their behavior.

 

[ronburgundy]

In sum, while racism is a plausible factor, simply standard police authoritarian aggression is sufficient and even more plausible in the absence of more information.

Because, as we all know, people only have one motivation for their behavior.

As those of capable of reasoned thought know that if one motive is more than enough to fully explain a behavior, it is irrational to presume a secondary superfluous motive that fails to account for anything additional and for which there is no evidence.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I still don't know what he did that was arrest worthy.

Contempt of Cop, a potentially lethal offense.

 

[RavenSky]

In sum, while racism is a plausible factor, simply standard police authoritarian aggression is sufficient and even more plausible in the absence of more information.

I agree with you that authoritarian aggression is one of the root issues, and is easily evidenced by the equal opportunity aggressions by police; however, there is also a clear pattern of racial disparity in the use of the authoritarian aggression and that has to be addressed as well.

 

[laughing dog]

Because, as we all know, people only have one motivation for their behavior.

As those of capable of reasoned thought know that if one motive is more than enough to fully explain a behavior, it is irrational to presume a secondary superfluous motive that fails to account for anything additional and for which there is no evidence.

Racism is also more than enough to fully explain the behavior of these asshat police as anyone capable of reasoned thought would see. And those capable of understanding psychology and economics know that people typically have multiple motivations for their actions.

 

[Valjean]

The cops did not pull up and arrest the guy when they saw him. They came back and confronted him when he (rightly) yelled at them, and likely gave them some back-talk when they gave them their "We can do whatever we want" excuse for almost killing him.

That would be enough for many cops to go after him, no matter his race.

In sum, while racism is a plausible factor, simply standard police authoritarian aggression is sufficient and even more plausible in the absence of more information.

See post #15, above. This is what Altemeyer's Right Wing Authoritarianism scale measures. If it were used, maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

 

[ronburgundy]

As those of capable of reasoned thought know that if one motive is more than enough to fully explain a behavior, it is irrational to presume a secondary superfluous motive that fails to account for anything additional and for which there is no evidence.

Racism is also more than enough to fully explain the behavior of these asshat police as anyone capable of reasoned thought would see.

First, you argued in favor of presuming both motivations rather than one, so your backpeddling doesn't fly. Second, racism is not sufficient because it doesn't explain why they didn't arrest him as soon as they saw him. They only stopped after he yelled at them, which requires the assumption that they got upset at having their authority questioned. So racism only serves as an addition to an assumption that can fully account for the act on its own. The authority assumption also explains unwarranted hassling of people who yell at cops that are not black, thus has superior explanatory power. IOW, your presumed account in objectively inferior in every way that a causal explanation can be. Your preference for it is due purely to emotional and ideology, in contradiction to reason.

And those capable of understanding psychology and economics know that people typically have multiple motivations for their actions.

And the extra motives for an action can be anything among infinite possibilities. Therefore, choosing to add a particular motive without evidence that it was operating in that case is close minded irrationality. Most events are caused by more than one factor. By your logic, this means that that when we see a person come inside with wet hair, we shouldn't just assume that it is raining outside but that it is raining and someone threw a bucket of water on his head.

 

[ronburgundy]

In sum, while racism is a plausible factor, simply standard police authoritarian aggression is sufficient and even more plausible in the absence of more information.

I agree with you that authoritarian aggression is one of the root issues, and is easily evidenced by the equal opportunity aggressions by police; however, there is also a clear pattern of racial disparity in the use of the authoritarian aggression and that has to be addressed as well.

Sure, but this case cannot reasonably be presumed to be relevant to that problem. Evidence of that problem lies in aggregated evidence. You cannot rationally infer from the general to the particular. That is the problem with stereotyping.
General police authoritarianism is the bigger problem that impacts more people and is the more major cause of blacks getting unjustly hassled than is racism.
The % of the population harmed by such abuse should matter more tha whether all sub-groups are equally abused. Also, reducing the general problem of authority abuse automatically reduces the number of racial minorities who get hassled, and probably to a greater degree than trying to reduce the racial disparity in abuse of authority more directly. If cops with racist dispositions were prevented from abusing their authority more generally, then they wouldn't be abusing it against blacks. They might still have racist notions, but they would largely remain notions and not manifest themselves as abuse of their authority.

 

[ronburgundy]

The cops did not pull up and arrest the guy when they saw him. They came back and confronted him when he (rightly) yelled at them, and likely gave them some back-talk when they gave them their "We can do whatever we want" excuse for almost killing him.

That would be enough for many cops to go after him, no matter his race.

In sum, while racism is a plausible factor, simply standard police authoritarian aggression is sufficient and even more plausible in the absence of more information.

