Law Enforcement Reform Thread (formerly Defund the Police) (1 Viewer)

Lapaz said:

When you eliminate per capita of the whole population, the targeting isn't apparent, because whites are getting arrested more than twice as much as blacks (5.3M vs 2.1M in 2018), despite whites representing only 9% of the impoverished population, compared to 22% for blacks and another 15% for mixed race people. If crime is linked to poverty, which makes sense, and blacks are disproportionately represented by poverty, then they are also probably disproportionately committing crimes, yet they are getting arrested less frequently. That doesn't support targeting of blacks. It does raise many questions about the causes of the poverty.

Table 43

ucr.fbi.gov

Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity | KFF

disparity, Disparities

www.kff.org

Regardless, cops don't make the laws. They can only enforce them. All cops can do is deal with the people they have to arrest. It isn't their fault if they have to arrest more blacks than whites as a proportion of their population, if the laws require it. I know jurisdictions have some latitude on how they will enforce those laws, but those decisions are not made by beat cops. They are made by police chiefs and elected officials. Politicians have to change unjust laws, and jurisdictions need to change priorities. Of course there are some bad cops, but I contend those are the trees. Put the blame where it belongs.

Click to expand...

I think you're completely misreading those numbers. The 9% figure isn't the percent of impoverished people who are white -- it's the poverty rate for whites. The 9% doesn't mean that if there are 100 million people in poverty only 9 million are white. It means that 9% of the entire white population is in poverty.

You can view this in action at https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/

Change from percent to number in the menu on the left.



Doing so shows that whites are actually 43.42% of the impoverished population, and blacks are 20.77%. (I'm going to not rant about this putting "Hispanic" as a race when Hispanic is NOT a race... sheesh. If "Hispanic" were broken out to White Hispanic and Black Hispanic, the "Whites" number would grow a lot more.)

Now to a criticism of the UCR -- it is just a sample, not a total. It is a voluntary reporting, and not every jurisiction reports to the UCR, Additionally, every jurisdiction might have its own method of classification of crimes, so that numbers from one place to another can be wildly different if they used the other's methodology. There are numerous studies that show the UCR data might be as much as 50% under-reported for crimes. It's useful, but it isn't complete.

V Chip said:

I think you're completely misreading those numbers. The 9% figure isn't the percent of impoverished people who are white -- it's the poverty rate for whites. The 9% doesn't mean that if there are 100 million people in poverty only 9 million are white. It means that 9% of the entire white population is in poverty.

You can view this in action at https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/

Change from percent to number in the menu on the left.

Doing so shows that whites are actually 43.42% of the impoverished population, and blacks are 20.77%. (I'm going to not rant about this putting "Hispanic" as a race when Hispanic is NOT a race... sheesh. If "Hispanic" were broken out to White Hispanic and Black Hispanic, the "Whites" number would grow a lot more.)

Now to a criticism of the UCR -- it is just a sample, not a total. It is a voluntary reporting, and not every jurisiction reports to the UCR, Additionally, every jurisdiction might have its own method of classification of crimes, so that numbers from one place to another can be wildly different if they used the other's methodology. There are numerous studies that show the UCR data might be as much as 50% under-reported for crimes. It's useful, but it isn't complete.

Click to expand...

I don't know, how do you categorize mixed races? If someone is half white, half black, we tend to call them black. When they're half Hispanic, half white, they're Hispanics still. When they're half Hispanic, half black, I'm not sure. When they're half Indian, half white, they're Indians.

Fwiw, my kids are half white, half Asian. A lot of times, when filling out forms I have to pick one or the other, I usually put Asian for them. These days, many allow you to make more than one choice.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems to me how you categorize people isn't nearly as cut and dried as it looks on the surface.

Lapaz said:

I don't think I miss that point, but I think people always want to lump everything into neat baskets. The Aubrey and Floyd cases are drastically different. Human motivations are varied and complex. One case is clearly racist, while the other isn't. I think most people look at the trees (individual cases), and cast aspersions on the forest (police are racist). It isn't always black and white.

Click to expand...

