Law Enforcement Reform Thread (formerly Defund the Police) (3 Viewers)

in just a few short months, they are already backpedaling


Councilor Andrew Johnson, one of the nine members who supported the pledge in June, said in an interview that he meant the words “in spirit,” not by the letter.

Another councilor, Phillipe Cunningham, said that the language in the pledge was “up for interpretation” and that even among council members soon after the promise was made, “it was very clear that most of us had interpreted that language differently.”

Lisa Bender, the council president, paused for 16 seconds when asked if the council’s statement had led to uncertainty at a pivotal moment for the city. “I think our pledge created confusion in the community and in our wards,” she said.

Question for the legal minds of the board, if it is proven that the search warrant for Taylor's address is based off of a lie, would the officer that swore to that affidavit be liable for negligent homicide???

JimEverett said:

I agree with everything you wrote up until this point. I am not sure I understand why this is an example of different policing methods against blacks.

Click to expand...

CoolBrees said:

@JimEverett -

That’s fair. I wasn’t really supporting that point with my argument. I frankly leave those arguments to the experts who have shown time and time again how these systems operate in reality.

I see it as a system that allows for loopholes and get arounds for police and these consistently and disproportionately affecting Blacks. I was pontificating on the system as a whole. Again Breonna’s death was a symptom of a greater disease that affects Blacks to a greater degree. Was the system intentionally set up that way? I am not educated enough on the subject to make an argument one way or the other. Intentional or not, it was and is the outcome.

Click to expand...

So, I am not going to position this as definitive proof that what @CoolBrees stated is certainly correct, @JimEverett , but I did want to introduce a report that has some data backing up the claim.

It seems this style of serving warrants, like most things in the criminal justice system, can disproportionately affect and target black citizens.


Law enforcement agencies have justified the
use of military-style forced entry into people’s
homes—whether with a no-knock warrant or
done by way of “quick knock” raids—based on
the argument that serving a warrant in another
fashion would be dangerous or futile, or that
evidence might be destroyed. The use of no-knock
raids grew exponentially during the 1990s as
police devoted even more resources to the War
on Drugs, accumulating military-grade weaponry
to do so. A 2014 ACLU study found that 79% of
SWAT raids were conducted to search homes,
and 60% of those searches were for drug offenses.
As with most aspects of the criminal-legal
system, no-knock raids are disproportionately
used against Black and Hispanic communities.
According to an ACLU study of 20 cities, 42
percent of those targeted by SWAT search warrant
raids were Black; 12 percent were Hispanic.

The over-militarization of serving warrants has
been encouraged both by a warrior culture of
policing and government programs that authorize
the transfer of military equipment to local law
enforcement. The percentage of cities with greater
than 50,000 residents that had police department
SWAT teams grew from 60% in the 1980s to 90%
by the late 1990s. This militarization was not
exclusive to big cities, as the percentage of small
towns with SWAT teams grew from 20% in the
1980s to over 80% by the mid-2000s.

Over the last four decades, the use of no-knock
raids has increased dramatically. According to
data collected by Professor Peter Kraska, no-knock
warrants grew from 3,000 in 1981 to 60,000 today.
Reports of botched raids show that no-knock
warrants are used for an array of activities that
simply do not justify the level of intrusion and
inherent risk involved. Indeed, they have been
deployed on high school students, in simple drug
possession cases, and even for unpaid utility bills.

It is absolutely weighted toward blacks. The Louisville PD pulled over a black kid for making a wide turn so that they could search him. They aren’t doing that to whites teens in white neighborhoods. Turns out he was a valedictorian with no record driving his moms car to go pick up some food.

handcuffed. Searched. Searched his drink cup. Drug sniffing dog brought out. His mother showed up and they harassed both of them. It was disgusting.

But no means rare in terms of this pretense to pull over someone black

First Time Poster said:

So, I am not going to position this as definitive proof that what @CoolBrees stated is certainly correct, @JimEverett , but I did want to introduce a report that has some data backing up the claim.

It seems this style of serving warrants, like most things in the criminal justice system, can disproportionately affect and target black citizens.

