The predominant factor in black deaths by police is more crimes commited - not racism

[RavenSky]

Almost all protests are localized, even when they reference other similar incidents from other areas to show the pattern.

BTW, do you have a list of the protesters for Kelly Thomas to show that not enough blacks supported it?

I'm referring to a spread of the protests outside the community from which the incident occurred. I'm sure blacks within the community were just as outraged and joined in. Police brutality and excessive force and lack of accountability is a common cause that we can all really around, but for some reason it is far more unjust and outrageous and worthy of more widespread protests when the victim is black. The colors of the skins have been constantly emphasized in the recent protests as if that is what makes the incidents so outrageous.

First I will ask you again, do you have some evidence that not enough blacks are involved in protests against police brutality for non-blacks?

Second, do you realize that Kelly Thomas was a homeless schizophrenic - in other words, another marginalized group that suffers a disproportionate amount of abuse from police?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why aren't white people making public a cry for justice? And do think before you answer

I'm not sure what you are asking. Whites and blacks (few that there were) within that community did make a public cry for justice. Yet the protests did not spread outside the community (by both whites and blacks) like in the recent incidents because I guess Kelly Thomas' skin wasn't dark enough and therefore a little bit less worthy of getting upset over?

Protests don't just happen. Movements don't spring fully formed from the mind of Zeus. Why aren't white people organizing en masse and demanding national attention for white victims of police violence? Why aren't white people putting in the work to make the cause of white victims a national cause?

 

[Axulus]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Whites and blacks (few that there were) within that community did make a public cry for justice. Yet the protests did not spread outside the community (by both whites and blacks) like in the recent incidents because I guess Kelly Thomas' skin wasn't dark enough and therefore a little bit less worthy of getting upset over?

Protests don't just happen. Movements don't spring fully formed from the mind of Zeus. Why aren't white people organizing en masse and demanding national attention for white victims of police violence? Why aren't white people putting in the work to make the cause of white victims a national cause?

I don't what whites to organize and make white victims a national cause. I want whites and blacks to come together and make all victims a national cause.

 

[Davka]

Why do you think so many people are so quick to assume the cop was in the wrong? The answer is most certainly not "media propaganda," because most of these same people were just as quick to assume wrongdoing by the police long before Ferguson, or Trayvon Martin's murder. This anger has been around for a long, ,long time, far longer than it's been getting media attention. What, exactly, do you believe the reason for that anger to be?

This is not directed at you personally, even Rachel Maddow does it, but I really dislike it when Trayvon Martin's murder is brought up in these discussions because it was not a case of police killing someone. That fat fuck who murdered Trayvon was not a cop, and it bugs me that the murderer gets elevated to even the level of "bad cop" is these discussions.
/end snit

Point taken, and admitted as valid. Zimmerman was a wannabe, not an actual cop.

So, why do you think so many people are so quick to assume cops are being racist fucks when these things happen? Not all cops are racist fucks, that much is obvious - so why the reaction?

And again, this reaction pre-dates any of the media coverage, it's been going on for decades. Why?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Protests don't just happen. Movements don't spring fully formed from the mind of Zeus. Why aren't white people organizing en masse and demanding national attention for white victims of police violence? Why aren't white people putting in the work to make the cause of white victims a national cause?

I don't what whites to organize and make white victims a national cause. I want whites and blacks to come together and make all victims a national cause.

does a movement addressing white folks under the color of law disproportionately killing unarmed black folk make you uncomfortable?

 

[Axulus]

I don't what whites to organize and make white victims a national cause. I want whites and blacks to come together and make all victims a national cause.

does a movement addressing white folks under the color of law disproportionately killing unarmed black folk make you uncomfortable?

The very question is whether it is disproportional or not - hence the OP. You have provided no data or analysis to demonstrate disproportionality. The book you linked to did not discuss the data in police killings of blacks vs. whites and draw a conclusion that the difference is due to racism, at least not in every summary I found. Ronburgundy has done a fine job defending the available data and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. It is not as unreliable as has been made out in this thread (although obviously not perfect) and, regardless of the flaws in the data, no one has provided more reliable data that demonstrates the claimed widespread racism.