You call for case by case considerations, of difference and context. And yet, you seem to be totally resistant to the methodological questions that do just that, qualitative inquiry that's specifically for this. You, instead, tie yourself to a single data point which doesn't take into account anything and you misunderstand that one, add on some assumptions, and run with the conclusion.

You claim for case study approach, but you actually cite and rely on a totalizing approach to data.

Have the cake. Eat the cake. Choose one.

Lapaz said:

With respect to your point about controlling for poverty and how it relates to targeting of blacks, if you control for poverty, then you can no longer use the result to compare how blacks are handled by police vs whites on a per capita basis of the whole population, because that eliminates a large portion of the population.

Click to expand...

this is yet another example of your inability to handle the basics of criminological research. People control - all the time - to make closer comparisons. And these controls are designed to illustrate comparables. In this case, because class is so often tied to police 'interaction' then it absolutely serves to highlight the disproportionality.

It might not work for *you* but it works. Take an example of school discipline. Many black children go to poor underserved schools and people will say their behavior is worse because they are poor. So, then researchers will pull out middle- and white-class students (unless it's a district- or campus-based project where there is shared space and then poverty becomes a control but not for exclusion), and compare - because what that tells us is to what extent class *might* be a factor.

If you take the entire population, black kids are - say - 8 times more likely to be assigned in-school suspension, suspended, expelled, adjudicated to court, etc. But then someone says, "Maybe that's a function of poverty" and so now your pool is smaller for the white kids, but it's 5 times instead of 8.

Now you have two research questions in front of you, instead of one. Why are poor kids 2-3 times more likely than rich kids? And why are black kids, 5-8 times more likely, when class is controlled for?

It's not that overall population is no longer is irrelevant and can't be used. What it means is that we have a data marker for other/more research.

Lapaz said:

Regardless, cops don't make the laws. They can only enforce them. All cops can do is deal with the people they have to arrest. It isn't their fault if they have to arrest more blacks than whites as a proportion of their population

Click to expand...

Of all the things you have typed, this statement shows the greatest lack of awareness of what we are talking about. You have no idea how often cops enforce or don't. You have no idea how often cops enforce even when there isn't a law broken. You have no idea the options cops have when they are faced with X or Y. You have no idea the amount of choice that police officers have in deciding what happens.

It really is demonstrably, objectively clueless.

My experience is with locked up kids. At two different facilities, one back in Louisiana and one up here in Ontario. The one up here is much less a factor in this discussion because there are more Minority Youth Offender protections.

In Louisiana, I saw directly at one facility and did work with information from 3 state facilities. So, my circle of direct experience is small, relative to people who have undertaken broader work, and with adults. What did I see?

Cops pick up a kid and drop him off in a rival part of town for putting back on a t-shirt the cop told him to take off. Tazing a teenage girl who had their back to them up against a fence as she was running from her adult sexual assaulter. Slamming a cuffed juvenile to the ground, dislocating his shoulder, when there were 3 officers to his one. An officer in a cell slamming a kid's face against the sink to make a point. Letting a rich, white kid go on animal cruelty charges more than once, when he ended up locked up for running larger animals over with a tractor. Harassing an innocent, first time offender to signing a felony confession with no lawyer present. Denying access to a drug abuse and family therapist while a kid was being held. Booking kids under the auspices of 'looking questionable' so they could accrue more overtime (this became so systemic, expansive until a judge became aware and blew the whistle).

And more.

These are just a few of what I encountered. Just me. By myself.

To suggest that cops have no choice is absolutely, positively so far removed from reality. And all it does is excuse the cops.

And I've said before, I was part of a project to look at how a facility could re-form itself into something better for the kids. We worked with lawyers, judges, cops, parole officers, security staff, facility management, other universities doing research on the topic, therapists, etc.

Everyone was okay with saying, "We are part of the problem, so what can we change? What part can we play in our realm that will have an impact?"

Except cops. And they said the exact same thing you are saying here. "We don't have a choice. Don't like it, then change the laws."

Everyone in the project - and I mean everyone - knew that was bull.

That would be akin to teachers saying, "We just do what the curriculum tells us." It's nonsense. Teachers are the most critical for student achievement.

