Too Much Policing in Black Neighborhoods

[barbos]

It seems key problem here are gangs. Take them away and everything will be fine.

Not an option. As in, there's no possible way for you to accomplish this, given our current policing.

What is wrong with current policing?

I can understand being afraid but I can't understand actively taking the side of gangs as opposed to police.

And that's why you were killed.

But this is ridiculous. People should not actively take gangs side. It's like "We know gangs are the real problem, not the police but since gangs are scary we will trash police instead" The least you can do is stop trashing police when you know damn well they are not at fault.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Through the end of the day Friday, Chicago had seen 475 murders – just six less than in all of last year, according to police department statistics. The city has already exceeded last year’s total number of gun-related homicides, with 430.

As violence rises, an increasing number of shootings and murders are going unsolved. Through 28 August, the police department had only made arrests in 73 of the nearly 2,000 non-fatal shooting incidents so far this year – or just under 4%, according to a department spokesman.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/04/chicago-gun-violence-unsolved-murders-deadly-year

With the continued righteous efforts of Black Lives Matter, we can get that 4% to 0%.

So you think all the killers are black?

 

[Mumbles]

Not an option. As in, there's no possible way for you to accomplish this, given our current policing.

What is wrong with current policing?

I already said in this post.

Or, you can listen to people like this.

But this is ridiculous. People should not actively take gangs side.

Why not? It's much better for their physical safety, and without that, they have absolutely nothing.

It's like "We know gangs are the real problem, not the police but since gangs are scary we will trash police instead"

No, the way we do policing *is* a large part of the problem. The individual police on the street could be the kindest, greatest people ever, and it would not matter in the slightest.

 

[barbos]

What is wrong with current policing?

I already said in this post.

Or, you can listen to people like this.

But this is ridiculous. People should not actively take gangs side.

Why not? It's much better for their physical safety, and without that, they have absolutely nothing.

No, it's not better, associating yourself with a gang is a a sure way to get killed by a rival gang.

It's like "We know gangs are the real problem, not the police but since gangs are scary we will trash police instead"

No, the way we do policing *is* a large part of the problem. The individual police on the street could be the kindest, greatest people ever, and it would not matter in the slightest.

Policing is not a cause, it's an effect. Nothing will change if you keep barking at the wrong tree.

 

[Mumbles]

I already said in this post.

Or, you can listen to people like this.

But this is ridiculous. People should not actively take gangs side.

Why not? It's much better for their physical safety, and without that, they have absolutely nothing.

No, it's not better, associating yourself with a gang is a a sure way to get killed by a rival gang.

Not true at all. That's not even true of the actual members, actually - lots of them end up living to a reasonably old age. The guys who just associate with them - hanging out, DJing, making tags, whatever - get some of the protection, and can usually scram if they *do* end up in a war.

You're still thinking about this like you're in some nice, peaceful suburb, when some assholes move in and start making trouble. That thinking isn't going to work.

This is where you can expect the cops to not help you if someone beats the shit out of you in the street and robs you. The cops either go from one emergency to the next, or they're rolling around and just harassing kids at random to keep their arrest numbers up. You're trying to fix the system, and you don't even know what system your working on.

Policing is not a cause, it's an effect. Nothing will change if you keep barking at the wrong tree.

That's not how it works, either. When you're locking kids up for dime bags and the like, you're basically making them unemployable, which pushes them to off the books stuff. Drugs, repair work, babysitting, and the like. Or just sitting around all day. When you're shoving random kids around for "loitering" and other broken-window crap, you're simply irritating them.

We lock up all the fathers by force, and then go to the neighborhood and say "Where are the fathers?" Uh, in the prisons where we put them for stupid minor offenses. If we'd stop doing that, the fathers would generally be trying to take care of their kids.

Go after the murderers, the spouse-beaters, and the like, stop arresting people and putting them on trial because they couldn't pay some citation or other. Dump all the military surplus, hire more detectives and beat cops. Figure out who the gangs are, tell them that you know who they are, keep a close eye on them. Work *with* the community to do so.

And, at least, end the "war on drugs", even if you don't entirely legalize everything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And it's not so much a matter of distrust of the police as fear of the criminals. Talking is a good way for bad things to happen to you.

So you claim with nothing whatsoever to support your opinion.

I say that citizens refuse to assist police in solving crimes because they don't trust the police. And I will give you just as much factual support for my position as you have given to me for yours:

Snitches get stitches isn't just a saying. Did you not read the article linked last page?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/

He found a neighborhood witness, who gave up everything but the killers’ names. Two weeks later, he got another call about an abandoned car. This time the body was inside. “It was my witness,” he recalled, “deader than a mackerel.”