Home

The Appeal is a nonprofit news organization dedicated to exposing how the U.S. criminal legal system fails to keep people safe and, instead, perpetuates harm. Our work shows the human and economic costs of our expansive carceral system, equips people with the tools to make change, and elevates...

tjcinstitute.com

Law enforcement agencies have justified the
use of military-style forced entry into people’s
homes—whether with a no-knock warrant or
done by way of “quick knock” raids—based on
the argument that serving a warrant in another
fashion would be dangerous or futile, or that
evidence might be destroyed. The use of no-knock
raids grew exponentially during the 1990s as
police devoted even more resources to the War
on Drugs, accumulating military-grade weaponry
to do so. A 2014 ACLU study found that 79% of
SWAT raids were conducted to search homes,
and 60% of those searches were for drug offenses.
As with most aspects of the criminal-legal
system, no-knock raids are disproportionately
used against Black and Hispanic communities.
According to an ACLU study of 20 cities, 42
percent of those targeted by SWAT search warrant
raids were Black; 12 percent were Hispanic.

The over-militarization of serving warrants has
been encouraged both by a warrior culture of
policing and government programs that authorize
the transfer of military equipment to local law
enforcement. The percentage of cities with greater
than 50,000 residents that had police department
SWAT teams grew from 60% in the 1980s to 90%
by the late 1990s. This militarization was not
exclusive to big cities, as the percentage of small
towns with SWAT teams grew from 20% in the
1980s to over 80% by the mid-2000s.

Over the last four decades, the use of no-knock
raids has increased dramatically. According to
data collected by Professor Peter Kraska, no-knock
warrants grew from 3,000 in 1981 to 60,000 today.
Reports of botched raids show that no-knock
warrants are used for an array of activities that
simply do not justify the level of intrusion and
inherent risk involved. Indeed, they have been
deployed on high school students, in simple drug
possession cases, and even for unpaid utility bills.

Click to expand...

No knock raids should be limited to situations where you expect a knock to result in more violence. It shouldn’t be used to prevent hiding evidence, because they are too dangerous for that.

First Time Poster said:

So, I am not going to position this as definitive proof that what @CoolBrees stated is certainly correct, @JimEverett , but I did want to introduce a report that has some data backing up the claim.

It seems this style of serving warrants, like most things in the criminal justice system, can disproportionately affect and target black citizens.

Home

The Appeal is a nonprofit news organization dedicated to exposing how the U.S. criminal legal system fails to keep people safe and, instead, perpetuates harm. Our work shows the human and economic costs of our expansive carceral system, equips people with the tools to make change, and elevates...

tjcinstitute.com

Law enforcement agencies have justified the
use of military-style forced entry into people’s
homes—whether with a no-knock warrant or
done by way of “quick knock” raids—based on
the argument that serving a warrant in another
fashion would be dangerous or futile, or that
evidence might be destroyed. The use of no-knock
raids grew exponentially during the 1990s as
police devoted even more resources to the War
on Drugs, accumulating military-grade weaponry
to do so. A 2014 ACLU study found that 79% of
SWAT raids were conducted to search homes,
and 60% of those searches were for drug offenses.
As with most aspects of the criminal-legal
system, no-knock raids are disproportionately
used against Black and Hispanic communities.
According to an ACLU study of 20 cities, 42
percent of those targeted by SWAT search warrant
raids were Black; 12 percent were Hispanic.

The over-militarization of serving warrants has
been encouraged both by a warrior culture of
policing and government programs that authorize
the transfer of military equipment to local law
enforcement. The percentage of cities with greater
than 50,000 residents that had police department
SWAT teams grew from 60% in the 1980s to 90%
by the late 1990s. This militarization was not
exclusive to big cities, as the percentage of small
towns with SWAT teams grew from 20% in the
1980s to over 80% by the mid-2000s.

Over the last four decades, the use of no-knock
raids has increased dramatically. According to
data collected by Professor Peter Kraska, no-knock
warrants grew from 3,000 in 1981 to 60,000 today.
Reports of botched raids show that no-knock
warrants are used for an array of activities that
simply do not justify the level of intrusion and
inherent risk involved. Indeed, they have been
deployed on high school students, in simple drug
possession cases, and even for unpaid utility bills.

Click to expand...

I am sure it is disproportionate when considering total population.

However, there are many possibilities to account for that disproportionality other than some form differing police tactics based on some form of racism.