And cops are the most integral intersection in fixing this, and they are the most obstinate in refusing wrong. And you're only empowering that mentality.

DaveXA said:

I don't know, how do you categorize mixed races? If someone is half white, half black, we tend to call them black. When they're half Hispanic, half white, they're Hispanics still. When they're half Hispanic, half black, I'm not sure. When they're half Indian, half white, they're Indians.

Fwiw, my kids are half white, half Asian. A lot of times, when filling out forms I have to pick one or the other, I usually put Asian for them. These days, many allow you to make more than one choice.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems to me how you categorize people isn't nearly as cut and dried as it looks on the surface.

Click to expand...

Hispanic isn't a race, it's an ethnicity. There are White Hispanics and Black Hispanics.

For those who are mixed race, they have the category "Mixed Race." But Hispanic is not a race. That's why the numbers are frequently summarized as White (or "White Only"), White (non-Hispanic), Black (or "Black Only"), Black (non-Hispanic), Asian/Pacific Islander, etc.

We get into this area of 'race' now and it becomes even more complicated. The Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid model is incorrect and, well, racist. A lot of the earliest anthropological work was driven by the assumption of white superiority and black inferiority.

So it becomes a difficult discussion, because race is not really a DNA-thing when it comes to violence or intelligence. Some white dude in the Heartland of America can have more DNA in common with a sub-Saharan black than his white neighbor.

When we walk about things like eye color or skin color or likelihood to get sickle cell anemia, yes, those are 'race' related dimensions.

there are a *lot* of people who make the argument, 'well black people are more athletic and have denser bone structures, so white people can be less violent and have higher intelligence on average'

So when talking about race, even in criminological circles, 'race' is not something that is handled flatly - it's yet another dimensional context that has to be handled, acknowledging the anthropologically racist nature of history and science in the field

Ayo said:

We get into this area of 'race' now and it becomes even more complicated. The Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid model is incorrect and, well, racist. A lot of the earliest anthropological work was driven by the assumption of white superiority and black inferiority.

So it becomes a difficult discussion, because race is not really a DNA-thing when it comes to violence or intelligence. Some white dude in the Heartland of America can have more DNA in common with a sub-Saharan black than his white neighbor.

When we walk about things like eye color or skin color or likelihood to get sickle cell anemia, yes, those are 'race' related dimensions.

there are a *lot* of people who make the argument, 'well black people are more athletic and have denser bone structures, so white people can be less violent and have higher intelligence on average'

So when talking about race, even in criminological circles, 'race' is not something that is handled flatly - it's yet another dimensional context that has to be handled, acknowledging the anthropologically racist nature of history and science in the field

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm one of those people who wishes race wasn't a thing. But historically, we've made it a thing and we have to live with the consequences of doing that today.

More idiot racist cops getting fired. At least they're getting fired before killing someone.

insidejob said:

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article243779512.html

More idiot racist cops getting fired. At least they're getting fired before killing someone.

Click to expand...

Good forking riddance.

DaveXA said:

Yeah, I'm one of those people who wishes race wasn't a thing. But historically, we've made it a thing and we have to live with the consequences of doing that today.

Click to expand...

I understand the spirit with which you make that statement Dave, and on those merits I agree, but ultimately I would like for us to evolve to a place where we recognize our differences and celebrate them instead of discriminating towards them. I know I'm preaching to the choir because I know you want the same thing.

I don't want to live in a color blind society. I want you to see my race. My uniqueness. Because you do. Some persons say "I raise my kids to not see color." But, we do see it and that's okay. Jane Elliott says the notion of America being a melting pot is false, or a bad goal. In a melting pot, you put all kinds of unique things in there and that crucible reduces it all to one liquid. America should be a salad bar she says. At a salad bar, you get your lettuce, some tomatoes, cucumbers, maybe some olives or broccoli. Point is, you get all these things of different colors, different textures, different shapes, different tastes and, together, they combine to make one tasty meal.