This is the reality.

- - - Updated - - -

You should probably read those DOJ reports.

Or talk to a black guy. Oh wait...

Yeah, I and several of my friends have been randomly assaulted by police. Thing about those friends...black and Latino.

You would love it if the crime rate goes up???

I cut that part out. I want them to be *far* more cautious about their jobs. When you actually think about it, maybe witness protection would be a better investment than military surplus to in parades, and protests.

And they don't treat protests like terrorist acts but they are prepared for violence as it's common.

And it's quite often caused by them, as we saw in Ferguson, and Baton Rouge. I suspect this happened in Baltimore as well, since officials were stupid enough to close the Mondawmin subway stop that several schools use as a transit hub, right as schools were letting out, to prevent students from going to the mall right next to it. But they're still sitting on that footage.

You want a world where there is no meaningful police power, the criminals rule.

May I suggest relocating to Somalia?

 

[Mumbles]

You want a world where there is no meaningful police power, the criminals rule.

That's not even close to what I said.:laughing-smiley-014

Try again.

 

[Elixir]

And, at least, end the "war on drugs", even if you don't entirely legalize everything.

I remember as a child of four or five, traveling in a car and hearing on the radio about some heroin horror story and my Mom shaking her head and clucking... so I started asking what heroin is. She explained some things about what drugs are and why they are bad and illegal. After that, a long pause, then she, a staunch Republican ex-military conservative, offered "I think all drugs should be legal". But didn't elaborate.

Now, some sixty years hence, I have come to the conclusion that she was visionary about it. Making all drugs legal would drive the cost of pharmaceuticals down to the ground, eliminating drug cartels' profit margins, which are now obscene in both the legal and illegal models. It would reduce incarceration costs considerably. At least in the short term it would probably reduce the population in general from poisonings, overdoses, counterfeit products etc. A little Darwinian action might not be such a bad thing, especially if one of the selective factors is anti-science stupidity or woo in general... and there would be a thriving drug certification industry, as people sought safe sources.
None of those benefits - if you consider them all benefits - could accrue as long as the cost of drugs is higher than that of precious metals or gems. A little bit of legalization might do a little, but not much IMHO.

 

[RavenSky]

So you claim with nothing whatsoever to support your opinion.

I say that citizens refuse to assist police in solving crimes because they don't trust the police. And I will give you just as much factual support for my position as you have given to me for yours:

Snitches get stitches isn't just a saying. Did you not read the article linked last page?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/

He found a neighborhood witness, who gave up everything but the killers’ names. Two weeks later, he got another call about an abandoned car. This time the body was inside. “It was my witness,” he recalled, “deader than a mackerel.”

This is the reality.

Loren, you wouldn't know the reality of someplace like Chicago even if it bit you in the ass. And frankly, all your snippet shows is that the police failed to protect a citizen who was apparently trying to help them... so why should a citizen risk their life to help them? But at least you attempted to back up your own position for a change. That's progress!

You should probably read those DOJ reports.

Or talk to a black guy. Oh wait...

Yeah, I and several of my friends have been randomly assaulted by police. Thing about those friends...black and Latino.

You would love it if the crime rate goes up???

I cut that part out. I want them to be *far* more cautious about their jobs. When you actually think about it, maybe witness protection would be a better investment than military surplus to in parades, and protests.

And they don't treat protests like terrorist acts but they are prepared for violence as it's common.

And it's quite often caused by them, as we saw in Ferguson, and Baton Rouge. I suspect this happened in Baltimore as well, since officials were stupid enough to close the Mondawmin subway stop that several schools use as a transit hub, right as schools were letting out, to prevent students from going to the mall right next to it. But they're still sitting on that footage.

You want a world where there is no meaningful police power, the criminals rule.

May I suggest relocating to Somalia?

WOW... remember what I said about your grasp on reality? Apparently it applies to your ability to comprehend when someone else talks to you about reality, too

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You want a world where there is no meaningful police power, the criminals rule.

That's not even close to what I said.:laughing-smiley-014

Try again.

The problem is you aren't looking at the consequences. The more you restrict the police the bolder the criminals will become.

I do agree something should be done about random beatings but the claims of wrongdoing by police are way overblown.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Snitches get stitches isn't just a saying. Did you not read the article linked last page?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/

He found a neighborhood witness, who gave up everything but the killers’ names. Two weeks later, he got another call about an abandoned car. This time the body was inside. “It was my witness,” he recalled, “deader than a mackerel.”