See post #15, above. This is what Altemeyer's Right Wing Authoritarianism scale measures. If it were used, maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

Yeah, I am familiar with that scale. Its problematice, because it has several items on it that are not measuring RWA per se, but measuring support for particular personal tastes and attitudes with no direct relation to government authority. The scale has psychometric validity, meaning the problem items do correlate well with the items that more clearly and directly assess endorsement of government authority violating people's basic rights. But even if some of the problem items indirectly tap a type of personality prone to abusing authority and biased treatment, they would never ever fly as on a screening test for any job.

Here are just some problematic items on the scale.

"There is nothing wrong with nudist camps."
(note that rejecting this doesn't mean you think they should be banned).

"Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people."
(note that this doesn't have to mean you support more personal liberty, just that you think the status quo is bad and should be changed)

"Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly."
(While those who get their moral from God's authority are by definition being authoritarian, this amounts to a test of religious beliefs).

"Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.”"
(This requires that you agree with the specific tactics and arguments of "feminists", however you interpret that).


"The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live."
(One could feel this way without thinking that authority should force people to live the old fashioned way)

BTW, white people average lower scores than blacks on the RWA. Blacks are more socially conservative than whites. Like all monotheism, authoritarianism is the most foundational feature of Christian theism and blacks are more Christian plus less educated which also increases RWA. Blacks are closer to white Republicans than white Dems on many social issues. So using the RWA would indirectly discriminate against blacks. There may be nothing wrong with a policy that winds up indirectly discriminating against blacks who objectively lack relevant qualifications but don't tell that to affirmative action supporters.

Besides, the test is widely available and cops would just study the "correct" answers they need to give to pass it.

 

[laughing dog]

Racism is also more than enough to fully explain the behavior of these asshat police as anyone capable of reasoned thought would see.

First, you argued in favor of presuming both motivations rather than one, so your backpeddling doesn't fly...blah blah blah blah .

Logic fail. I didn't say racism was the only cause. I said it is more than enough to fully the explain the behavior of the police. Using your "reasoning" (and I use that term lightly), then it is sufficient to be the only cause. Since I don't agree that there is necessarily only one cause, it shows your own argument rebuts your conclusion. And since there may be more than one cause, it is pointless to try to show that one is more important than the other without more information specific to the situation. At this point, we have none. Which raises an interesting point, why is so important to you to unilaterally eliminate a possible and relevant factor without a scintilla of relevant information?

And the extra motives for an action can be anything among infinite possibilities. Therefore, choosing to add a particular motive without evidence that it was operating in that case is close minded irrationality. Most events are caused by more than one factor. By your logic, this means that that when we see a person come inside with wet hair, we shouldn't just assume that it is raining outside but that it is raining and someone threw a bucket of water on his head.

I can see that logic is not your strong point here. You can assume anything you want. Using my logic, if someone comes with wet hair and you say "It must be raining outside", and someone else says "Maybe, but I saw someone throwing buckets of water on people, so perhaps it was both", we would either ask the person with wet hair or go outside and investigate. But we would not unilaterally and arrogantly handwave another possibility.

 

[Axulus]

I can see that logic is not your strong point here. You can assume anything you want. Using my logic, if someone comes with wet hair and you say "It must be raining outside", and someone else says "Maybe, but I saw someone throwing buckets of water on people, so perhaps it was both", we would either ask the person with wet hair or go outside and investigate. But we would not unilaterally and arrogantly handwave another possibility.

Analogy fail. It would be more akin to the following:

Someone comes in with wet hair and you say "There have been several incidents lately of people getting buckets of water thrown on them, making their hair wet. Although it is raining outside, there's a good chance a bucket was also thrown on them to make their hair wet."

Given that it is raining outside and someone comes in with wet hair, it is far more likely that only the rain made their hair wet than that both the rain and a bucket made the hair wet.

 

[ronburgundy]

I can see that logic is not your strong point here. You can assume anything you want. Using my logic, if someone comes with wet hair and you say "It must be raining outside", and someone else says "Maybe, but I saw someone throwing buckets of water on people, so perhaps it was both", we would either ask the person with wet hair or go outside and investigate. But we would not unilaterally and arrogantly handwave another possibility.

Analogy fail. It would be more akin to the following:

Someone comes in with wet hair and you say "There have been several incidents lately of people getting buckets of water thrown on them, making their hair wet. Although it is raining outside, there's a good chance a bucket was also thrown on them to make their hair wet."

Given that it is raining outside and someone comes in with wet hair, it is far more likely that only the rain made their hair wet than that both the rain and a bucket made the hair wet.