It is the uniqueness, the variety, that makes it enjoyable. Sure, you could throw all that stuff in a blender, combine it, and drink it, but its no longer "a salad" and that sounds like one nasty arse smoothie. Its definitely not as appealing. I want to see your differences. But, as you said, I want to see it and not treat you differently because of it.

First Time Poster said:

I understand the spirit with which you make that statement Dave, and on those merits I agree, but ultimately I would like for us to evolve to a place where we recognize our differences and celebrate them instead of discriminating towards them. I know I'm preaching to the choir because I know you want the same thing.

I don't want to live in a color blind society. I want you to see my race. My uniqueness. Because you do. Some persons say "I raise my kids to not see color." But, we do see it and that's okay. Jane Elliott says the notion of America being a melting pot is false, or a bad goal. In a melting pot, you put all kinds of unique things in there and that crucible reduces it all to one liquid. America should be a salad bar she says. At a salad bar, you get your lettuce, some tomatoes, cucumbers, maybe some olives or broccoli. Point is, you get all these things of different colors, different textures, different shapes, different tastes and, together, they combine to make one tasty meal.

It is the uniqueness, the variety, that makes it enjoyable. Sure, you could throw all that stuff in a blender, combine it, and drink it, but its no longer "a salad" and that sounds like one nasty arse smoothie. Its definitely not as appealing. I want to see your differences. But, as you said, I want to see it and not treat you differently because of it.

Click to expand...

To be clear, my meaning wasn't that we don't see race, but more that we don't use race as a reason to divide us. I probably could have worded it better.

True story. Many moons ago, I traveled quite a bit to raise support for our ministry and met a black pastor of one of the larger Assemblies of God churches on the south side of Chicago. It was weird. I was literally the only white guy there and I had to share with them about the ministry we do and it was an awkward experience for me.

While I was up there, I talked about how God was more interested in who we are, not as much with the color of our skin. And yeah, there were some Amen! and Praise the Lord! So after I sat down next to the pastor feeling a little proud. Then it was as if the Lord spoke to me and said, "David, you dummy, black is my idea, all colors are my idea. I made them that color."

Embarrassed, I sheepishly leaned over to the pastor and told him, "I apologize for what I said up there. I said God doesn't care about the color of our skin, and he just rebuked me saying he does care about the color of our skin because it was his idea." He didn't say anything, but his big arse smile said all I need to know.

Black, white, yellow, red, it's all his idea. They're all beautiful in their own way. Variety is the spice of life. If we were all the same color, that would totally suck.

I hope this wasn't too much, but that was a learning experience for me, and I'm still learning all the time. Thanks for being patient with me.

First Time Poster said:

I understand the spirit with which you make that statement Dave, and on those merits I agree, but ultimately I would like for us to evolve to a place where we recognize our differences and celebrate them instead of discriminating towards them. I know I'm preaching to the choir because I know you want the same thing.

I don't want to live in a color blind society. I want you to see my race. My uniqueness. Because you do. Some persons say "I raise my kids to not see color." But, we do see it and that's okay. Jane Elliott says the notion of America being a melting pot is false, or a bad goal. In a melting pot, you put all kinds of unique things in there and that crucible reduces it all to one liquid. America should be a salad bar she says. At a salad bar, you get your lettuce, some tomatoes, cucumbers, maybe some olives or broccoli. Point is, you get all these things of different colors, different textures, different shapes, different tastes and, together, they combine to make one tasty meal.

It is the uniqueness, the variety, that makes it enjoyable. Sure, you could throw all that stuff in a blender, combine it, and drink it, but its no longer "a salad" and that sounds like one nasty arse smoothie. Its definitely not as appealing. I want to see your differences. But, as you said, I want to see it and not treat you differently because of it.

Click to expand...

I'm with you completely on recognizing, honoring and celebrating our differences. I love that people are different and that we have so many different cultures. I don't like homogeneity or monocultures, neither does nature.

I think the idea of there being different races of humans is flawed and dangerously so. Race in every other context is equated with species, like "alien races" in sci-fi stories. The origins of the use of race in regards to humans came about as a subtle way to label other humans who didn't share the same common physical traits (skin color, eye shape, and others) as being a different species or race. That labeling of humans as belonging to different race/species was almost always done to single out one group as genetically superior to all of the other different race/species. That's how mass murder and brutal oppression has been historically justified.