Ayo said:

It is absolutely weighted toward blacks. The Louisville PD pulled over a black kid for making a wide turn so that they could search him. They aren’t doing that to whites teens in white neighborhoods. Turns out he was a valedictorian with no record driving his moms car to go pick up some food.

handcuffed. Searched. Searched his drink cup. Drug sniffing dog brought out. His mother showed up and they harassed both of them. It was disgusting.

Click to expand...

How do you know that never happens to white people?
It does. I have seen it. I have represented them.

In fact, I was pulled over a few times in grad school - told I was in the "wrong neighborhood" and had my car searched (illegally) each instance.

JimEverett said:

How do you know that never happens to white people?
It does. I have seen it. I have represented them.

In fact, I was pulled over a few times in grad school - told I was in the "wrong neighborhood" and had my car searched (illegally) each instance.

Click to expand...

yea. And I was pulled over in high school for being the neighborhood at moms school. All black. Police searched us. Said we had to be looking for girls or drugs, as white boys in north Lake Charles. And the officer put it much more brusquely than that

thus, I would never - and have never - claimed it “it never happens to white people”

Ever.

edit: I see what you are talking about “they are t doing that to white kids in white neighborhoods”. That shouldn’t be taken literally as in zero. But I also wonder what the “wrong neighborhood” you meant. In my case, it was poor and black. And in white cases with the youth I’ve worked with it was never a white kid in a middle or upper class white neighborhood. Cops are hardly there in the first place and likely arent pulling over a white kid. If it’s a white kid it’s a poor neighborhood but even the
Cops aren’t there in the same numbers. Their policies are predicated in self-fulfilling prophecies.

JimEverett said:

I am sure it is disproportionate when considering total population.

However, there are many possibilities to account for that disproportionality other than some form differing police tactics based on some form of racism.

Click to expand...

And these possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive to racism.

and when we talk about a system with inequities and practices built in, it hits the affected communities hard. I was reminded of that when I just saw this clip as Malika Andrews talks about the Taylor verdict coming in to the players in the bubble. And she got emotional.

I guess I'll put this here. Article doesn't speculate in causes of the drop in support

I find it interesting that there was such a drop among hispanics and asian support remains high

I would have assumed the opposite

===================================================
As racial justice protests have intensified following the shooting of Jacob Blake, public support for the Black Lives Matter movement has declined, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. A majority of U.S. adults (55%) now express at least some support for the movement, down from 67% in June amid nationwide demonstrations sparked by the death of George Floyd. The share who say they strongly support the movement stands at 29%, down from 38% three months ago.

The Black Lives Matter movement has been back in the spotlight due to this summer’s protests. The new survey findings come as confrontations between protesters and police have escalated in some cities and as President Donald Trump has stepped up his criticism of the movement.

The recent decline in support for the Black Lives Matter movement is particularly notable among White and Hispanic adults. In June, a majority of White adults (60%) said they supported the movement at least somewhat; now, fewer than half (45%) express at least some support. The share of Hispanic adults who support the movement has decreased 11 percentage points, from 77% in June to 66% today. By comparison, support for the Black Lives Matter movement has remained virtually unchanged among Black and Asian adults..............

Ayo said:

As a longtime poster at tigerdroppings, I can affirm that this does not come as a surprise.

Click to expand...

Not the kind of news that site wants their name in... haha.

Optimus Prime said:

I guess I'll put this here. Article doesn't speculate in causes of the drop in support

I find it interesting that there was such a drop among hispanics and asian support remains high

I would have assumed the opposite

===================================================
As racial justice protests have intensified following the shooting of Jacob Blake, public support for the Black Lives Matter movement has declined, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. A majority of U.S. adults (55%) now express at least some support for the movement, down from 67% in June amid nationwide demonstrations sparked by the death of George Floyd. The share who say they strongly support the movement stands at 29%, down from 38% three months ago.

The Black Lives Matter movement has been back in the spotlight due to this summer’s protests. The new survey findings come as confrontations between protesters and police have escalated in some cities and as President Donald Trump has stepped up his criticism of the movement.

The recent decline in support for the Black Lives Matter movement is particularly notable among White and Hispanic adults. In June, a majority of White adults (60%) said they supported the movement at least somewhat; now, fewer than half (45%) express at least some support. The share of Hispanic adults who support the movement has decreased 11 percentage points, from 77% in June to 66% today. By comparison, support for the Black Lives Matter movement has remained virtually unchanged among Black and Asian adults..............