This is the reality.

Loren, you wouldn't know the reality of someplace like Chicago even if it bit you in the ass. And frankly, all your snippet shows is that the police failed to protect a citizen who was apparently trying to help them... so why should a citizen risk their life to help them? But at least you attempted to back up your own position for a change. That's progress!

There isn't really much the police can do to protect you.

You should probably read those DOJ reports.

Or talk to a black guy. Oh wait...

Yeah, I and several of my friends have been randomly assaulted by police. Thing about those friends...black and Latino.

You would love it if the crime rate goes up???

I cut that part out. I want them to be *far* more cautious about their jobs. When you actually think about it, maybe witness protection would be a better investment than military surplus to in parades, and protests.

And they don't treat protests like terrorist acts but they are prepared for violence as it's common.

And it's quite often caused by them, as we saw in Ferguson, and Baton Rouge. I suspect this happened in Baltimore as well, since officials were stupid enough to close the Mondawmin subway stop that several schools use as a transit hub, right as schools were letting out, to prevent students from going to the mall right next to it. But they're still sitting on that footage.

You want a world where there is no meaningful police power, the criminals rule.

May I suggest relocating to Somalia?

WOW... remember what I said about your grasp on reality? Apparently it applies to your ability to comprehend when someone else talks to you about reality, too

The problem is you have this fantasyland image where the criminal behavior stems from the cop's behavior and think you can solve it by curtailing the cops.

 

[Deepak]

The problem is you have this fantasyland image where the criminal behavior stems from the cop's behavior and think you can solve it by curtailing the cops.

How exactly is that fantasyland? Certainly we know that black people are more likely to be arrested for drugs at a disproportionate rate to overall consumption of drugs. Individuals from low income families are also more likely to have poor representation (i.e. overworked public defenders) and people admitting guilt in plea bargains even when they're innocent is an absolute reality.

http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/595/transcript

David Zax
Trastavien said he wasn't guilty. He said he didn't know anything about the burglary. But Jack pointed to the warrant which said Trastavien's DNA had been collected from a hat. Trastavien explained that he'd had lots of hats over the years. He'd collected hats. He'd lost hats. He'd traded hats. Even if his DNA was on a hat at the scene, it wasn't proof he'd been there. Jack believed him.

Jack Bailey
You know, look, if you're a good trial lawyer you can detect the BS, right? OK. I mean, you get pretty good at it. I just walked out of there and my gut was telling me this kid wasn't guilty of what he was charged with.

Also, if he had done this burglary, he would have had more information to give me. I don't find that clients are shy about sharing information with their lawyer, OK. So it's not like the other conversations I had in my career with criminal defendants that were guilty.

Because let me tell you, they all know what's going on. And they all ask you, well, does the state know about this? What witnesses do they have? Did they find this? And Mr. Hardy knew precious little about this.

David Zax
Jack was suddenly invested in the case. Up till now he'd assumed Trastavien was probably guilty. In his experience, that's true of most people accused of crimes. Around the office, Jack had been calling Trastavien "our criminal."

But now he was ready to fight for him, go to trial. Which presented a problem. His client didn't want to do that. Unlike Jack, Trastavien did have some recent experience in the criminal justice system. He'd stood in front of a lot of judges. He'd spent three years in prison. And he knew most everybody takes a plea. Nobody goes to trial. He told Jack--

Trastavien Hardy
I'll just plead guilty to anything within a year to go home. I'm like, I just want to go home. I could take a year of something, two years of probation.

David Zax
So you were saying you were ready to plead guilty to just about anything if you could get out in a year. I mean, you've kind of--

Trastavien Hardy
Misdemeanor, that's what I was really trying to just get a misdemeanor.

The whole story is worth a listen (or a read).

Now once you've been convicted of something, even in a plea bargain, getting employed becomes much harder. And if you do time in jail the chance of survival goes way down if you don't associate with real criminals for protection. The whole system is set up to be a meat grinder.

 

[barbos]

How exactly is that fantasyland? Certainly we know that black people are more likely to be arrested for drugs at a disproportionate rate to overall consumption of drugs.

Even if it were true, how does it excuse breaking the law? And drug arrests are for drug distribution not for drug use.

 

[Deepak]

How exactly is that fantasyland? Certainly we know that black people are more likely to be arrested for drugs at a disproportionate rate to overall consumption of drugs.

Even if it were true, how does it excuse breaking the law? And drug arrests are for drug distribution not for drug use.