 

[Davka]

does a movement addressing white folks under the color of law disproportionately killing unarmed black folk make you uncomfortable?

The very question is whether it is disproportional or not - hence the OP. You have provided no data or analysis to demonstrate disproportionality. The book you linked to did not discuss the data in police killings of blacks vs. whites and draw a conclusion that the difference is due to racism, at least not in every summary I found. Ronburgundy has done a fine job defending the available data and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. It is not as unreliable as has been made out in this thread (although obviously not perfect) and, regardless of the flaws in the data, no one has provided more reliable data that demonstrates the claimed widespread racism.

You are hiding behind stats, or the lack thereof. It's not a secret, and anyone who has been paying attention knows this has been going on forever. It didn't magically stop with the Voting Rights Act, or the death of Reverend MLK Jr., or the advent of The Jeffersons on TV. Racism is an ongoing problem in America, and racist cops are part of the problem.

And i notice you never answered my question. Why do you think so many people are so quick to assume that the cops are the problem, and have been quick to assume that for decades? Remember Rodney King? This ain't new.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This is not directed at you personally, even Rachel Maddow does it, but I really dislike it when Trayvon Martin's murder is brought up in these discussions because it was not a case of police killing someone. That fat fuck who murdered Trayvon was not a cop, and it bugs me that the murderer gets elevated to even the level of "bad cop" is these discussions.
/end snit

Point taken, and admitted as valid. Zimmerman was a wannabe, not an actual cop.

So, why do you think so many people are so quick to assume cops are being racist fucks when these things happen? Not all cops are racist fucks, that much is obvious - so why the reaction?

And again, this reaction pre-dates any of the media coverage, it's been going on for decades. Why?

Well, one problem is people don't generally have business with the police because they are having a happy time. Police show up because something is wrong and it doesn't take long to associate wrong or bad things with the police. This is not the fault of officers, but just the nature of the job.

Then, of course, there is the history of American policing itself

The birth and development of the American police can be traced to a multitude of historical, legal and political-economic conditions. The institution of slavery and the control of minorities, however, were two of the more formidable historic features of American society shaping early policing. Slave patrols and Night Watches, which later became modern police departments, were both designed to control the behaviors of minorities. For example, New England settlers appointed Indian Constables to police Native Americans (National Constable Association, 1995), the St. Louis police were founded to protect residents from Native Americans in that frontier city, and many southern police departments began as slave patrols. In 1704, the colony of Carolina developed the nation's first slave patrol. Slave patrols helped to maintain the economic order and to assist the wealthy landowners in recovering and punishing slaves who essentially were considered property.

Policing was not the only social institution enmeshed in slavery. Slavery was fully institutionalized in the American economic and legal order with laws being enacted at both the state and national divisions of government. Virginia, for example, enacted more than 130 slave statutes between 1689 and 1865. Slavery and the abuse of people of color, however, was not merely a southern affair as many have been taught to believe. Connecticut, New York and other colonies enacted laws to criminalize and control slaves. Congress also passed fugitive Slave Laws, laws allowing the detention and return of escaped slaves, in 1793 and 1850. As Turner, Giacopassi and Vandiver (2006:186) remark, “the literature clearly establishes that a legally sanctioned law enforcement system existed in America before the Civil War for the express purpose of controlling the slave population and protecting the interests of slave owners. The similarities between the slave patrols and modern American policing are too salient to dismiss or ignore. Hence, the slave patrol should be considered a forerunner of modern American law enforcement.”

http://www.plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-origins-american-policing

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is this happening or not? Hell, you are doing what the quote says right now.

Also, are the blacks telling the other black men to stop killing them at almost 100x the rate of cops? Does this even matter?

No, Black people do nothing about crime in our own neighborhoods. We love burying each other. it is a hoot and a half. Woohoo.

[/sarcasm]

Now I will ask you what I ask Loren

Do you read what you write? Or do you really believe deep down that black folk are beasts, idiots and brutes incapable of living in civilized society?

Athena, each statement in the narrative you posted is without any context. The first statement would be "with context" if it read: "Stop unfair harassment and unjustified fear of black people." Thereafter, the second statement would be unnecessary. You would get a lot more people on board with that, except it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. The "us versus them" narrative on both sides really needs to go away.