Axulus is correct. Your analogy fails. In addition, to Axulus' correction, you need to add that it is the rainy season and rains every other day, just as cops are regularly abusing their authority against people of all races. In addition, you need to add that the person is holding an umbrella, which favors the rain possibility, just like the fact that the cops only reacted to the man after he yelled at them rather than merely after they saw he was black, strongly favors general authoritarianism more than racism.

Oh, and your analogy also fails because your argument presumes that the probability that both causes are involved is greater than the probability that one of the causes is involved. This is in direct refutation of basic probability computations in which the combined probability of 2 uncertainties is always less than the probability of either on its own. So, you also need to add to your analogy that you not only give the water bucket theory equal probability, but you think its most likely that the guy got rained upon AND simultaneously got hit with a bucket of water.

Also, I did not dismiss the possibility that it was racism. I merely rejected the arrogant and baseless conclusion that it was in fact racism, which requires blindly dismissing the greater profitability that it was non-racist general authoritarianism. I am merely saying that until you go outside and either show that it is not raining or gather additional evidence that this particular person was among the water bucket victims, it is more likely (and thus more rational to tentatively assume) that it was rain.

 

[Underseer]

"The day before the news conference, the Brooklyn district attorney, Ken Thompson, announced that his office would not seek a prison sentence for Peter Liang. The former police officer convicted of manslaughter in the death of Akai Gurley, two years ago in an unlit stairwell at an East New York housing project..." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/nyregion/glen-grays-the-mailman-cuffed-in-brooklyn.html?_r=1

Liang made a mistake, no doubt. But both Liang and Gurley were incredibly unlucky here. Liang was not shooting at Gurley, the accidental shot ricocheted and fatally hit Gurley. I see no criminal intent in what Liang did and thus no jail time is certainly acceptable.
That is very different than your hypothetical scenario of taking somebody into a back alley and lynching him.

Liang did not "make a mistake," he killed a human being for no good reason. There is no amount of spin you can apply to this that will make it reasonable.

 

[Underseer]

In sum, while racism is a plausible factor, simply standard police authoritarian aggression is sufficient and even more plausible in the absence of more information.

i'm not sure if i'm about to say something racist... i don't think it is? i think it may be something of a cultural stereotype based on personal bias derived from experience, so i put that as a disclaimer before this reply.

in my personal (and limited) experience, black folks seem more prone to "give attitude" when balked or confronted, whether it be with the police or managers at work or a cashier at a store.
makes one wonder if there is perhaps some kind of inverse correlation at work here, where cops tend to insanely overreact to any perceived defiance of their absolute authority, and black people tend to be more "uppity" towards figures of authority, resulting in the same pattern of behavior but for a slightly different awful reason.

has me to pondering if outright racism is worse than totalitarian aggression.

Yes, you're being racist, or at the very least you are grasping at straws to make excuses for racism. In my experience, African-Americans are extra careful and extra subservient around precisely because they know they are very likely to be killed for very trivial reasons.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Police always yell "stop resisting". They can then tell the judge "I wouldn't have said it if he wasn't resisting" and thus have greater immunity when beating unresisting suspects.

This is how I was trained when I did security at a casino many years ago (by an ex cop). He told us even after we took someone down, to crank their arm behind their back and keep cranking (the whole time saying "Stop resisting!" especially when a crowd was watching or it was being recorded). He told us we could justify near any amount of force, including breaking their arm if we did that and that witnesses would side with us.

If I hadn't had that experience, I honestly would have found it hard to believe.

I was told the exact same thing in almost the exact same words when I was working transit security. You can even do it with a taser.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I still don't know what he did that was arrest worthy.

Working while black.

In my experience, African-Americans are extra careful and extra subservient around precisely because they know they are very likely to be killed for very trivial reasons.

That has not been my experience. But that particular trait is actually more common among poor or working class people than black people IN PARTICULAR. Put simply: people whose day to day lives do not require an abundance of good manners and carefully-measured social engineering (e.g. "kissing ass to get a promotion, coffee clatching with clients, etc") are a lot quicker to display their emotions than their wealthier counterparts.

 

[prideandfall]

Yes, you're being racist, or at the very least you are grasping at straws to make excuses for racism. In my experience, African-Americans are extra careful and extra subservient around precisely because they know they are very likely to be killed for very trivial reasons.

so hang on, you're saying i'm being racist and your justification for doing so is by you yourself being racist?
because THAT makes any kind of sense.

 

[ZiprHead]

NYPD lieutenant who oversaw postal worker’s rough arrest stripped of badge and gun

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-oversaw-postal-worker-arrest-loses-badge-gun-article-1.2584376

 

[RavenSky]

NYPD lieutenant who oversaw postal worker’s rough arrest stripped of badge and gun

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-oversaw-postal-worker-arrest-loses-badge-gun-article-1.2584376

Good. That's a start.