Support for Black Lives Matter has decreased since June but remains strong among Black Americans

55% of U.S. adults now express at least some support for the Black Lives Matter movement, down from 67% in June.

www.pewresearch.org

Click to expand...

I think they're being a bit loose with that data. A 6% drop isn't "unchanged"

wardorican said:

Not the kind of news that site wants their name in... haha.

Click to expand...

Ayo said:

yea. And I was pulled over in high school for being the neighborhood at moms school. All black. Police searched us. Said we had to be looking for girls or drugs, as white boys in north Lake Charles. And the officer put it much more brusquely than that

thus, I would never - and have never - claimed it “it never happens to white people”

Ever.

edit: I see what you are talking about “they are t doing that to white kids in white neighborhoods”. That shouldn’t be taken literally as in zero. But I also wonder what the “wrong neighborhood” you meant. In my case, it was poor and black. And in white cases with the youth I’ve worked with it was never a white kid in a middle or upper class white neighborhood. Cops are hardly there in the first place and likely arent pulling over a white kid. If it’s a white kid it’s a poor neighborhood but even the
Cops aren’t there in the same numbers. Their policies are predicated in self-fulfilling prophecies.

Click to expand...

In that instance "wrong neighborhood" meant drugs. It was mostly white.
Regardless of the anecdotes the numbers provided for the "no-knock" warrants show that that policing method is used against whites just as much as against blacks.
Now you are saying it is self-fulfilling, which in some cases it probably is. At the same time we know blacks disproportionately commit murder more than whites, that certain areas in cities have enormously high murder rates and shootings and other violent acts - oftentimes those happen in predominantly black neighborhoods, not in upper-middle-class neighborhoods whether white or black. I mean do you expect cops to patrol Lakeview as much as they patrol the lower 9th (I may be out of date with that comparison post-Katrina because I am not up to speed on crime rates)?
I guess my point is that any particular instance of a black being the victim of police violence or police misconduct does not automatically equate to racism imo. At least on the policing end. Now, if we are talking about the conditions that lead to blacks having higher violent crime rates or not being in middle/upper-middle-class neighborhoods, etc. then that is a different topic - but it has little to nothing to do with policing styles.

JimEverett said:

At the same time we know blacks disproportionately commit murder more than whites, that certain areas in cities have enormously high murder rates and shootings and other violent acts - oftentimes those happen in predominantly black neighborhoods, not in upper-middle-class neighborhoods whether white or black.

Click to expand...

why murder? why single out violent crime vs. property crime? And in violent crime, why murder? What about rape? Sexual assault? Domestic abuse? What about drugs that are purchased by middle- and upper-class whites that fuel the drug violence? (It happens to be geographically removed, but is still related)

So, if you want to talk shootings, sure. I grant you that. But those are not the only violent acts. So if you want to talk about statistical comparatives, then you're going to need more solid numbers than I guarantee you are going to find.

I know, because I've done the work.

But even your idea about "crime" is violent crime. And violent crime means shootings and murder. These are obviously crimes that should be investigated, but the metonymical association with blacks and violent crime is not entirely accurate. Not at all.

I think the very way you frame this idea: crime > violent crime > shootings and murders > blacks follows a pretty narrow line of what I would call "criminality." But it's something fed to us by media. And it is *definitely and demonstrably* impactful of policing procedures and policies. And, yes, racist. I have zero doubt about this. Does that mean *all* police procedures are racist or every encounter is racially charged? Of course not. But there are - unequivocally and indubitably - racist policies and practices and methods. Historically and now. Systemic.

There's no question about this.

And I'm not talking anecdotally.

Your conceptions in this discussion are preconceived, and I'm not blaming you - it's common. In fact, I'd say that on the part of the media and legislators (TOUGH ON CRIME! = locking up a bunch of black folks) it's positively designed for that purpose in the first place.

Based on my work, research, and experience I'd probably suggest answering some questions, doing some self-evaluation around why/how you're narrowing the definition of 'crime', and interrogating around the statistics you seem certain of.

It's much more complicated than your post seems to allow, and it's along the very lines society (middle and upper class) have been explicitly designed to follow.