Absolutely, but it is the lynchpin of both sides' rhetoric. I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

 

[Toni]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Whites and blacks (few that there were) within that community did make a public cry for justice. Yet the protests did not spread outside the community (by both whites and blacks) like in the recent incidents because I guess Kelly Thomas' skin wasn't dark enough and therefore a little bit less worthy of getting upset over?

Don't you think that perhaps it was Kelly Thomas's mental illness and the fact that he was homeless? Both of those things are very scary to a lot of people. And even scarier. No one who went to bed white is ever going to wake up black but developing a serious mental illness or becoming homeless is not outside of the realm of the possible for any of us. But it is too terrifying to contemplate so instead, we figure that somehow, the police must have been justified because that scary homeless mentally ill person is well, scary. And we're ok with the police killing scary people we think might hurt us, however unlikely that possibility might be. Just the fact that they scare us is reason enough.

 

[maxparrish]

Dismissal of groundless speculation is always warranted, with or without having had personal experience in police statistic compilation. It is not up to those of us using the data to show it "complete", because being "complete" is not necessary.

Since the data has not been shown to be taken from random samples, completeness is necessary.

No, only if you insist on the ability to make specific calculated probabilities for the representatives of the sample to the total population as being the only valid way of seeing an inference. But if complete sample randomness were necessary, then even a cherry picked sample of 90% of a population would be "incomplete", and no inferences AT ALL could be drawn from any such sample (even if it was mostly (but not entirely) random). But would one wish to argue that if 90 percent of the target population were non-randomly selected and 89 percent stated their preference for Obama over Mickey Mouse, that one cannot draw the inference that most of the target population prefers Obama over MM?

In the real world you know that it is a rare survey that is composed of 100 percent of a target population (although the census tries), and few social survey samples are perfectly random and without possible sources of bias. And while it would be nice to have pure random probability sampling, non-probability sampling (convenience sampling) is far more common in the social sciences. And such is the nature of those who gather police statistics (or political polls) in the three (or four) data sources. Each is derived from convenience sampling, but each with different types of non-randomness and potential bias, AND at least one data source excluding a cause of bias that may occur in the other convenience samples. And all point to certain broad inferences.

YES, any judgement must be qualitative and with caveats. None the less, non-probability sampling it can be an approximation of (or inferential of) a truth - a basis being sympathetic to, or skeptical of, the claimed "problem".

And in this case, after looking at the different methods and sources, it infers that blacks tend to be killed by police in proportion to their run-in's with police.

 

[maxparrish]

does a movement addressing white folks under the color of law disproportionately killing unarmed black folk make you uncomfortable?

The very question is whether it is disproportional or not - hence the OP. You have provided no data or analysis to demonstrate disproportionality. The book you linked to did not discuss the data in police killings of blacks vs. whites and draw a conclusion that the difference is due to racism, at least not in every summary I found. Ronburgundy has done a fine job defending the available data and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. It is not as unreliable as has been made out in this thread (although obviously not perfect) and, regardless of the flaws in the data, no one has provided more reliable data that demonstrates the claimed widespread racism.

I would not characterize the data as either unreliable or flawed, it is (most social survey data) non-probability samples, in this case drawn from participating police agencies and other record sources (e.g. death certificates). Like all 'convenience' sampling, (which depend on a survey population which is willing to participate) they are more useful for relativistic and proportionality sampling than absolute numbers. However their broad agreement provides a qualitative inference. Moreover, the basic numbers (excluding justifiable homicide by police) are considered VERY reliable.

Here are the undisputed numbers:

In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of all state and federal prisoners, though they’re under 13 percent of the national population.
In 2006 one in 33 black men was in prison, compared with one in 205 white men and one in 79 Hispanic men.
Eleven percent of all black males between the ages of 20 and 34 are in prison or jail.

In 2005, the black homicide rate was over seven times higher than that of whites and Hispanics combined (FBI stats)
From 1976 to 2005, blacks committed over 52 percent of all murders in America.
In 2006, the black arrest rate for most crimes was two to nearly three times blacks’ representation in the population.
Blacks constituted 39.3 percent of all violent-crime arrests, including 56.3 percent of all robbery and 34.5 percent of all aggravated-assault arrests, and 29.4 percent of all property-crime arrests.