The truth is we are all of one species, therefore we are of one race, the human race. That's how I see it.

DaveXA said:

To be clear, my meaning wasn't that we don't see race, but more that we don't use race as a reason to divide us. I probably could have worded it better.

True story. Many moons ago, I traveled quite a bit to raise support for our ministry and met a black pastor of one of the larger Assemblies of God churches on the south side of Chicago. It was weird. I was literally the only white guy there and I had to share with them about the ministry we do and it was an awkward experience for me.

While I was up there, I talked about how God was more interested in who we are, not as much with the color of our skin. And yeah, there were some Amen! and Praise the Lord! So after I sat down next to the pastor feeling a little proud. Then it was as if the Lord spoke to me and said, "David, you dummy, black is my idea, all colors are my idea. I made them that color."

Embarrassed, I sheepishly leaned over to the pastor and told him, "I apologize for what I said up there. I said God doesn't care about the color of our skin, and he just rebuked me saying he does care about the color of our skin because it was his idea." He didn't say anything, but his big arse smile said all I need to know.

Black, white, yellow, red, it's all his idea. They're all beautiful in their own way. Variety is the spice of life. If we were all the same color, that would totally suck.

I hope this wasn't too much, but that was a learning experience for me, and I'm still learning all the time. Thanks for being patient with me.

Click to expand...

No, you were clear. I'm sorry I didn't convey better that I understood that. Was just using your post to make a broader point. That's why I said the whole preaching to the choir thing. I knew you agreed with my larger point. You've made that point before yourself.

First Time Poster said:

No, you were clear. I'm sorry I didn't convey better that I understood that. Was just using your post to make a broader point. That's why I said the whole preaching to the choir thing. I knew you agreed with my larger point. You've made that point before yourself.

Click to expand...

Thanks, sometimes I read more into it than I should, lol. All good.

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/0...in-72-hours-mayor-calls-trend-very-troubling/


NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – The last week in New York City has been like the wild west.

Astonishing statistics show a 342 percent increase in shootings last week – 53 compared to 12 in 2019.

They also show a 414 percent jump in the number of people shot – 74 compared 14 in 2019.

CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reports Mayor Bill de Blasio is vowing not to let the city slip back into the bad old days of gun violence, but the demand for cuts to the NYPD budget has some wondering if officers have abandoned proactive policing.

Police said there were a total of 28 shootings with 38 victims in 72 hours over the weekend.

Was this part of the plan or did we not see this coming?

Farb said:

Was this part of the plan

Click to expand...

Seriously?

V Chip said:

Seriously?

Click to expand...

I assumed with all Dems in charge of the city and state for the last 20 years I figured they knew what they were doing when they started pandering to the mob. So, defunding the police doesn't create a utopia?

Farb said:

I assumed with all Dems in charge of the city and state for the last 20 years I figured they knew what they were doing when they started pandering to the mob. So, defunding the police doesn't create a utopia?

Click to expand...

The police have not been defunded.

Sounds more like the police are blackmailing the city to take the idea of defunding off the table, like some petulant children who are being told they might not get their full allowance unless they take some responsibility for their bad actions.

But the seriously was in regard to you insinuating defunding the police was the "plan" so that more shooting and crime could occur.

V Chip said:

Where do you get the data that says "many people resist violently?" Is that an assumption/made up stat?

That is a BIG assumption. I don't think there is any data that supports the idea that 80% of those killed by the police have committed a murder -- or more accurately, were being arrested for committing a murder. So I went looking for data on homicides committed by police.

According to this study from the BJS, the percent of persons killed by police for murder or attempted murder would seem to be very small. Homicide and Attempted Homicide make up less than 20% of all crimes of those killed by police. In fact, the homicide number is only 3 times higher than the "did not commit or allegedly commit ANY crimes" -- and homicide or attempted homicide is only 7 times higher than those arrest-related deaths where the deceased did not commit or allegedly commit any crime. For the 211 reported homicides by police, that means 6 people were killed without even allegedly committing any offense (perhaps bystanders or maybe they were sleeping in their beds during a no-knock warrant search), while approximately 40 were for homicide or attempted homicide. So I think the assumption of 80% killed in the arresting of murderers is way, way off.