@JimEverett - I think justifying (which is what it appears your posts are doing), greater scrutiny (ie - more intrusive policing, stopping, searching, etc) on black Americans because cops are patrolling "high crime" areas that more likely populated by minorities, kind of misuses statistics.

It's based on the notion that if a cop is going to prevent some sort of future crime they are justified in stopping a black American because black Americans are more likely to commit violent crime (which is the distinction I think you made). However, the probability that any particular black American is likely to commit a violent crime is ridiculously low. I'd have to go back and look up the statistics, but it's well under 1% of the population has ever been convicted of a violent crime. Even when you control it for black Americans in "high crime" areas, the percentage that are likely to commit a violent crime is very, very low. That's the statistic that should be focused on when selecting police tactics, correct? The probability that any individual (black or white really) is a violent criminal is very, very, very low. So absent any sort of hard data (positive id of a suspect or cop personally witnessing a violent attack) or so on, the proper police tactic should not be highly intrusive and antagonistic, correct?

I think there's a notion that cops exist to prevent crime. This is a fairy tale that has been perpetuated in popular culture and media. They don't. Police are there to arrest people after they have committed a crime. But because we've fed this myth, I think it leads to this idea that cops believe they are responsible for seeking out future criminals even if they don't observe any obvious criminal activity - relying on their "instincts", which is a terrible idea.

I really don't understand conservative reluctance to limit the power of the government on this issue. It's much more direct and intrusive than many other policies they object to. Cops have the power to suspend our rights, shouldn't conservatives be first in line in trying to defend the individual against the power of the state?

UncleTrvlingJim said:

@JimEverett - I think justifying (which is what it appears your posts are doing), greater scrutiny (ie - more intrusive policing, stopping, searching, etc) on black Americans because cops are patrolling "high crime" areas that more likely populated by minorities, kind of misuses statistics.

It's based on the notion that if a cop is going to prevent some sort of future crime they are justified in stopping a black American because black Americans are more likely to commit violent crime (which is the distinction I think you made). However, the probability that any particular black American is likely to commit a violent crime is ridiculously low. I'd have to go back and look up the statistics, but it's well under 1% of the population has ever been convicted of a violent crime. Even when you control it for black Americans in "high crime" areas, the percentage that are likely to commit a violent crime is very, very low. That's the statistic that should be focused on when selecting police tactics, correct? The probability that any individual (black or white really) is a violent criminal is very, very, very low. So absent any sort of hard data (positive id of a suspect or cop personally witnessing a violent attack) or so on, the proper police tactic should not be highly intrusive and antagonistic, correct?

Click to expand...

I am not trying to defend police action - it shold be clear in this thread that I think there are very serious problems with no-knock ewarrants, and in fact there are serious problems with warrants of homes themselves.
But if the evidence for racism in the Taylor case is "Dsiproportionality" (which is the only thing I have seen raised, perhaps I have missed others) then I think that is rather easily exaplined away - on the policing end - by the disproportionality of violent crime and perhaps crime in general. Or even the concentration of crime.
I am open to something that suggests that is not true. But it seems to me that the historical realities of black Americans - mainly racism - have put black communities at higher risk of criminality. Which to me exaplins more of the focus (even if that focus is misplaced for the reasons you are giving).

UncleTrvlingJim said:

I think there's a notion that cops exist to prevent crime. This is a fairy tale that has been perpetuated in popular culture and media. They don't. Police are there to arrest people after they have committed a crime. But because we've fed this myth, I think it leads to this idea that cops believe they are responsible for seeking out future criminals even if they don't observe any obvious criminal activity - relying on their "instincts", which is a terrible idea.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that is true. Prevention might be overstated, but you can look at places where crime has decreased and sometimes its clear that police practice have played a role in that decrease. Sometimes those practices are controversial, but they have some degree of effect on reducing crime.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

I really don't understand conservative reluctance to limit the power of the government on this issue. It's much more direct and intrusive than many other policies they object to. Cops have the power to suspend our rights, shouldn't conservatives be first in line in trying to defend the individual against the power of the state?

Click to expand...

Again, I think I have been very clear with pointing out problems with police power. The problem is that I don't get the idea that the Taylor case was an example of racist police or that the disproportionality (EDIT : at the rate given above, certainly some level of disproportionality would strike me as evidence) of police practices is evidence of racism.