Even if? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/

There are plenty of arrests for possession. And the excusal of breaking the law is for all the Wall Street guys I'd see in Downtown NYC not getting stopped and frisked even though they had coke in their pockets. I've walked through Midtown and the West Village with white friends that lived there for their entire lives, who always have a giant bag of pot in their pockets, and have never once been stopped by a cop. Now I wonder how that compare to the average resident of the Bronx or Harlem?

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...achr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf

 

[barbos]

Even if it were true, how does it excuse breaking the law? And drug arrests are for drug distribution not for drug use.

Even if? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/

There are plenty of arrests for possession. And the excusal of breaking the law is for all the Wall Street guys I'd see in Downtown NYC not getting stopped and frisked even though they had coke in their pockets. I've walked through Midtown and the West Village with white friends that lived there for their entire lives, who always have a giant bag of pot in their pockets, and have never once been stopped by a cop. Now I wonder how that compare to the average resident of the Bronx or Harlem?

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...achr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf

Bullcrap. Possession does not preclude distribution, and in case of blacks it often does mean distribution. Why would rich white kid be distributing it?
Even if we assume that your statistics is not bullcrap that still does not mean that police actively ignores white kids smoking pot. It could mean that black kids are easier to catch.
I mean the only time I smelled marijuana in US was when some assholes were openly smoking in the apartment below me and I hate that smoke. Guess who where these guys? exactly, they were blacks.

 

[Mumbles]

Bullcrap. Possession does not preclude distribution, and in case of blacks it often does mean distribution. Why would rich white kid be distributing it?

To sell it to his/her friends, and also to use some for themselves, of course.

What, you thought the rich folks were all driving into the hoods to get their individual doses? That's one thing we never saw.

And the cops could break into the distribution chains in upper-class neighborhoods as easy as pie if they wanted to - particularly if they were as wildly aggressive as they are against young black men in doing so.

Even if we assume that your statistics is not bullcrap that still does not mean that police actively ignores white kids smoking pot. It could mean that black kids are easier to catch.

At this point, again, you're simply ignoring the evidence. We know that the police target black people because of a wealth of studies, DOJ findings, and in many cases policy, stating so.

And the point, of course, is that there's no point grinding people's life down because they wanted to smoke pot, regardless of skin color or income. It's a dumb law, enforced sadistically.

 

[Mumbles]

That's not even close to what I said.:laughing-smiley-014

Try again.

The problem is you aren't looking at the consequences. The more you restrict the police the bolder the criminals will become.

I do agree something should be done about random beatings but the claims of wrongdoing by police are way overblown.

Missed again. Care for another go?

 

[barbos]

To sell it to his/her friends, and also to use some for themselves, of course.

What, you thought the rich folks were all driving into the hoods to get their individual doses? That's one thing we never saw.

I presume they call their friends in the hood.

And the cops could break into the distribution chains in upper-class neighborhoods as easy as pie if they wanted to - particularly if they were as wildly aggressive as they are against young black men in doing so.

Yeah, and they will end up catching a bunch of black guys.

Even if we assume that your statistics is not bullcrap that still does not mean that police actively ignores white kids smoking pot. It could mean that black kids are easier to catch.

At this point, again, you're simply ignoring the evidence. We know that the police target black people because of a wealth of studies, DOJ findings, and in many cases policy, stating so.

I am not ignoring it, I am merely doubting it.

And the point, of course, is that there's no point grinding people's life down because they wanted to smoke pot, regardless of skin color or income. It's a dumb law, enforced sadistically.

I reluctantly agree if we talk about marijuana but disagree if it is hard drugs.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why would rich white kid be distributing it?

Maybe he's a Republican pulling himself up by his own bootstraps!

 

[Mumbles]

I presume they call their friends in the hood.

And the cops could break into the distribution chains in upper-class neighborhoods as easy as pie if they wanted to - particularly if they were as wildly aggressive as they are against young black men in doing so.

Yeah, and they will end up catching a bunch of black guys.

Even if we assume that your statistics is not bullcrap that still does not mean that police actively ignores white kids smoking pot. It could mean that black kids are easier to catch.

At this point, again, you're simply ignoring the evidence. We know that the police target black people because of a wealth of studies, DOJ findings, and in many cases policy, stating so.

I am not ignoring it, I am merely doubting it.

And the point, of course, is that there's no point grinding people's life down because they wanted to smoke pot, regardless of skin color or income. It's a dumb law, enforced sadistically.

I reluctantly agree if we talk about marijuana but disagree if it is hard drugs.

Well, you're just a regular Paul LePage, aren't ya?

This is the equivalent of flat-earth theory, so I think we're done.