The race of criminals reported by crime victims matches arrest data. As long ago as 1978, a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim identifications and in arrests—a finding replicated many times since, across a range of crimes. No one has ever come up with a plausible argument as to why crime victims would be biased in their reports.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are a few factors in play here, ones that in 38 pages I am sure have already been discussed but are valid and shuts down the assumption in the OP: the disparities have nothing to do with race and everything to do with poverty and culture. Desperate people are driven to desperate means. Poor educational circumstances lead to poor opportunities. And because people impose expectations of individuals based on trends in populations, the effect is further magnified. we're stuck with racism because until we stomach making white parents go home with black babies and black parents go home with white babies, we'll continue seeing race as a proxy for poverty.

So let me pose this question: do you think that if we randomized which parent got to take which baby home from the maternity wards among an entire city, state, or even a nation, would you expect the trend to be based on skin color in 5 generations? Or do you think it would just be poverty and culture-driven?

 

[tupac chopra]

Blacks commit far more violent crimes. They make up 13% of the population, but committed 52% of the homicides from 1980-2008. 38.5% of arrests for violent crime in general (rape, murder, robbery, manslaughter) were black, about 3 times their population proportion. Remember this proportion, it will be important for later.

But if Police are racist then they will arrest more people of certain ethnic groups.
So more arrests could just as easily be evidence of Police racism. No?

 

[RavenSky]

There are a few factors in play here, ones that in 38 pages I am sure have already been discussed but are valid and shuts down the assumption in the OP: the disparities have nothing to do with race and everything to do with poverty and culture. Desperate people are driven to desperate means. Poor educational circumstances lead to poor opportunities. And because people impose expectations of individuals based on trends in populations, the effect is further magnified. we're stuck with racism because until we stomach making white parents go home with black babies and black parents go home with white babies, we'll continue seeing race as a proxy for poverty.

So let me pose this question: do you think that if we randomized which parent got to take which baby home from the maternity wards among an entire city, state, or even a nation, would you expect the trend to be based on skin color in 5 generations? Or do you think it would just be poverty and culture-driven?

excellent question.

 

[Davka]

What we need is Sylvester McMonkey McBean, with his plain-belly, star-belly sneetch-y machine!

 

[Toni]

There are a few factors in play here, ones that in 38 pages I am sure have already been discussed but are valid and shuts down the assumption in the OP: the disparities have nothing to do with race and everything to do with poverty and culture. Desperate people are driven to desperate means. Poor educational circumstances lead to poor opportunities. And because people impose expectations of individuals based on trends in populations, the effect is further magnified. we're stuck with racism because until we stomach making white parents go home with black babies and black parents go home with white babies, we'll continue seeing race as a proxy for poverty.

So let me pose this question: do you think that if we randomized which parent got to take which baby home from the maternity wards among an entire city, state, or even a nation, would you expect the trend to be based on skin color in 5 generations? Or do you think it would just be poverty and culture-driven?

Eventually, sure. It would take at least 5 generations, I think. During which time we might find that there was a small increased incidence of SIDS because some parents wouldn't be able to stomach raising a child of a different race and of those, a few would be clever enough or find the 'right' doctors to disguise a quiet but I am certain humane euthanasia being practiced. I think this would be very small--most of us are not monsters; but it would exist because some of us are. Likewise, I think that among some families, there would be an increase in the number of children who are relinquished for adoption. And more likely, a disparity about how family assets, especially those related to education, are distributed. Just as in days gone by, some families and indeed an entire culture with few exceptions decided that only male children merited extensive education or training for most professions, I predict that some colors of children would be seen as less suited for some sorts of education and training. Not everybody but certainly, some families would do this, for a while, I think. Eventually, this would disappear, probably. Of course, some would find ways to ensure that they always came home with the 'right' color of baby. Or most probably, there would be a huge uptick in home births.

The real change would come when one could no longer look at someone and decide that you 'know' something about their SES, their educational and professional achievements or indeed, their intellectual or creative or athletic abilities or their temperament or disposition or tendencies by the color of their skin because race and color would be randomly distributed throughout society..