I think with such flawed assumptions, this conclusion you arrived at must be summarily dismissed. I had serious doubts about the 80% assumption before I went out and investigated to find out if there was any kind of data to support it, and according to this study there definitely isn't -- it's more like 20%.

Click to expand...

The 80% number was an assumption that most police killings occurred during arrests of murderers, which can't be affected by overpolicing. I wasn't hiding anything, but I didn't have the data on the killings by crime that you just provided. I can work with that data you provided to recalculate. Interestingly, your data shows that 82.4% of killings occur when arresting someone alleged to have committed a violent crime, so while my assumptions on murders was wrong, I was right that arrests of violent people are where most killings occur. Rather than using the 80% number for only murders, I'll use the percentages from your table coupled with the FBI data to recalculate. By the way, where did you get that data on killings by crime? Note, you provided 2015 data for only 1 quarter, but I was using 2018 annual data. I don't have data on police killings by race back to 2015. The oldest I have is 2017, but the 2 to 1 ratio of whites to blacks being killed by the police is pretty consistent. In 2017, 457 whites were killed to 233 blacks. I can assume that the quarter you provided, multiplied by 4, would yield the number killed for the 2015 year, which would be about 1200, of which the police were responsible for 844. That's pretty consistent from year to year as well, but I'll use 844 killed by police in 2015. In 2015, there were 8,248,709 arrests, of which 5,753,212 were white while 2,179,140 were black. Since your data states that 82.4% of police murders occurred during arrests of alleged violent crimes, I'll try use the percentages you provided for violent crime police killings, which are still less likely to be affected by overpolicing, than other crimes. The difficulty is that your data doesn't match perfectly with the FBI data.

The FBI groups murder and non-negligent manslaughter, but doesn't have a category for attempted homicide. That may be the same thing in the eyes of the FBI.
19.7% (7.4% + 12.3%) of deaths were due to homicide and attempted homicide (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in the FBI data). In 2015, whites committed 3908 and blacks committed 4347.

The FBI counts burglaries, robberies and theft separately, but your data only has robbery. I'll just use the FBI robbery data, since the others are not violent crimes.
6.9% of killings occurred while arresting alleged robbers, which is an FBI category. Whites committed 32,439, while blacks committed 39,052 robberies.

Your data has assault, but the FBI has aggravated assault and other assaults counted separately. I think I'll put them together.
46.6% of killings occurred while arresting alleged assault crimes (aggravated assaults and other assaults in the FBI data). Whites committed 728,894 (184,024+544,870), while blacks committed 346,837 (92,237+254,600) assaults.

Your data has a category called other violent with a footnote. I'm not sure what to do with that, but the FBI has a crime called violent arsen and rape, so I'll combine those.
9.3% occurred during other violent crimes (violent arsen + rape in the FBI data). Whites committed 243,989 (11,809+232,180) while blacks committed 145,450 (4,907+140,543) other violent crimes.

So whites committed 1,009,230 (3908+32,439+728,894+243,989) violent crimes, while blacks committed 535,686 (4347+39052+346,837+145,450) violent crimes. The ratio of white to black alleged violent crime arrests is 1,009,230/535,686 = 1.884. If whites are killed at a rate of more than 1.884 per violent arrest, then it is an indication that the police are not unjustly killing more blacks than whites. The actual ratio in 2017 of white to black killings by police was 457/233 = 1.96. My initial assumption of 80% of police killings occuring during arrests of murderers made it seem that the police were twice as likely to kill a white person than a black person. This revised analysis indicates that whites are only slightly more likely to be killed than blacks. I always thought that intuitively whites weren't being killed twice as often as blacks, but I also always thought that the narrative about the police systemically killing more blacks was not right either. This analysis largely indicates that the police are pretty even handed against all races, but still more biased to kill whites, yet the primary is bias is to kill people accused of a violent offense.