I don't believe in a color blind society, actually. I find that I am intrigued by those who have gone before me and how I see certain quirks and personality traits from previous generations play out among the newest one in my family. I love seeing my father's crooked grin on the face of my son; there is a feeling of continuity and connection when I see the widow's peak in my children's hairline and know that it has persisted for generations and was there with the grandmother who died many years before I was born. I don't confuse this at all with inherited talents or abilities or character. But I do think this is a natural human impulse. Many adopted children crave to at least to know about their genetic medical history and genetic origins and some, about the family history of their progenitors. Some--not all, but some--feel a separateness and aloneness when they do not see their eyes or smile or the way they walk in any member of their family and they long to find that...somewhere. Not all do. Perhaps, eventually, this drive might disappear or at least be suppressed as unacceptable and antisocial.

I believe that all races, all cultures, are equally important. Just as language reveals something about both a subset of people who speak that language, it also reveals something about all people. So does culture, religion, tradition of all kinds. I see this as good. I don't think we should try to erase this. Maybe it's just because I've read The Lathe of Heaven and find no hero or visionary in Le Guin's Dr. William Haber.

Jarhyn's scenario would make an interesting premise for a speculative utopian or dystopian novel. I would think dystopian.

#feelinginspired

 

[EPresence2]

It's interesting that you said public perception - how much of that was accurate and incontrovertible? How much was inflated to legitimize the protest?

I wasn't aware that protesting the shooting of an unarmed teenager who witnesses insist was trying to surrender requires a great deal of inflation. If anything there was the omission of the putative fact that Brown and Wilson had a struggle before Brown tried to run, something that only a few witnesses even saw and that almost nobody could describe the details of.

The preponderance of physical evidence and corroborating witness testimony says otherwise - http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...are&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social. You are also failing to remember all the initial insistence that Brown was shot running away that was actually incorrect based on multiple autopsy results. And where the Johnson testimony was not corroborated with physical evidence he made Wilson out to a devil behind a badge. Yet Wilson, the person held to a higher standard, must be lying to cover his ass and Dorian Johnson has no reason to lie? I'm not sure you really think all that but I would not be surprised based on the nature of your responses so far. Of course every case is different, and the other one(s) you mentioned could be more substantiated instances of police brutality and fuel for righteous protest. There is also a culture of brutality, entitlement, and lack of respect for authority in some areas that some cops have to deal with every day. You may disagree with that, but I'll let that nonsense stand as a testament to your narrow focus. If you actually agree with that, the question goes back to relative magnitude and localization of the problems on both sides of the fence. Peace and Happy New Year!

 

[EPresence2]

...but I really dislike it when Trayvon Martin's murder is brought up in these discussions because it was not a case of police killing someone. That fat fuck who murdered Trayvon was not a cop, and it bugs me that the murderer gets elevated to even the level of "bad cop" is these discussions.

About the GZ/TM tragedy: In this country people are innocent until proven guilty and eye-witnesses didn't see who initiated the physical altercation - only that TM was slamming GZs head into the pavement. You are simply incorrect to assume GZ threw the first punch, yet GZ should not have been following TM. Listen to yourself regarding people you (probably) don't know: "That fat fuck who murdered Trayvon."

 

[laughing dog]

...but I really dislike it when Trayvon Martin's murder is brought up in these discussions because it was not a case of police killing someone. That fat fuck who murdered Trayvon was not a cop, and it bugs me that the murderer gets elevated to even the level of "bad cop" is these discussions.

About the GZ/TM tragedy: In this country people are innocent until proven guilty and eye-witnesses didn't see who initiated the physical altercation - only that TM was slamming GZs head into the pavement. You are simply incorrect to assume GZ threw the first punch, yet GZ should not have been following TM. Listen to yourself regarding people you (probably) don't know: "That fat fuck who murdered Trayvon."

There is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. The identity of the thrower of the first punch is irrelevant to that fact. And, IMO, to the conclusion that Zimmerman murdered Martin. It is also a fact that Zimmerman was not a police officer but he was (and I hope no longer) a police officer wannabee.